Author Topic: is there any church father or early Christian saying that 'I believe in bible'?  (Read 3441 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline walter1234

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 928
Many Christians, church father and saints also believes in 'one holy, catholic and apostolic church' in Early Church . It is clearly shown in creeds and patrastic works.

However, is there any church fathers, saints or early Christians saying that 'I believe in the Bible'  in their written works or creed?
« Last Edit: March 31, 2013, 01:30:14 PM by walter1234 »

Offline Ansgar

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,041
  • Keep your mind in hell and do not despair
Do you mean like Sola Scriptura protestants does today?
Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

-St Silouan the athonite

Offline Hiwot

  • Christ is Risen!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,959
  • Job 19:25-27
Many Christians, church father and saints also believes in 'one holy, catholic and apostolic church' in Early Church . It is clearly shown in creeds and patrastic works.

However, is there any church fathers, saints or early Christians saying that 'I believe in the Bible'  in their written works or creed?

I am going to be lazy and say reread the Nicene Creed, in it you will find the Scriptures mentioned as validating material, also affirmation of Who inspired them. of course to the Apostles the Scriptures are the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms, for the Apostolic Fathers the Scriptures broaden to include the Gospels and the Epistles.


Edit: perhaps I am addressing a different point than what you are trying to make.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2013, 01:45:57 PM by Hiwot »
To God be the Glory in all things! Amen!

Only pray for me, that God would give me both inward and outward strength, that I may not only speak, but truly will; and that I may not merely be called a Christian, but really be found to be one. St.Ignatius of Antioch.Epistle to the Romans.

Offline Romaios

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,933
I don't know of any that said it plainly like that, but St. Ignatius of Antioch is famous for saying:
 
Quote from: St. Ignatius of Antioch
For I heard some people say, “If I do not find it in the archives (= the Old Testament), I do not believe it in the gospel.” And when I said to them, “It is written,” they answered me, “That is precisely the question.” But for me, the “archives” are Jesus Christ, the inviolable archives are his cross and death and his resurrection and the faith which comes through him; by these things I want, through your prayers, to be justified.

Letter to the Philadelphians 8.


Offline walter1234

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 928
Do you mean like Sola Scriptura protestants does today?

Yes. Believe in bible but do not believe in the Church
« Last Edit: March 31, 2013, 01:54:52 PM by walter1234 »

Online Cyrillic

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,438
  • Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo
"For my part, I should not believe the Gospels except as moved by the authority of the catholic (=Orthodox) Church"

- St. Augustine, Against the Epistle of Manichaeus, ch. 5.

It doesn't get more explicit than this.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2013, 02:02:38 PM by Cyrillic »
"My idea of an agreeable person is a person who agrees with me"
-Benjamin Disraeli

Online Justin Kissel

  • Formerly a *, now a ☆
  • Protospatharios
  • ****************
  • Posts: 30,971
  • Faith: Agnosticish
Do you mean like Sola Scriptura protestants does today?

Yes. Believe in bible but do not believe in the Church

Not that I'm aware of...
"Christian America is finally waking up to what fraternities and biker gangs have known for years: hazing works!"

Offline Kerdy

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,802
Do you mean like Sola Scriptura protestants does today?

Yes. Believe in bible but do not believe in the Church
No.  The bible as we know it didn't exist for a long time.  The Scriptures existed, but not in the way Protestants think.

Offline walter1234

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 928
Do you mean like Sola Scriptura protestants does today?

Yes. Believe in bible but do not believe in the Church
No.  The bible as we know it didn't exist for a long time.  The Scriptures existed, but not in the way Protestants think.
What is the difference between the bible the Protestants use and the Scriptures which the early Christianity use?
« Last Edit: March 31, 2013, 02:09:53 PM by walter1234 »

Offline Putnik Namernik

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 482
Do you mean like Sola Scriptura protestants does today?

Yes. Believe in bible but do not believe in the Church
No.  The bible as we know it didn't exist for a long time.  The Scriptures existed, but not in the way Protestants think.
What is the difference between the bible the Protestants use and the Scriptures which the early Christianity use?
difference is in the interpretation not of the context per se.

Online Justin Kissel

  • Formerly a *, now a ☆
  • Protospatharios
  • ****************
  • Posts: 30,971
  • Faith: Agnosticish
Do you mean like Sola Scriptura protestants does today?

Yes. Believe in bible but do not believe in the Church
No.  The bible as we know it didn't exist for a long time.  The Scriptures existed, but not in the way Protestants think.
What is the difference between the bible the Protestants use and the Scriptures which the early Christianity use?

The Scriptural canon the early Christians (and modern Orthodox) use was not set in stone, nor the final authority. Not so for many who fall under the Protestant umbrella.
"Christian America is finally waking up to what fraternities and biker gangs have known for years: hazing works!"

Offline JamesR

  • Virginal Chicano Blood
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,323
  • St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!
  • Faith: Misotheistic Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Yeah, but they're lost. Because after Constantine, the Church became liturgical and started worshipping idols. The true Church--which consisted in random people with different beliefs coming together for 45 minutes every Sunday in someone's house for "Bible-studies"--was "forced underground" as the corrupted Constantinian Church started worshipping idols and indulging in all sorts of heretical doctrines like the literal presence, the concept of Sacraments, Monasticism and "traditions of man." The true Church wasn't rediscovered until the 16th century thanks to this German guy.
...Or it's just possible he's a mouthy young man on an internet forum.
In the infinite wisdom of God, James can be all three.

Online Cyrillic

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,438
  • Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo
Yeah, but they're lost. Because after Constantine, the Church became liturgical and started worshipping idols. The true Church--which consisted in random people with different beliefs coming together for 45 minutes every Sunday in someone's house for "Bible-studies"--was "forced underground" as the corrupted Constantinian Church started worshipping idols and indulging in all sorts of heretical doctrines like the literal presence, the concept of Sacraments, Monasticism and "traditions of man." The true Church wasn't rediscovered until the 16th century thanks to this German guy.

I doubt that any educated person holds this view.
"My idea of an agreeable person is a person who agrees with me"
-Benjamin Disraeli

Offline JamesR

  • Virginal Chicano Blood
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,323
  • St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!
  • Faith: Misotheistic Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Yeah, but they're lost. Because after Constantine, the Church became liturgical and started worshipping idols. The true Church--which consisted in random people with different beliefs coming together for 45 minutes every Sunday in someone's house for "Bible-studies"--was "forced underground" as the corrupted Constantinian Church started worshipping idols and indulging in all sorts of heretical doctrines like the literal presence, the concept of Sacraments, Monasticism and "traditions of man." The true Church wasn't rediscovered until the 16th century thanks to this German guy.

I doubt that any educated person holds this view.

No, but many Evangelical "Bible Scholars" do :D
...Or it's just possible he's a mouthy young man on an internet forum.
In the infinite wisdom of God, James can be all three.

Online Cyrillic

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,438
  • Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo
Yeah, but they're lost. Because after Constantine, the Church became liturgical and started worshipping idols. The true Church--which consisted in random people with different beliefs coming together for 45 minutes every Sunday in someone's house for "Bible-studies"--was "forced underground" as the corrupted Constantinian Church started worshipping idols and indulging in all sorts of heretical doctrines like the literal presence, the concept of Sacraments, Monasticism and "traditions of man." The true Church wasn't rediscovered until the 16th century thanks to this German guy.

I doubt that any educated person holds this view.

No, but many Evangelical "Bible Scholars" do :D

LOL. I see what you did there.
"My idea of an agreeable person is a person who agrees with me"
-Benjamin Disraeli

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Toumarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,201
  • Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)
Belief in the Church entails belief in all her traditions collectively, whether Scripturally, liturgically, sacramentally, canonically, conciliarly, historically through saints, etc.  (if I left anything else out, feel free to add).
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Toumarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,201
  • Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)
Many Christians, church father and saints also believes in 'one holy, catholic and apostolic church' in Early Church . It is clearly shown in creeds and patrastic works.

However, is there any church fathers, saints or early Christians saying that 'I believe in the Bible'  in their written works or creed?

I am going to be lazy and say reread the Nicene Creed, in it you will find the Scriptures mentioned as validating material, also affirmation of Who inspired them. of course to the Apostles the Scriptures are the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms, for the Apostolic Fathers the Scriptures broaden to include the Gospels and the Epistles.


Edit: perhaps I am addressing a different point than what you are trying to make.

From the Nicene Creed:

"...And on the third day, he rose from the dead according to the Scriptures.  He ascended..."
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline Severian

  • Aspiring Allopathic Ankle Orthodontist
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,129
  • Saint Severus of Antioch - the Eloquent Mouth
    • St. Jacob Baradeus' Orthodox Christian Fellowship
  • Faith: Orthodox Christianity
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodoxy
Yeah, but they're lost. Because after Constantine, the Church became liturgical and started worshipping idols. The true Church--which consisted in random people with different beliefs coming together for 45 minutes every Sunday in someone's house for "Bible-studies"--was "forced underground" as the corrupted Constantinian Church started worshipping idols and indulging in all sorts of heretical doctrines like the literal presence, the concept of Sacraments, Monasticism and "traditions of man." The true Church wasn't rediscovered until the 16th century thanks to this German guy.
POTM nomination.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2013, 03:48:30 PM by Severian »
"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -Jesus Christ

Remember the 21 new martyrs in your prayers.

Lord, protect Egypt, Syria, Lebanon & Iraq.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Toumarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,201
  • Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)
Yeah, but they're lost. Because after Constantine, the Church became liturgical and started worshipping idols. The true Church--which consisted in random people with different beliefs coming together for 45 minutes every Sunday in someone's house for "Bible-studies"--was "forced underground" as the corrupted Constantinian Church started worshipping idols and indulging in all sorts of heretical doctrines like the literal presence, the concept of Sacraments, Monasticism and "traditions of man." The true Church wasn't rediscovered until the 16th century thanks to this German guy.
POTM nomination.



More like ocnet quotable quotes  ;)
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline Shiny

  • Site Supporter
  • Toumarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,267
  • Paint It Red
Yeah, but they're lost. Because after Constantine, the Church became liturgical and started worshipping idols. The true Church--which consisted in random people with different beliefs coming together for 45 minutes every Sunday in someone's house for "Bible-studies"--was "forced underground" as the corrupted Constantinian Church started worshipping idols and indulging in all sorts of heretical doctrines like the literal presence, the concept of Sacraments, Monasticism and "traditions of man." The true Church wasn't rediscovered until the 16th century thanks to this German guy.
LOL!!!
“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan

Offline Benjamin the Red

  • Recovering Calvinist
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,601
  • Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.
Yeah, but they're lost. Because after Constantine, the Church became liturgical and started worshipping idols. The true Church--which consisted in random people with different beliefs coming together for 45 minutes every Sunday in someone's house for "Bible-studies"--was "forced underground" as the corrupted Constantinian Church started worshipping idols and indulging in all sorts of heretical doctrines like the literal presence, the concept of Sacraments, Monasticism and "traditions of man." The true Church wasn't rediscovered until the 16th century thanks to this German guy.
LOL!!!

This Great Apostasy or Landmark theory is still far too common among groups that trace their heritage back to the Radical Reformers, and includes a great deal of modern Evangelicals. It's rather sad, and was essentially what I was taught until I studied theology at a Methodist school (even though it led me to become Presbyterian, they don't hold to such silliness either).
"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

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,724
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Is there anyone here willing to actually answer Walter's question? So far I've seen none.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Benjamin the Red

  • Recovering Calvinist
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,601
  • Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.
Is there anyone here willing to actually answer Walter's question? So far I've seen none.

Several people have cited Fathers teaching the opposite. I think that's about as good as you're going to get. We can't really post a lack of evidence.
"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

Online Justin Kissel

  • Formerly a *, now a ☆
  • Protospatharios
  • ****************
  • Posts: 30,971
  • Faith: Agnosticish
Is there anyone here willing to actually answer Walter's question? So far I've seen none.

See reply #6.
"Christian America is finally waking up to what fraternities and biker gangs have known for years: hazing works!"

Offline JamesR

  • Virginal Chicano Blood
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,323
  • St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!
  • Faith: Misotheistic Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Belief in the Church entails belief in all her traditions collectively, whether Scripturally, liturgically, sacramentally, canonically, conciliarly, historically through saints, etc.  (if I left anything else out, feel free to add).

The one issue I think that many Orthodox Christians have when defining the Holy Tradition is that they mostly confine it to history--such as the scriptures, patristics or writings from the past but tend to ignore the fact that the Holy Tradition is an eternal process. It is not a group of patristics, scriptures and writings from the past, but the dynamic life of the Holy Spirit within the Church. The age of the patristics did not end, and the possibility of having new theologians on the level of St. Athanasius for example is still there. The reason I say this is because I know many Orthodox Christians who are always trying to "recreate the past" for lack of a better phrase, and take the writings of modern Saints or theologians less seriously than they do with the old ones. In a way, it's the same kind of logic as Protestant Sola Scriptura.
...Or it's just possible he's a mouthy young man on an internet forum.
In the infinite wisdom of God, James can be all three.

Offline JamesR

  • Virginal Chicano Blood
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,323
  • St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!
  • Faith: Misotheistic Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
In response to the original question, St. John Chrysostom highly revered the Scriptures and urged people to read them in his homilies all the time and talked about the importance of them, but he never really said anything to suggest sola Scriptura or that the Scriptures come first.
...Or it's just possible he's a mouthy young man on an internet forum.
In the infinite wisdom of God, James can be all three.

Offline Benjamin the Red

  • Recovering Calvinist
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,601
  • Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.
I think, JamesR, that your comments are good and helpful. We have to keep in mind that when we speak of the Holy Tradition and Patristics, that we're referring not to a closed, historical period but rather that living and growing Body of Christ that to this day produces saints, and that it is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the Church that produces truth, particularly through those hallowed men and women who have been revealed to us as resting in the Bosom of Abraham and awaiting with anticipation their resurrection, that the Age to Come be ushered in. All of these men and women, from the Apostles and the Theotokos to the modern saints such as John the Wonderworker, Nicholai of Zicha and Nektarios of Aegina...even, in some ways, those elders yet to be formally canonized, such as Paisios of the Holy Mountain or Pat. Pavle of Serbia.

To your second point, certainly many of the Fathers venerate, and rightfully so, the Scriptures. There's no question that the Orthodox love the Scriptures, particularly the Gospels. Have you seen what we do with them? We adorn their pages with icons and calligraphy, bind them in books of precious metals and stones, and hold them high, parading them around the Church. We kiss them, and lay them upon our bishops as we consecrate them. Have you seen in Baptists do this? Any Presbyterians? Surely not, for if they did, they would appear as the ones worshiping the idol of a book, rather than Christ Himself.

However, us Orthodox, place such veneration in a context that allows it to be so. Along with the veneration we give to saints, the worship giving to Christ (especially the way we treat the relics of His Cross, and even moreso Himself as present in the Holy Eucharist!). Surely our method of venerating the Scriptures would be greatly out of place in a Protestant setting, but it is the Church who can properly give the context for such veneration, who can give context to the Scriptures themselves, as part (even so, the cornerstone) of the Holy Tradition given by Christ and once delivered to the saints.
"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

Offline Nicene

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 615
They are pretty adament about the authority and power of scripture (saint John Chrysostom comes to mind saying scripture and knowledge of it would solve all of our problems, right or wrong he may be). But that specific phrase? I don't know.
Thank you.

Offline JamesR

  • Virginal Chicano Blood
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,323
  • St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!
  • Faith: Misotheistic Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
They are pretty adament about the authority and power of scripture (saint John Chrysostom comes to mind saying scripture and knowledge of it would solve all of our problems, right or wrong he may be). But that specific phrase? I don't know.

I'm aware of that quote, I think it's from his On Wealth and Poverty. It's fair to mention that St. John Chrysostom was notorious for his use of hyperbole, and that he was probably referring to personal problems opposed to doctrinal Church problems.
...Or it's just possible he's a mouthy young man on an internet forum.
In the infinite wisdom of God, James can be all three.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Toumarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,201
  • Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)
Belief in the Church entails belief in all her traditions collectively, whether Scripturally, liturgically, sacramentally, canonically, conciliarly, historically through saints, etc.  (if I left anything else out, feel free to add).

The one issue I think that many Orthodox Christians have when defining the Holy Tradition is that they mostly confine it to history--such as the scriptures, patristics or writings from the past but tend to ignore the fact that the Holy Tradition is an eternal process. It is not a group of patristics, scriptures and writings from the past, but the dynamic life of the Holy Spirit within the Church. The age of the patristics did not end, and the possibility of having new theologians on the level of St. Athanasius for example is still there. The reason I say this is because I know many Orthodox Christians who are always trying to "recreate the past" for lack of a better phrase, and take the writings of modern Saints or theologians less seriously than they do with the old ones. In a way, it's the same kind of logic as Protestant Sola Scriptura.
Youre absolutely correct.  My intention was not on history alone, but an ongoing dynamic process in the Church.  But of course many have used the past as a foundation, not necessarily to recreate the past, but to help in it's direction to evolve into something more mature in the future, using the spirit of the Fathers.

I also hoped that by writing that post that I actually did answer Walter's question.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2013, 11:31:44 PM by minasoliman »
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline Jason.Wike

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,046
Yeah, but they're lost. Because after Constantine, the Church became liturgical and started worshipping idols. The true Church--which consisted in random people with different beliefs coming together for 45 minutes every Sunday in someone's house for "Bible-studies"--was "forced underground" as the corrupted Constantinian Church started worshipping idols and indulging in all sorts of heretical doctrines like the literal presence, the concept of Sacraments, Monasticism and "traditions of man." The true Church wasn't rediscovered until the 16th century thanks to this German guy.
LOL!!!

This Great Apostasy or Landmark theory is still far too common among groups that trace their heritage back to the Radical Reformers, and includes a great deal of modern Evangelicals. It's rather sad, and was essentially what I was taught until I studied theology at a Methodist school (even though it led me to become Presbyterian, they don't hold to such silliness either).

What is so objectionable to the idea of a "Great Apostasy", though? People really seem to have a problem with the idea more than anything, despite that their own church teaches there was another great apostasy (when the majority of Christians were Arians). It happened at least once according to everyone.

Offline NicholasMyra

  • Avowed denominationalist
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,246
  • Nepsis or Sepsis™
Yeah, but they're lost. Because after Constantine, the Church became liturgical and started worshipping idols. The true Church--which consisted in random people with different beliefs coming together for 45 minutes every Sunday in someone's house for "Bible-studies"--was "forced underground" as the corrupted Constantinian Church started worshipping idols and indulging in all sorts of heretical doctrines like the literal presence, the concept of Sacraments, Monasticism and "traditions of man."

I doubt that any educated person holds this view.
Yep. Landmark Baptists. ;)
« Last Edit: April 01, 2013, 02:44:39 AM by NicholasMyra »
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.

Πλούσιοι επτώχευσαν και επείνασαν
Οιδε εκζητούντες τον Κύριον
Ουκ ελαττωθήσονται παντός αγαθού

Offline NicholasMyra

  • Avowed denominationalist
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,246
  • Nepsis or Sepsis™
People really seem to have a problem with the idea more than anything, despite that their own church teaches there was another great apostasy (when the majority of Christians were Arians). It happened at least once according to everyone.
Yes, but that was a (technically) minor variation in belief, compared to the notion that within a few decades, thousands of people who had hitherto been willing to die for a minority religion would permit it to be abominated on nearly every level into something totally opposing its previous structure, belief and practice. The historical record bears out no such transformation in the 4th Century, as the standard Great Apostasy theory claims.

It is worth mentioning that those who created the Great Apostasy hypothesis had serious ethos problems.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2013, 02:52:35 AM by NicholasMyra »
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.

Πλούσιοι επτώχευσαν και επείνασαν
Οιδε εκζητούντες τον Κύριον
Ουκ ελαττωθήσονται παντός αγαθού

Offline Happy Lutheran

  • Servant of Christ
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 272
"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith."

Saint Irenaeus
1 Corinthians 1:27 - But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong

Offline Happy Lutheran

  • Servant of Christ
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 272
Bunch more from a quick Google search:

St. Athanasius (c.296-373):

The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth.

(Against the Heathen, I:3, quoted in Carl A. Volz, Faith and Practice in the Early Church [Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1983], p. 147.)




St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c.310-386):

For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.

(Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers [Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983 reprint], Second Series, Vol. VII, p. 23.)




St. Gregory of Nyssa (330-395):

...we are not entitled to such license, namely, of affirming whatever we please. For we make Sacred Scripture the rule and the norm of every doctrine. Upon that we are obliged to fix our eyes, and we approve only whatever can be brought into harmony with the intent of these writings.

(On the Soul and the Resurrection, quoted in Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971], p. 50.)




St. Gregory of Nyssa:

Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.

(On the Holy Trinity, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. V, p. 327.)





St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430):

Let them show their church if they can, not by the speeches and mumblings of the Africans, not by the councils of their bishops, not by the writings of any of their champions, not by fraudulent signs and wonders, because we have been prepared and made cautious also against these things by the Word of the Lord; but [let them show their church] by a command of the Law, by the predictions of the prophets, by songs from the Psalms, by the words of the Shepherd Himself, by the preaching and labors of the evangelists; that is, by all the canonical authorities of the sacred books.

(On the Unity of the Church, 16, quoted in Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, Part I [Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1971], p. 159.)




St. Augustine of Hippo:

What more can I teach you, than what we read in the Apostle? For Holy Scripture sets a rule to our teaching, that we dare not “be wise more than it behooves to be wise,” but be wise, as he says, “unto soberness, according as unto each God has allotted the measure of faith.”

(On the Good of Widowhood, 2, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. III, p. 442. The quotation is from Romans 12:3.)




St. John Chrysostom (c.347-407):

Let us not therefore carry about the notions of the many, but examine into the facts. For how is it not absurd that in respect to money, indeed, we do not trust to others, but refer to [our own] calculation; but in calculating upon [theological] facts we are lightly drawn aside by the notions of others; and that too, though we possess an exact balance, and square and rule for all things, the declaration of the divine laws? Wherefore I exhort and entreat you all, disregard what this man and that man thinks about these things, and inquire from the Scriptures all these things; and having learned what are the true riches, let us pursue after them that we may obtain also the eternal good things...

(Homily 13 on 2 Corinthians, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. XII, p. 346.)




St. John Chrysostom:

Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast.

(Homily 8 On Repentance and the Church, in The Fathers of the Church, Vol. 96, p. 118.)





St. John Chrysostom:

They say that we are to understand the things concerning Paradise not as they are written but in a different way. But when Scripture wants to teach us something like that, it interprets itself and does not permit the hearer to err. I therefore beg and entreat that we close our eyes to all things and follow the canon of Holy Scripture exactly.

(Homily 13 on Genesis.)





St. John Chrysostom:

There comes a heathen and says, "I wish to become a Christian, but I know not whom to join: there is much fighting and faction among you, much confusion: which doctrine am I to choose?" How shall we answer him? "Each of you" (says he) "asserts, 'I speak the truth.'" No doubt: this is in our favor. For if we told you to be persuaded by arguments, you might well be perplexed: but if we bid you believe the Scriptures, and these are simple and true, the decision is easy for you. If any agree with the Scriptures, he is the Christian; if any fight against them, he is far from this rule.

(Homily 33 on the Acts of the Apostles [NPNF 1, 11:210-11; PG 60.243-44])





St. Basil the Great (c.329-379):

They are charging me with innovation, and base their charge on my confession of three hypostases [persons], and blame me for asserting one Goodness, one Power, one Godhead. In this they are not wide of the truth, for I do so assert. Their complaint is that their custom does not accept this, and that Scripture does not agree. What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the Word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth.

(Letter 189 [to Eustathius the physician], 3, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. VIII, p. 229.)




St. Basil the Great:

What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words of Scripture, not venturing to reject anything nor making additions. For, if “all that is not of faith is sin” as the Apostle says, and “faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God,” everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin.

(The Morals, in The Fathers of the Church, Vol. 9, p. 204.)





St. Basil the Great:

We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture.

(On the Holy Spirit, 7:16.)





St. John of Damascus (c.675-c.749):

It is impossible either to say or fully to understand anything about God beyond what has been divinely proclaimed to us, whether told or revealed, by the sacred declarations of the Old and New Testaments.

(On the Orthodox Faith, I:2, in The Fathers of the Church, Vol. 37.)




1 Corinthians 1:27 - But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong

Offline biro

  • Excelsior
  • Site Supporter
  • Hoplitarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 15,629
    • Alaska Volcanoes
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
 :) I think we have a winner!
He will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead. His kingdom will have no end.

Offline Ashman618

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 504
It seems that St. Agustine contradicts himself in the quotes posted here?

Online Justin Kissel

  • Formerly a *, now a ☆
  • Protospatharios
  • ****************
  • Posts: 30,971
  • Faith: Agnosticish
The OP asked for:

Yes. Believe in bible but do not believe in the Church

The long list of quotes doesn't address this.
"Christian America is finally waking up to what fraternities and biker gangs have known for years: hazing works!"

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,649
  • Praying for the Christians in Iraq
Bunch more from a quick Google search:

St. Athanasius (c.296-373):

The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth.

(Against the Heathen, I:3, quoted in Carl A. Volz, Faith and Practice in the Early Church [Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1983], p. 147.)




St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c.310-386):

For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.

(Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers [Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983 reprint], Second Series, Vol. VII, p. 23.)




St. Gregory of Nyssa (330-395):

...we are not entitled to such license, namely, of affirming whatever we please. For we make Sacred Scripture the rule and the norm of every doctrine. Upon that we are obliged to fix our eyes, and we approve only whatever can be brought into harmony with the intent of these writings.

(On the Soul and the Resurrection, quoted in Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971], p. 50.)




St. Gregory of Nyssa:

Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.

(On the Holy Trinity, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. V, p. 327.)





St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430):

Let them show their church if they can, not by the speeches and mumblings of the Africans, not by the councils of their bishops, not by the writings of any of their champions, not by fraudulent signs and wonders, because we have been prepared and made cautious also against these things by the Word of the Lord; but [let them show their church] by a command of the Law, by the predictions of the prophets, by songs from the Psalms, by the words of the Shepherd Himself, by the preaching and labors of the evangelists; that is, by all the canonical authorities of the sacred books.

(On the Unity of the Church, 16, quoted in Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, Part I [Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1971], p. 159.)




St. Augustine of Hippo:

What more can I teach you, than what we read in the Apostle? For Holy Scripture sets a rule to our teaching, that we dare not “be wise more than it behooves to be wise,” but be wise, as he says, “unto soberness, according as unto each God has allotted the measure of faith.”

(On the Good of Widowhood, 2, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. III, p. 442. The quotation is from Romans 12:3.)




St. John Chrysostom (c.347-407):

Let us not therefore carry about the notions of the many, but examine into the facts. For how is it not absurd that in respect to money, indeed, we do not trust to others, but refer to [our own] calculation; but in calculating upon [theological] facts we are lightly drawn aside by the notions of others; and that too, though we possess an exact balance, and square and rule for all things, the declaration of the divine laws? Wherefore I exhort and entreat you all, disregard what this man and that man thinks about these things, and inquire from the Scriptures all these things; and having learned what are the true riches, let us pursue after them that we may obtain also the eternal good things...

(Homily 13 on 2 Corinthians, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. XII, p. 346.)




St. John Chrysostom:

Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast.

(Homily 8 On Repentance and the Church, in The Fathers of the Church, Vol. 96, p. 118.)





St. John Chrysostom:

They say that we are to understand the things concerning Paradise not as they are written but in a different way. But when Scripture wants to teach us something like that, it interprets itself and does not permit the hearer to err. I therefore beg and entreat that we close our eyes to all things and follow the canon of Holy Scripture exactly.

(Homily 13 on Genesis.)





St. John Chrysostom:

There comes a heathen and says, "I wish to become a Christian, but I know not whom to join: there is much fighting and faction among you, much confusion: which doctrine am I to choose?" How shall we answer him? "Each of you" (says he) "asserts, 'I speak the truth.'" No doubt: this is in our favor. For if we told you to be persuaded by arguments, you might well be perplexed: but if we bid you believe the Scriptures, and these are simple and true, the decision is easy for you. If any agree with the Scriptures, he is the Christian; if any fight against them, he is far from this rule.

(Homily 33 on the Acts of the Apostles [NPNF 1, 11:210-11; PG 60.243-44])





St. Basil the Great (c.329-379):

They are charging me with innovation, and base their charge on my confession of three hypostases [persons], and blame me for asserting one Goodness, one Power, one Godhead. In this they are not wide of the truth, for I do so assert. Their complaint is that their custom does not accept this, and that Scripture does not agree. What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the Word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth.

(Letter 189 [to Eustathius the physician], 3, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. VIII, p. 229.)




St. Basil the Great:

What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words of Scripture, not venturing to reject anything nor making additions. For, if “all that is not of faith is sin” as the Apostle says, and “faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God,” everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin.

(The Morals, in The Fathers of the Church, Vol. 9, p. 204.)





St. Basil the Great:

We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture.

(On the Holy Spirit, 7:16.)





St. John of Damascus (c.675-c.749):

It is impossible either to say or fully to understand anything about God beyond what has been divinely proclaimed to us, whether told or revealed, by the sacred declarations of the Old and New Testaments.

(On the Orthodox Faith, I:2, in The Fathers of the Church, Vol. 37.)





It's interesting that everyone of the Church fathers also believe in Tradition, the Councils, the ordained Priesthood, etc.
You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Offline Fabio Leite

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,761
  • За Россию без Путина. For Russia without Putin.
    • Vida Ortodoxa
That's because it's all Scriptural.

Bunch more from a quick Google search:

St. Athanasius (c.296-373):

The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth.

(Against the Heathen, I:3, quoted in Carl A. Volz, Faith and Practice in the Early Church [Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1983], p. 147.)




St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c.310-386):

For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.

(Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers [Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983 reprint], Second Series, Vol. VII, p. 23.)




St. Gregory of Nyssa (330-395):

...we are not entitled to such license, namely, of affirming whatever we please. For we make Sacred Scripture the rule and the norm of every doctrine. Upon that we are obliged to fix our eyes, and we approve only whatever can be brought into harmony with the intent of these writings.

(On the Soul and the Resurrection, quoted in Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971], p. 50.)




St. Gregory of Nyssa:

Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.

(On the Holy Trinity, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. V, p. 327.)





St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430):

Let them show their church if they can, not by the speeches and mumblings of the Africans, not by the councils of their bishops, not by the writings of any of their champions, not by fraudulent signs and wonders, because we have been prepared and made cautious also against these things by the Word of the Lord; but [let them show their church] by a command of the Law, by the predictions of the prophets, by songs from the Psalms, by the words of the Shepherd Himself, by the preaching and labors of the evangelists; that is, by all the canonical authorities of the sacred books.

(On the Unity of the Church, 16, quoted in Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, Part I [Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1971], p. 159.)




St. Augustine of Hippo:

What more can I teach you, than what we read in the Apostle? For Holy Scripture sets a rule to our teaching, that we dare not “be wise more than it behooves to be wise,” but be wise, as he says, “unto soberness, according as unto each God has allotted the measure of faith.”

(On the Good of Widowhood, 2, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. III, p. 442. The quotation is from Romans 12:3.)




St. John Chrysostom (c.347-407):

Let us not therefore carry about the notions of the many, but examine into the facts. For how is it not absurd that in respect to money, indeed, we do not trust to others, but refer to [our own] calculation; but in calculating upon [theological] facts we are lightly drawn aside by the notions of others; and that too, though we possess an exact balance, and square and rule for all things, the declaration of the divine laws? Wherefore I exhort and entreat you all, disregard what this man and that man thinks about these things, and inquire from the Scriptures all these things; and having learned what are the true riches, let us pursue after them that we may obtain also the eternal good things...

(Homily 13 on 2 Corinthians, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. XII, p. 346.)




St. John Chrysostom:

Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast.

(Homily 8 On Repentance and the Church, in The Fathers of the Church, Vol. 96, p. 118.)





St. John Chrysostom:

They say that we are to understand the things concerning Paradise not as they are written but in a different way. But when Scripture wants to teach us something like that, it interprets itself and does not permit the hearer to err. I therefore beg and entreat that we close our eyes to all things and follow the canon of Holy Scripture exactly.

(Homily 13 on Genesis.)





St. John Chrysostom:

There comes a heathen and says, "I wish to become a Christian, but I know not whom to join: there is much fighting and faction among you, much confusion: which doctrine am I to choose?" How shall we answer him? "Each of you" (says he) "asserts, 'I speak the truth.'" No doubt: this is in our favor. For if we told you to be persuaded by arguments, you might well be perplexed: but if we bid you believe the Scriptures, and these are simple and true, the decision is easy for you. If any agree with the Scriptures, he is the Christian; if any fight against them, he is far from this rule.

(Homily 33 on the Acts of the Apostles [NPNF 1, 11:210-11; PG 60.243-44])





St. Basil the Great (c.329-379):

They are charging me with innovation, and base their charge on my confession of three hypostases [persons], and blame me for asserting one Goodness, one Power, one Godhead. In this they are not wide of the truth, for I do so assert. Their complaint is that their custom does not accept this, and that Scripture does not agree. What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the Word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth.

(Letter 189 [to Eustathius the physician], 3, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. VIII, p. 229.)




St. Basil the Great:

What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words of Scripture, not venturing to reject anything nor making additions. For, if “all that is not of faith is sin” as the Apostle says, and “faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God,” everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin.

(The Morals, in The Fathers of the Church, Vol. 9, p. 204.)





St. Basil the Great:

We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture.

(On the Holy Spirit, 7:16.)





St. John of Damascus (c.675-c.749):

It is impossible either to say or fully to understand anything about God beyond what has been divinely proclaimed to us, whether told or revealed, by the sacred declarations of the Old and New Testaments.

(On the Orthodox Faith, I:2, in The Fathers of the Church, Vol. 37.)





It's interesting that everyone of the Church fathers also believe in Tradition, the Councils, the ordained Priesthood, etc.
There is no such a thing as holly bullies.

Online Cyrillic

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,438
  • Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo
Stop quoting the entire list.
"My idea of an agreeable person is a person who agrees with me"
-Benjamin Disraeli

Online Cyrillic

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,438
  • Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo
It's interesting that everyone of the Church fathers also believe in Tradition, the Councils, the ordained Priesthood, etc.

Those things are Scriptural as well.
"My idea of an agreeable person is a person who agrees with me"
-Benjamin Disraeli

Offline Happy Lutheran

  • Servant of Christ
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 272
It's interesting that everyone of the Church fathers also believe in Tradition, the Councils, the ordained Priesthood, etc.

Like Papal Infallibility or the Immaculate Conception? What council's? Rome has had many the Eastern churches reject. Who's tradition?  RC, OO, EO, Assyrian, other churches that broke away from these over corruption like selling salvation and Inquisitions?

I think Saint John Chrysostom put it best when he stated:

There comes a heathen and says, "I wish to become a Christian, but I know not whom to join: there is much fighting and faction among you, much confusion: which doctrine am I to choose?" How shall we answer him? "Each of you" (says he) "asserts, 'I speak the truth.'" No doubt: this is in our favor. For if we told you to be persuaded by arguments, you might well be perplexed: but if we bid you believe the Scriptures, and these are simple and true, the decision is easy for you. If any agree with the Scriptures, he is the Christian; if any fight against them, he is far from this rule.

1 Corinthians 1:27 - But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong

Online Cyrillic

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,438
  • Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo
Who's tradition? 

Whose tradition? Well, the one of the Fathers you just quoted of course.
"My idea of an agreeable person is a person who agrees with me"
-Benjamin Disraeli

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,724
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
It's interesting that everyone of the Church fathers also believe in Tradition, the Councils, the ordained Priesthood, etc.

Like Papal Infallibility or the Immaculate Conception? What council's? Rome has had many the Eastern churches reject. Who's tradition?  RC, OO, EO, Assyrian, other churches that broke away from these over corruption like selling salvation and Inquisitions?

I think Saint John Chrysostom put it best when he stated:

There comes a heathen and says, "I wish to become a Christian, but I know not whom to join: there is much fighting and faction among you, much confusion: which doctrine am I to choose?" How shall we answer him? "Each of you" (says he) "asserts, 'I speak the truth.'" No doubt: this is in our favor. For if we told you to be persuaded by arguments, you might well be perplexed: but if we bid you believe the Scriptures, and these are simple and true, the decision is easy for you. If any agree with the Scriptures, he is the Christian; if any fight against them, he is far from this rule.
What good does it do, however, to merely "believe the Scriptures" when by merely "believing the Scriptures", you Protestants have splintered into numerous different sects?
« Last Edit: April 01, 2013, 02:22:13 PM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline biro

  • Excelsior
  • Site Supporter
  • Hoplitarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 15,629
    • Alaska Volcanoes
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
The OP asked for:

Yes. Believe in bible but do not believe in the Church

The long list of quotes doesn't address this.

From the Orthodox point of view, as I understand it, you can't separate the Bible from the Church. If you said you believed in the Bible but not the Church, you would by definition be rejecting the Church. Thus, any Church Father who said this would have separated himself from the Church.
He will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead. His kingdom will have no end.

Offline Happy Lutheran

  • Servant of Christ
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 272
It's interesting that everyone of the Church fathers also believe in Tradition, the Councils, the ordained Priesthood, etc.

Like Papal Infallibility or the Immaculate Conception? What council's? Rome has had many the Eastern churches reject. Who's tradition?  RC, OO, EO, Assyrian, other churches that broke away from these over corruption like selling salvation and Inquisitions?

I think Saint John Chrysostom put it best when he stated:

There comes a heathen and says, "I wish to become a Christian, but I know not whom to join: there is much fighting and faction among you, much confusion: which doctrine am I to choose?" How shall we answer him? "Each of you" (says he) "asserts, 'I speak the truth.'" No doubt: this is in our favor. For if we told you to be persuaded by arguments, you might well be perplexed: but if we bid you believe the Scriptures, and these are simple and true, the decision is easy for you. If any agree with the Scriptures, he is the Christian; if any fight against them, he is far from this rule.
What good does it do, however, to merely "believe the Scriptures" when by merely "believing the Scriptures", you Protestants have splintered into numerous different sects?

Salvation? There are now 2.2 Billion Christians in the world, that is good. Over 600,000,000 of them Protestants, 1.1 Billion Catholics and 300,000,000 Orthodox.

One Faith - In Christ Jesus
One Baptism - with the Holy Spirit
One God - the Creator

If all those good people who attend their local church, believe in God the creator, believe in Christ their savior, believe in the power of the Holy Spirit and do good works (whether as a fruit of faith or requirement).  I sincerely hope God does not punish us/them to eternal hell for not understanding perfect theology.

Protestants didn't start the separations of the church, that was you guys with all your excommunications of each other making it impossible to know the truth of who's right, if anyone is.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2013, 02:44:45 PM by Happy Lutheran »
1 Corinthians 1:27 - But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong

Offline biro

  • Excelsior
  • Site Supporter
  • Hoplitarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 15,629
    • Alaska Volcanoes
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Quote from: Happy Lutheran
Protestants didn't start the separations of the church, that was you guys with all your excommunications of each other making it impossible to know the truth of who's right, if anyone it.

 :police:
He will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead. His kingdom will have no end.

Offline Fabio Leite

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,761
  • За Россию без Путина. For Russia without Putin.
    • Vida Ortodoxa
It's interesting that everyone of the Church fathers also believe in Tradition, the Councils, the ordained Priesthood, etc.

Like Papal Infallibility or the Immaculate Conception?

These are not Scriptural and never have been.

Quote
What council's? Rome has had many the Eastern churches reject.

The councils of the Church that do not contradict the previous ones. Since Roman robber 8th council actually contradicts the actual 8th council in which Rome herself participated, there you have it.

Quote
Who's tradition? 

The tradition of the Apostles. Which include Sacraments, real presence, hierarchical liturgical church, asceticism, etc etc.
There is no such a thing as holly bullies.

Offline Fabio Leite

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,761
  • За Россию без Путина. For Russia without Putin.
    • Vida Ortodoxa
I sincerely hope God does not punish us/them to eternal hell for not understanding perfect theology.

He probably won't, but He might for prideful lack of obedience to those who did understand perfect theology, aka Apostles, Fathers and Saints. It's really common sense. When you go to the doctor, you submit to his "superior" knowledge. If you go to a surgery, you simply trust the surgeon. You don't demand that they make you understand medicine as well as they do. But for some reason, at some point, people started thinking they could do this about salvation. Go figure.
There is no such a thing as holly bullies.

Offline Happy Lutheran

  • Servant of Christ
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 272
I sincerely hope God does not punish us/them to eternal hell for not understanding perfect theology.

He probably won't, but He might for prideful lack of obedience to those who did understand perfect theology, aka Apostles, Fathers and Saints. It's really common sense. When you go to the doctor, you submit to his "superior" knowledge. If you go to a surgery, you simply trust the surgeon. You don't demand that they make you understand medicine as well as they do. But for some reason, at some point, people started thinking they could do this about salvation. Go figure.

Then why do so many church fathers contradict each other? Why all the excommunications of each other? Which "one true ekklesia" is right? EO, OO, Rome, Assyrians?
« Last Edit: April 01, 2013, 03:05:14 PM by Happy Lutheran »
1 Corinthians 1:27 - But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong

Offline jah777

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,059
One Faith - In Christ Jesus
One Baptism - with the Holy Spirit
One God - the Creator

The Fathers did not "believe in the Bible" in the Protestant sense of the phrase, and so neither do Orthodox Christians.  When Protestants say that they "believe in the Bible", they are usually confessing their belief in a particular Protestant tradition of Scriptural interpretation.  Or, they are confessing belief in a particular Protestant interpretive tradition that is jumbled together with their own private opinions that may not have much basis in any one interpretive tradition.  Orthodox Christians do believe in the Holy Scriptures, but as understood, interpreted, and applied by the Apostolic Church.  The Scriptures themselves state that the Church is the "pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15), so only in the Church does one find the authority to properly understand, interpret, and apply the Scriptures.

Above you refer to Ephesians 4:5 that there is "One Lord, one faith, one baptism", yet you give an entirely Protestant interpretation that is entirely contrary to how the Church has historically understood this verse.  You can believe as you like, but to Orthodox these beliefs are a "different gospel", regarding which St. Paul speaks quite clearly in Galatians 1:8.



Offline Fabio Leite

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,761
  • За Россию без Путина. For Russia without Putin.
    • Vida Ortodoxa
For the same reason that if you have two people at opposite sides of the Eiffel Tower and you ask them "where is the Eiffel Tower?" one will say "to the right" and the other "to the left". And a third "smart" one will say that it can be anywhere because the two authorities are in contradiction.

The Fathers do not have contradictions in the ordinary way that "smart" analysts try to project on them. They speak from different angles pointing to the same reality. When linguistic limitations prevented them from understanding each other, the problem would eventually be solved in a council local or otherwise.

As for how to identify Christ's church today among the many denomination, it's really easy. Which one has kept practices and theology that are consonant with the practices and theology the Apostolic synods and Ecumenical Councils acknowledged by all? Non-Chalcedonians are in direct opposition to previous councils and the Apostles. Rome contradicted an Ecumenical council it had previously taken part in order to affirm changes that even Roman popes had previously condemned (filioque and exacerbated primate authority). Which one has not deviated and preserved the faith? Which had the *cultural* means of doing so, for it still speaks the language that was first used to universalize the faith and did not have to rely on secondary translations and interpretations? Which one went through cultural changes, but no civilizational rupture?

I sincerely hope God does not punish us/them to eternal hell for not understanding perfect theology.

He probably won't, but He might for prideful lack of obedience to those who did understand perfect theology, aka Apostles, Fathers and Saints. It's really common sense. When you go to the doctor, you submit to his "superior" knowledge. If you go to a surgery, you simply trust the surgeon. You don't demand that they make you understand medicine as well as they do. But for some reason, at some point, people started thinking they could do this about salvation. Go figure.

Then why do so many church fathers contradict each other? Why all the excommunications of each other? Which "one true ekklesia" is right? EO, OO, Rome, Assyrians?
« Last Edit: April 01, 2013, 03:27:53 PM by Fabio Leite »
There is no such a thing as holly bullies.

Offline jah777

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,059
I sincerely hope God does not punish us/them to eternal hell for not understanding perfect theology.

He probably won't, but He might for prideful lack of obedience to those who did understand perfect theology, aka Apostles, Fathers and Saints. It's really common sense. When you go to the doctor, you submit to his "superior" knowledge. If you go to a surgery, you simply trust the surgeon. You don't demand that they make you understand medicine as well as they do. But for some reason, at some point, people started thinking they could do this about salvation. Go figure.

Then why do so many church fathers contradict each other? Why all the excommunications of each other? Which "one true ekklesia" is right? EO, OO, Rome, Assyrians?

Contradictions between the Fathers are typically exaggerated by those who search for excuses for not accepting the faith which the Fathers had in common, and the communion which they shared in the one Body of Christ. 

Regarding which ancient church body is the one body of Christ, that is something that you will need to determine on your own.  Of course, I will tell you that the Orthodox Church is the true Church, and about that I have no doubt.  There are others here who make other claims, and this forum is open to all.  Just because something appears difficult to resolve does not mean it is beyond resolution if one is sincerely interested in the truth.  Somehow you believe in the Gospels despite the apparent contradictions between the four. 
« Last Edit: April 01, 2013, 03:22:26 PM by jah777 »

Offline Happy Lutheran

  • Servant of Christ
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 272

As for how to identify Christ's church today among the many denomination, it's really easy.

If it's so easy to indentify, why does Rome have 4 times your numbers? Maybe it's easier to see they are right, according to the numbers.

1 Corinthians 1:27 - But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,649
  • Praying for the Christians in Iraq

As for how to identify Christ's church today among the many denomination, it's really easy.

If it's so easy to indentify, why does Rome have 4 times your numbers? Maybe it's easier to see they are right, according to the numbers.


What do numbers have to do with it?
You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Offline Happy Lutheran

  • Servant of Christ
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 272

As for how to identify Christ's church today among the many denomination, it's really easy.

If it's so easy to indentify, why does Rome have 4 times your numbers? Maybe it's easier to see they are right, according to the numbers.


What do numbers have to do with it?

Nothing, my point is that it is NOT "really easy" to identify, as Fabio claimed. If it were the church would be more unified than it is. Everyone thinks they are right and the other guy is wrong.
1 Corinthians 1:27 - But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong

Online Cyrillic

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,438
  • Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo
Which "one true ekklesia" is right? EO, OO, Rome, Assyrians?

The EO and the OO.

Then why do so many church fathers contradict each other?

Because they're not infallible.

« Last Edit: April 01, 2013, 04:23:57 PM by Cyrillic »
"My idea of an agreeable person is a person who agrees with me"
-Benjamin Disraeli

Offline orthonorm

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,002
Everyone thinks they are right and the other guy is wrong.


I've known more than a few people who thought they were wrong and the other guy right.

But the other person disagreed, so I guess you are correct.
Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.

Offline orthonorm

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,002
Which "one true ekklesia" is right? EO, OO, Rome, Assyrians?

The EO and the OO.

Can't if they haven't been in communion for like ever.

Gotta choose.
Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Toumarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,201
  • Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)

As for how to identify Christ's church today among the many denomination, it's really easy.

If it's so easy to indentify, why does Rome have 4 times your numbers? Maybe it's easier to see they are right, according to the numbers.



You're absolutely right.  It's not so easy...but it's possible.  If you can pull out sayings from the Fathers about the respect of Scriptures, you can also pull out from these same fathers the practices and beliefs of the early Church.  So...find for yourself, and be humble about it.

We as Apostolic churches have our weaknesses yes, but I think it's quite telling there's a lot we can agree on that separates us a great distance from the Protestant world.

God bless.
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline Jason.Wike

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,046
People really seem to have a problem with the idea more than anything, despite that their own church teaches there was another great apostasy (when the majority of Christians were Arians). It happened at least once according to everyone.
Yes, but that was a (technically) minor variation in belief, compared to the notion that within a few decades, thousands of people who had hitherto been willing to die for a minority religion would permit it to be abominated on nearly every level into something totally opposing its previous structure, belief and practice. The historical record bears out no such transformation in the 4th Century, as the standard Great Apostasy theory claims.

It is worth mentioning that those who created the Great Apostasy hypothesis had serious ethos problems.

So did plenty of your Saints (which emperor was it that had an entire stadium of people murdered? I know, I know, somehow according to eastern European standards it can be justified ::))

Offline biro

  • Excelsior
  • Site Supporter
  • Hoplitarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 15,629
    • Alaska Volcanoes
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Not justified. People sin and they can repent.
He will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead. His kingdom will have no end.

Offline NicholasMyra

  • Avowed denominationalist
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,246
  • Nepsis or Sepsis™
So did plenty of your Saints
I was referring to an ethos of academic credibility. Something that Alexander and Thomas Campbell, Adolf Von Harnack (by contemporary standards), Joseph Smith, Ellen G. White, and friends, do not possess.

which emperor was it that had an entire stadium of people murdered?
King Jehu of Israel was the first, I believe.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2013, 08:24:36 PM by NicholasMyra »
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.

Πλούσιοι επτώχευσαν και επείνασαν
Οιδε εκζητούντες τον Κύριον
Ουκ ελαττωθήσονται παντός αγαθού

Offline Fabio Leite

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,761
  • За Россию без Путина. For Russia without Putin.
    • Vida Ortodoxa
As Papist have said, numbers have nothing to do with it. If we have any Gospel reference to it, a certain majority in democratic voting once chose Barabbas over Jesus.... (I am *for* democracy though, if joined with localism and federalism, but I digress).

It is easy if:

1) you don't think that what people think is a reference for truth
2) you know that it's not important how many believe something or are not concerned with fitting in, nor scared of not fitting in;
3) you use sound criteria, and by that I mean that, to identify which church, if any, is the true Church, you cannot use internal theological arguments for that, but external evidence. Most theological claims are believed on faith, so to choose one or the other as the criteria is to beg the question, it's a circular argument, taking the conclusion as the premise. So what criteria should one use? Historical, sociological and cultural. That's how I chose to be Orthodox after I converted to "generic" Christianity. The amount of evidence for the cultural, historical, linguistic and sociological continuity in the Orthodox Church since its beginning with the Apostles is overwhelming. The amount of evidence for cultural, historical, linguistic and sociological ruptures in the non-Chalcedonian, Roman and Protestant churches is equally overwhelming. With that in mind, I felt more comfortable to give credence to the Church's theological claims and then the application of such claims being confirmed in practice and showing more coherence than the competing claims confirms the first external conclusions.

The reason people are not massively Orthodox is that they are not concerned with that. Researches show that more than half (I think around 85%, but I'm not sure) of the peope simply follow their parents beliefs, not questioning if they are true or not - that includes atheism by the way.

There is no such a thing as holly bullies.

Offline Fabio Leite

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,761
  • За Россию без Путина. For Russia without Putin.
    • Vida Ortodoxa
And just to finalize, as I have learned in these 10 years as a Christian, rational scientific evidence is not important for the vast majority of people, either to believe or disbelieve anything, religious or not. Most are simply emotional about issues and proceed to rationalize what feels right for them and that's it. I still can't relate or empathize with that, but I have learned to accept and not judge. Incredibly for my then imature understanding of God, He doesn't seem to care *why* you love Him as long as you do. Just like the devil too doesn't care too much why you disbelieve. Motivations for what you are are less important than what you are. And God is so merciful that sometimes not even what you are matters that much, but just what you are struggling to be. Lucky us for that.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2013, 10:26:25 AM by Fabio Leite »
There is no such a thing as holly bullies.

Offline jah777

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,059
Again, regarding the OP, the reason why the Fathers never said "I believe in the Bible", and why those in the Orthodox Church do not say "I believe in the Bible", in sense of the phrase that you refer to, can be easily understood by looking at the results of such a belief following the Protestant Reformation.  Our Fathers from the first centuries observed how the heretics would create entire systems of belief based on the Scriptures, without regard to how the Apostolic Church understood and interpreted these Scriptures.  The Scriptures themselves include the letters of St. Peter, wherein he states that the writings of St. Paul contain "some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures (2 Peter 3:16)", showing that many people are led astray to the destruction of their souls by relying on their own understanding of the Scriptures.  Since the Reformation, the endless sectarianism, constant confusion, and continuous repetition of the same age-old heresies is the natural result of this single-minded "belief in the Bible" without regard for the Apostolic tradition.  Isn't the result of Sola Scriptura evidence enough of the futility of this erroneous belief?

To further understand the Orthodox position regarding this, I would recommend reading the following short excerpts from the Commonitory of St. Vincent of Lerins:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf211.iii.xxvii.html
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf211.iii.xxviii.html

Here, St. Vincent discusses how the use of the Scriptures by the heretics imitates the Devil when he quoted form the Scriptures while tempting Christ in the wilderness.  St. Vincent then explains how one is to distinguish between true and false interpretations of the Scriptures.  If you follow St. Vincent's advice, you will be on solid ground and much less overwhelmed in your search for Christ's One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. 

Offline Alveus Lacuna

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,998
Which "one true ekklesia" is right? EO, OO, Rome, Assyrians?

The EO and the OO.

Can't if they haven't been in communion for like ever.

Gotta choose.

Oh, stop being so difficult. We're just saying the same thing different ways, kinda like filioque.

Offline William

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,354
Which "one true ekklesia" is right? EO, OO, Rome, Assyrians?

The EO and the OO.

Can't if they haven't been in communion for like ever.

Gotta choose.

Oh, stop being so difficult. We're just saying the same thing different ways, kinda like filioque.

Really every religious statement is like that. Like I was taught in Catholic high school religion class, the Hindus mean the same thing by Brahman that we mean by God.
Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant

Offline katherineofdixie

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,546
Which "one true ekklesia" is right? EO, OO, Rome, Assyrians?

The EO and the OO.

Can't if they haven't been in communion for like ever.

Gotta choose.

Oh, stop being so difficult. We're just saying the same thing different ways, kinda like filioque.

Really every religious statement is like that. Like I was taught in Catholic high school religion class, the Hindus mean the same thing by Brahman that we mean by God.

Um, I'm certainly no expert on Hinduism but my cursory study of it indicates a totally different idea of or understanding of God. Not the same at all.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2013, 04:35:52 PM by katherineofdixie »
"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom

Offline Fabio Leite

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,761
  • За Россию без Путина. For Russia without Putin.
    • Vida Ortodoxa
Plus there is a know linguistic phenomenum that context defines the text. Texts do not exist in a void of meaning. Humour is very good in demonstrating that. A story that is funny in a country may not be in another. A story that is funny in a certain age may not be in another. The comic content of the text is defined by a complex web of contextual meanings that culturally defined.

The Scriptures can mean anything in any given context. The report on ancient alien activities, the code to an hermetic cosmic shattering secret, the ideological veil of oppresion over a revolutionary content, an eastern esoteric text corrupted by evil rationalist westerns... anything.

Any text needs a context to reveal its meaning. Orthodox Apostolic Catholic tradition is the cultural environment that selected the text. The Bible is meant to mean what it means *in* this context and in this context only. The rest is just fan-fiction.
There is no such a thing as holly bullies.

Offline orthonorm

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,002
Orthodox Apostolic Catholic tradition is the cultural environment that selected the text. The Bible is meant to mean what it means *in* this context and in this context only.

That is impossible:


« Last Edit: April 03, 2013, 06:08:16 PM by orthonorm »
Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.

Offline orthonorm

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,002
As Papist have said, numbers have nothing to do with it. If we have any Gospel reference to it, a certain majority in democratic voting once chose Barabbas over Jesus.... (I am *for* democracy though, if joined with localism and federalism, but I digress).

It is easy if:

1) you don't think that what people think is a reference for truth
2) you know that it's not important how many believe something or are not concerned with fitting in, nor scared of not fitting in;
3) you use sound criteria, and by that I mean that, to identify which church, if any, is the true Church, you cannot use internal theological arguments for that, but external evidence. Most theological claims are believed on faith, so to choose one or the other as the criteria is to beg the question, it's a circular argument, taking the conclusion as the premise. So what criteria should one use? Historical, sociological and cultural. That's how I chose to be Orthodox after I converted to "generic" Christianity. The amount of evidence for the cultural, historical, linguistic and sociological continuity in the Orthodox Church since its beginning with the Apostles is overwhelming. The amount of evidence for cultural, historical, linguistic and sociological ruptures in the non-Chalcedonian, Roman and Protestant churches is equally overwhelming. With that in mind, I felt more comfortable to give credence to the Church's theological claims and then the application of such claims being confirmed in practice and showing more coherence than the competing claims confirms the first external conclusions.

The reason people are not massively Orthodox is that they are not concerned with that. Researches show that more than half (I think around 85%, but I'm not sure) of the peope simply follow their parents beliefs, not questioning if they are true or not - that includes atheism by the way.



Fabio, if you used more white space I know it would be easier for me to make my way through your posts, especially as they grow in length.

The one you recently posted on marriage for example, if you had just separated each enumerated point with a single line of white space, it would have been a huge help.

Just a thought, others have made similar comments about the use of white space before.

Thanks for your thoughtful posts.
Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.

Offline Ashman618

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 504
As Papist have said, numbers have nothing to do with it. If we have any Gospel reference to it, a certain majority in democratic voting once chose Barabbas over Jesus.... (I am *for* democracy though, if joined with localism and federalism, but I digress).

It is easy if:

1) you don't think that what people think is a reference for truth
2) you know that it's not important how many believe something or are not concerned with fitting in, nor scared of not fitting in;
3) you use sound criteria, and by that I mean that, to identify which church, if any, is the true Church, you cannot use internal theological arguments for that, but external evidence. Most theological claims are believed on faith, so to choose one or the other as the criteria is to beg the question, it's a circular argument, taking the conclusion as the premise. So what criteria should one use? Historical, sociological and cultural. That's how I chose to be Orthodox after I converted to "generic" Christianity. The amount of evidence for the cultural, historical, linguistic and sociological continuity in the Orthodox Church since its beginning with the Apostles is overwhelming. The amount of evidence for cultural, historical, linguistic and sociological ruptures in the non-Chalcedonian, Roman and Protestant churches is equally overwhelming. With that in mind, I felt more comfortable to give credence to the Church's theological claims and then the application of such claims being confirmed in practice and showing more coherence than the competing claims confirms the first external conclusions.

The reason people are not massively Orthodox is that they are not concerned with that. Researches show that more than half (I think around 85%, but I'm not sure) of the peope simply follow their parents beliefs, not questioning if they are true or not - that includes atheism by the way.



Fabio, if you used more white space I know it would be easier for me to make my way through your posts, especially as they grow in length.

The one you recently posted on marriage for example, if you had just separated each enumerated point with a single line of white space, it would have been a huge help.

Just a thought, others have made similar comments about the use of white space before.

Thanks for your thoughtful posts.

I find it edifying

That you have made known to me

That the use of white space

Between each point I make

Helps others

Offline orthonorm

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,002
As Papist have said, numbers have nothing to do with it. If we have any Gospel reference to it, a certain majority in democratic voting once chose Barabbas over Jesus.... (I am *for* democracy though, if joined with localism and federalism, but I digress).

It is easy if:

1) you don't think that what people think is a reference for truth
2) you know that it's not important how many believe something or are not concerned with fitting in, nor scared of not fitting in;
3) you use sound criteria, and by that I mean that, to identify which church, if any, is the true Church, you cannot use internal theological arguments for that, but external evidence. Most theological claims are believed on faith, so to choose one or the other as the criteria is to beg the question, it's a circular argument, taking the conclusion as the premise. So what criteria should one use? Historical, sociological and cultural. That's how I chose to be Orthodox after I converted to "generic" Christianity. The amount of evidence for the cultural, historical, linguistic and sociological continuity in the Orthodox Church since its beginning with the Apostles is overwhelming. The amount of evidence for cultural, historical, linguistic and sociological ruptures in the non-Chalcedonian, Roman and Protestant churches is equally overwhelming. With that in mind, I felt more comfortable to give credence to the Church's theological claims and then the application of such claims being confirmed in practice and showing more coherence than the competing claims confirms the first external conclusions.

The reason people are not massively Orthodox is that they are not concerned with that. Researches show that more than half (I think around 85%, but I'm not sure) of the peope simply follow their parents beliefs, not questioning if they are true or not - that includes atheism by the way.



Fabio, if you used more white space I know it would be easier for me to make my way through your posts, especially as they grow in length.

The one you recently posted on marriage for example, if you had just separated each enumerated point with a single line of white space, it would have been a huge help.

Just a thought, others have made similar comments about the use of white space before.

Thanks for your thoughtful posts.

I find it edifying

That you have made known to me

That the use of white space

Between each point I make

Helps others

Eyes like it.
Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.

Offline Jason.Wike

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,046
Plus there is a know linguistic phenomenum that context defines the text. Texts do not exist in a void of meaning. Humour is very good in demonstrating that. A story that is funny in a country may not be in another. A story that is funny in a certain age may not be in another. The comic content of the text is defined by a complex web of contextual meanings that culturally defined.

The Scriptures can mean anything in any given context. The report on ancient alien activities, the code to an hermetic cosmic shattering secret, the ideological veil of oppresion over a revolutionary content, an eastern esoteric text corrupted by evil rationalist westerns... anything.

Any text needs a context to reveal its meaning. Orthodox Apostolic Catholic tradition is the cultural environment that selected the text. The Bible is meant to mean what it means *in* this context and in this context only. The rest is just fan-fiction.

Apart from Middle Eastern Aramaic or Syriac speaking communities the OACT doesn't exist though. You can't translate a culture from one to another, to another, to another and end up with something-Americanski and pretend it is the same. All kinds of things Slavs insist on being Christianity would probably seem ridiculous to them and vice versa (heck, it would be near heresy to any Slav to imagine not eating pork).
« Last Edit: April 04, 2013, 12:39:59 AM by Jason.Wike »

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,724
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
It's interesting that everyone of the Church fathers also believe in Tradition, the Councils, the ordained Priesthood, etc.

Like Papal Infallibility or the Immaculate Conception? What council's? Rome has had many the Eastern churches reject. Who's tradition?  RC, OO, EO, Assyrian, other churches that broke away from these over corruption like selling salvation and Inquisitions?

I think Saint John Chrysostom put it best when he stated:

There comes a heathen and says, "I wish to become a Christian, but I know not whom to join: there is much fighting and faction among you, much confusion: which doctrine am I to choose?" How shall we answer him? "Each of you" (says he) "asserts, 'I speak the truth.'" No doubt: this is in our favor. For if we told you to be persuaded by arguments, you might well be perplexed: but if we bid you believe the Scriptures, and these are simple and true, the decision is easy for you. If any agree with the Scriptures, he is the Christian; if any fight against them, he is far from this rule.
What good does it do, however, to merely "believe the Scriptures" when by merely "believing the Scriptures", you Protestants have splintered into numerous different sects?

Salvation? There are now 2.2 Billion Christians in the world, that is good. Over 600,000,000 of them Protestants, 1.1 Billion Catholics and 300,000,000 Orthodox.

One Faith - In Christ Jesus
One Baptism - with the Holy Spirit
One God - the Creator

If all those good people who attend their local church, believe in God the creator, believe in Christ their savior, believe in the power of the Holy Spirit and do good works (whether as a fruit of faith or requirement).  I sincerely hope God does not punish us/them to eternal hell for not understanding perfect theology.
Red herring. I'm not talking about the faith of individual Protestant Christians, which I will admit far outshines my own. I'm talking about the many schisms that have developed in Protestant Christianity as a result of your doctrine of sola scriptura. How can such a "godly" doctrine as sola scriptura be so godly if it leads to such disorder?

Protestants didn't start the separations of the church, that was you guys with all your excommunications of each other making it impossible to know the truth of who's right, if anyone is.
You're still dodging the issue that sola scriptura is directly responsible for the many schisms that appear in your "church".
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,724
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
As Papist have said, numbers have nothing to do with it. If we have any Gospel reference to it, a certain majority in democratic voting once chose Barabbas over Jesus.... (I am *for* democracy though, if joined with localism and federalism, but I digress).

It is easy if:

1) you don't think that what people think is a reference for truth
2) you know that it's not important how many believe something or are not concerned with fitting in, nor scared of not fitting in;
3) you use sound criteria, and by that I mean that, to identify which church, if any, is the true Church, you cannot use internal theological arguments for that, but external evidence. Most theological claims are believed on faith, so to choose one or the other as the criteria is to beg the question, it's a circular argument, taking the conclusion as the premise. So what criteria should one use? Historical, sociological and cultural. That's how I chose to be Orthodox after I converted to "generic" Christianity. The amount of evidence for the cultural, historical, linguistic and sociological continuity in the Orthodox Church since its beginning with the Apostles is overwhelming. The amount of evidence for cultural, historical, linguistic and sociological ruptures in the non-Chalcedonian, Roman and Protestant churches is equally overwhelming. With that in mind, I felt more comfortable to give credence to the Church's theological claims and then the application of such claims being confirmed in practice and showing more coherence than the competing claims confirms the first external conclusions.

The reason people are not massively Orthodox is that they are not concerned with that. Researches show that more than half (I think around 85%, but I'm not sure) of the peope simply follow their parents beliefs, not questioning if they are true or not - that includes atheism by the way.



Fabio, if you used more white space I know it would be easier for me to make my way through your posts, especially as they grow in length.

The one you recently posted on marriage for example, if you had just separated each enumerated point with a single line of white space, it would have been a huge help.

Just a thought, others have made similar comments about the use of white space before.

Thanks for your thoughtful posts.

I find it edifying

That you have made known to me

That the use of white space

Between each point I make

Helps others

Eyes like it.
What does it matter what ewes like?
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Fabio Leite

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,761
  • За Россию без Путина. For Russia without Putin.
    • Vida Ortodoxa
Thanks for the advice. I'll try to remember that.

Many times I write a bit in a hurry between tasks at work, so that's why editing is lacking so many times. I'll try to improve that.

Fabio, if you used more white space I know it would be easier for me to make my way through your posts, especially as they grow in length.

The one you recently posted on marriage for example, if you had just separated each enumerated point with a single line of white space, it would have been a huge help.

Just a thought, others have made similar comments about the use of white space before.

Thanks for your thoughtful posts.
There is no such a thing as holly bullies.

Offline Fabio Leite

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,761
  • За Россию без Путина. For Russia without Putin.
    • Vida Ortodoxa
Gadamer's theory can be questioned under the same objection to so many criticisms of our ability to see the "origial meaning" in any text.

If our understanding is so culturally conditioned that an author's intention can't be recovered in its totallity, but we just build a new meaning from what we have and the text... how can anyone say that this is Gadamer's theory, or that they understand the meaning that he intended to convey? How many of his readers lived in the same exact cultural environment that he lived, and even if they did, none lived his life. If Gadamer were right, we wouldn't really know what he is talking about, just projecting our pre-existing understandings onto him.

It's true, as he says, that this mingling of what we understand and the text happens. Specially with beginners. But education and development is precisely to go beyond that, it is to learn to see more what is out there instead of just reflections of ourselves. And when what is out there is true and beautiful and just we let *it* shape *us* instead of trying to shape it into our image. Gadamer and all the others who are at different spots in the range of subjectivist and relativistic ideas that defend an inherent uncognoscibility of texts due to our participation in the process of knowing, have to show how is it that we actually know what they are talking about.


Orthodox Apostolic Catholic tradition is the cultural environment that selected the text. The Bible is meant to mean what it means *in* this context and in this context only.

That is impossible:



« Last Edit: April 04, 2013, 10:58:28 AM by Fabio Leite »
There is no such a thing as holly bullies.

Offline sheenj

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,424
  • St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Church

It is easy if:

3) you use sound criteria, and by that I mean that, to identify which church, if any, is the true Church, you cannot use internal theological arguments for that, but external evidence. Most theological claims are believed on faith, so to choose one or the other as the criteria is to beg the question, it's a circular argument, taking the conclusion as the premise. So what criteria should one use? Historical, sociological and cultural. That's how I chose to be Orthodox after I converted to "generic" Christianity. The amount of evidence for the cultural, historical, linguistic and sociological continuity in the Orthodox Church since its beginning with the Apostles is overwhelming. The amount of evidence for cultural, historical, linguistic and sociological ruptures in the non-Chalcedonian, Roman and Protestant churches is equally overwhelming. With that in mind, I felt more comfortable to give credence to the Church's theological claims and then the application of such claims being confirmed in practice and showing more coherence than the competing claims confirms the first external conclusions.


Can you explain this part more? Because I don't see what ruptures the OO have had that the EO didn't.

Thanks.

Offline Fabio Leite

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,761
  • За Россию без Путина. For Russia without Putin.
    • Vida Ortodoxa
Sheenj,

Several. First, they simply didn't accept Chalcedon, just like later Rome would accept and then reject Constantinople IV. The part that says "I'm leaving" is the one doing the rupture.

Second, I really don't buy all the current talk I see about "oh, we all meant the same thing, we just used different words. Those ancient guys were some intolerant stubborn fellows, but today we know better". I really don't and I think it's a very thin argument. In any serious study of history, primary sources prevail over commentaries, earlier witnesses prevail over later witnesses. Since the status is such that I have to choose between the opinion of philosophers, theologians, bishops, martyrs and saints who took part in the events, who spoke that language either as a mother tongue or a second living language, over the witness of modern specialists who have to rely on interpretation of languages they know only intellectually, I think it's more rational to conclude that the modern specialists are the ones who are been biased toward their modern cultural prejudices and ecclesiological ecumenist agendas.

Thus, considering the witness of the events of that time and of subsequent events, Non-Chalcedoneans spoused a divergent doctrine. Notice that this analysis of historic events only, the content of the doctrine is irrelevant here.  We had occasions where just few Christians spoused Orthodox doctrine and heterodox had all the major "jobs". But comparing to what existed before, and what came after we can see that Orthodox doctrine always prevailed in all the Ecumene. Non-Chalcedonean doctrines, much like Rome's, never went beyond their own cultural area. In fact, the only difference between them and Rome is that European countries went on imperialistic spree in the second millenia, expanding its own social borders, but never it's doctrines gained really culturally ecumenical acceptance like the Orthodox which you can find in European, Middle Eastern and Asian cultures.

Finally, the whole dispute was done in Greek. Greeks tend to know what they mean in Greek better than non-Greeks. Non-Chalcedoneans and Rome simply break with Greek linguistic tradition to argue what Greek words mean or not. *If* as modernists say, it was just a matter of words, Chalcedon simply arbitrarily created a dictionary entry for the word: this is what the technical meaning of this word in theology will be from now on. Let's go past that. To break communion because of disagreement on which word to use would be a more frivolous motive than actual doctrinal difference.
So: Non-Chalcedoneans broke from of the Roman-Hellenic traditions and linguistic culture of the epoch. Non-Chalcedoneans either had different doctrines as the witnesses of the event and soon later on claim, or broke away out of frivolous attachment to word definitions like modernists claim. Non-Chalcedoneans started as and remained an Oriental thing... in scientific parlance, their "theory" never went past peer-review remaining a fringe theory of a closed group who refuses to accept tested theories.
Said that, I do not judge character or piety based on that. Virtues and vices, fortunately, are more or less equally distributed among all groups.


It is easy if:

3) you use sound criteria, and by that I mean that, to identify which church, if any, is the true Church, you cannot use internal theological arguments for that, but external evidence. Most theological claims are believed on faith, so to choose one or the other as the criteria is to beg the question, it's a circular argument, taking the conclusion as the premise. So what criteria should one use? Historical, sociological and cultural. That's how I chose to be Orthodox after I converted to "generic" Christianity. The amount of evidence for the cultural, historical, linguistic and sociological continuity in the Orthodox Church since its beginning with the Apostles is overwhelming. The amount of evidence for cultural, historical, linguistic and sociological ruptures in the non-Chalcedonian, Roman and Protestant churches is equally overwhelming. With that in mind, I felt more comfortable to give credence to the Church's theological claims and then the application of such claims being confirmed in practice and showing more coherence than the competing claims confirms the first external conclusions.


Can you explain this part more? Because I don't see what ruptures the OO have had that the EO didn't.

Thanks.
There is no such a thing as holly bullies.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Toumarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,201
  • Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)
Quote
That's how I chose to be Orthodox after I converted to "generic" Christianity. The amount of evidence for the cultural, historical, linguistic and sociological continuity in the Orthodox Church since its beginning with the Apostles is overwhelming. The amount of evidence for cultural, historical, linguistic and sociological ruptures in the non-Chalcedonian, Roman and Protestant churches is equally overwhelming.

The Victor always writes history

All you just said here is all hogwash and it's actually proving the Prrotestants' point.  Good luck convincing today's Western Christians concerning so-called "differences" between EOs and OOs.

Ignorance is bliss when ignoring the "sociological ruptures" in EO history.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2013, 12:31:54 PM by minasoliman »
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline Fabio Leite

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,761
  • За Россию без Путина. For Russia without Putin.
    • Vida Ortodoxa
Minas,

everybody's a victor in their own ground.

I did study the history of the Orthodox Church from Orthodox and Non-Orthodox sources. I found no rupture that would impact the Church itself. If you know of any please, do share.


Quote
That's how I chose to be Orthodox after I converted to "generic" Christianity. The amount of evidence for the cultural, historical, linguistic and sociological continuity in the Orthodox Church since its beginning with the Apostles is overwhelming. The amount of evidence for cultural, historical, linguistic and sociological ruptures in the non-Chalcedonian, Roman and Protestant churches is equally overwhelming.

The Victor always writes history

All you just said here is all hogwash and it's actually proving the Prrotestants' point.  Good luck convincing today's Western Christians concerning so-called "differences" between EOs and OOs.

Ignorance is bliss when ignoring the "sociological ruptures" in EO history.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2013, 12:37:21 PM by Fabio Leite »
There is no such a thing as holly bullies.

Offline orthonorm

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,002
Quote
That's how I chose to be Orthodox after I converted to "generic" Christianity. The amount of evidence for the cultural, historical, linguistic and sociological continuity in the Orthodox Church since its beginning with the Apostles is overwhelming. The amount of evidence for cultural, historical, linguistic and sociological ruptures in the non-Chalcedonian, Roman and Protestant churches is equally overwhelming.

The Victor always writes history

And you'd think there'd better a prize for winning than homework.
Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.

Offline orthonorm

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,002
Minas,

everybody's a victor in their own ground.

So our victory is death?
Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.

Offline Fabio Leite

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,761
  • За Россию без Путина. For Russia without Putin.
    • Vida Ortodoxa
You've got a point. I don't remember who said it, but the idea was exactly that "victors enjoy their victory, only loosers spend their time rewritting history to convince themselves they were right all along". And so many times they use this fake history as the basis for revolutions. We've all been loosers and victors in history, we all do that.

Quote
That's how I chose to be Orthodox after I converted to "generic" Christianity. The amount of evidence for the cultural, historical, linguistic and sociological continuity in the Orthodox Church since its beginning with the Apostles is overwhelming. The amount of evidence for cultural, historical, linguistic and sociological ruptures in the non-Chalcedonian, Roman and Protestant churches is equally overwhelming.

The Victor always writes history

And you'd think there'd better a prize for winning than homework.
There is no such a thing as holly bullies.

Offline sheenj

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,424
  • St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Church
Ok, let's break this up a little

Sheenj,

Several. First, they simply didn't accept Chalcedon, just like later Rome would accept and then reject Constantinople IV. The part that says "I'm leaving" is the one doing the rupture.

No, it was still Rome and its followers who didn't accept Ephesus II, a council called by the Emperor of the Ecumene, and presided by the Patriarch of Alexandria. The only reason Chalcedon even took place was because Theodosius II died and Marcian wanted to make nice with the Pope of Rome.

Second, I really don't buy all the current talk I see about "oh, we all meant the same thing, we just used different words. Those ancient guys were some intolerant stubborn fellows, but today we know better". I really don't and I think it's a very thin argument. In any serious study of history, primary sources prevail over commentaries, earlier witnesses prevail over later witnesses. Since the status is such that I have to choose between the opinion of philosophers, theologians, bishops, martyrs and saints who took part in the events, who spoke that language either as a mother tongue or a second living language, over the witness of modern specialists who have to rely on interpretation of languages they know only intellectually, I think it's more rational to conclude that the modern specialists are the ones who are been biased toward their modern cultural prejudices and ecclesiological ecumenist agendas.

Thus, considering the witness of the events of that time and of subsequent events, Non-Chalcedoneans spoused a divergent doctrine. Notice that this analysis of historic events only, the content of the doctrine is irrelevant here.  We had occasions where just few Christians spoused Orthodox doctrine and heterodox had all the major "jobs". But comparing to what existed before, and what came after we can see that Orthodox doctrine always prevailed in all the Ecumene. Non-Chalcedonean doctrines, much like Rome's, never went beyond their own cultural area. In fact, the only difference between them and Rome is that European countries went on imperialistic spree in the second millenia, expanding its own social borders, but never it's doctrines gained really culturally ecumenical acceptance like the Orthodox which you can find in European, Middle Eastern and Asian cultures.

First, they did not espouse a "new doctrine", they espoused the same old doctrine which was made synonymous with St. Cyril, who if you remember, was the one who presided over the 3rd Ecumenical council. It is in fact the Chalcedonian party who introduced new doctrine to the fore.

Secondly, saying we profess the same faith now is not the same as saying we have always professed the same faith. I personally do not think all Chalcedonians were Orthodox until Second Council of Constantinople, when all elements of Nestorianism were finally purged.

Thirdly, the reason we could not "escape our boundaries" was because Rome decided to take up its old sport of persecuting the Orthodox again. We barely stayed alive during that time, and yet you could not kill us.

Finally, the whole dispute was done in Greek. Greeks tend to know what they mean in Greek better than non-Greeks. Non-Chalcedoneans and Rome simply break with Greek linguistic tradition to argue what Greek words mean or not. *If* as modernists say, it was just a matter of words, Chalcedon simply arbitrarily created a dictionary entry for the word: this is what the technical meaning of this word in theology will be from now on. Let's go past that. To break communion because of disagreement on which word to use would be a more frivolous motive than actual doctrinal difference.

Ok this really grinds my gears. The Hellenes living in Alexandria and Antioch at the time were in fact just that, Hellenes or "Greeks". To claim that they were not is plain historical revisionism. Secondly, it was Leo who broke communion with the Orthodox because we didn't like his letter enough. That is basically the very definition of hubris and that's the person you guys decided to follow. We continued in our Orthodoxy, you left it.

So: Non-Chalcedoneans broke from of the Roman-Hellenic traditions and linguistic culture of the epoch. Non-Chalcedoneans either had different doctrines as the witnesses of the event and soon later on claim, or broke away out of frivolous attachment to word definitions like modernists claim. Non-Chalcedoneans started as and remained an Oriental thing... in scientific parlance, their "theory" never went past peer-review remaining a fringe theory of a closed group who refuses to accept tested theories.
Said that, I do not judge character or piety based on that. Virtues and vices, fortunately, are more or less equally distributed among all groups.

So:
1. Not true, there were just as many "non-chalcedonians" belonging to the Empire as were outside it, at least for the first century after the schism. It was only after the persecutions that this changed.
2. Not true, we stayed true to the doctrine as prescribed by the Fathers of Orthodoxy, repeating this canard over and over again will not make it true.
3. As I said above, Rome persecuted the Orthodox in the centuries before the Councils, it resumed in the centuries afterward. The fact that we survived at all is a miracle from God.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,724
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Guys, this is the Orthodox-Protestant board. There are plenty of opportunities for you to debate Chalcedon on either the OO public board or the EO-OO Private board. Please take your debate there so we can keep this thread on topic. Thank you.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Fabio Leite

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,761
  • За Россию без Путина. For Russia without Putin.
    • Vida Ortodoxa
I really don't have any intention of discussing Non-Chalcedoneans, Peter, so no problem by me. They just asked me to detail the historical ruptures. I'm really not into trying to convince anyone in an internet forum of something that was never accepted in more than a thousand years. It still is obviously an issue of "us vs them" for most of the involved in all sides, the rest is rationalization and wishful thinking.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2013, 01:52:18 PM by Fabio Leite »
There is no such a thing as holly bullies.

Offline sheenj

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,424
  • St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Church
Eh, I've had my say on the subject.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Toumarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,201
  • Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)
Rather than talk about EO, OO, and Catholic differences, I wanted to concentrate more on how Protestantism is a far distance from these Apostolic traditions, because when you get to the whole depth of the issue between our churches, we actually have a lot more in common that what divides us.

It's very easy for me to claim, that when I read history, I am convinced of the principles the Oriental Orthodox Church went through in standing against the "sociological ruptures" of the overbearing Roman empire via Byzantine Caesaropapism/Latin Papism  ::) .  But let's not play these games here.  No church is without her historical "baggage".
« Last Edit: April 04, 2013, 02:27:09 PM by minasoliman »
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline Fabio Leite

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,761
  • За Россию без Путина. For Russia without Putin.
    • Vida Ortodoxa
My point is that I was not Orthodox when I did the study.

I don't think Protestants are really more distant from Orthodox than Rome or Non-Chalcedoneans, at least not the traditional ones.

The "proximity" of the Non-Chalcedoneans and Rome to Orthodoxy is basically aesthetical in that they all have Liturgies, hierarchy, traditional hymns.

And this perception of proximity is also culturally biased. Here in Brazil, traditionally a Roman country, the "progressist" thing to think is that Rome and Orthodoxy are almost the same, we are not like those Protestants or those Orientals, no-no-no, no way. I wouldn't be surprise that this feeling has even gotten stronger in Argentina lately.

Truth is that Orthodoxy, Non-Chalcedonians, Rome and Protestantism are four different religions. We don't worship the same God, the same Jesus, although we use the same words. And this sense of one being closer to the other is more conditioned by local alliances and local history than anything else. People are socially closer in certain places and then they simply wish doctrinal and historical differences were non-existant.

I, particularly, see much piety in many Protestants and a lot of lay asceticism in their behaviour,  and simplicity in their temples and in that they are much closer to Orthodoxy than some festive liturgical Romans or ethnically grounded Non-Chalcedoneans. Now, of course, I say this because the Orthodox Churches here are rather welcoming of non-ethnics and I know fom the Internet that it is more closed elsewhere. So, as I said, this feeling of "proximity" is more related to the personal experience of groups and invidividuals than anything else.


Rather than talk about EO, OO, and Catholic differences, I wanted to concentrate more on how Protestantism is a far distance from these Apostolic traditions, because when you get to the whole depth of the issue between our churches, we actually have a lot more in common that what divides us.

It's very easy for me to claim, that when I read history, I am convinced of the principles the Oriental Orthodox Church went through in standing against the "sociological ruptures" of the overbearing Roman empire via Byzantine Caesaropapism/Latin Papism  ::) .  But let's not play these games here.  No church is without her historical "baggage".
« Last Edit: April 04, 2013, 03:15:43 PM by Fabio Leite »
There is no such a thing as holly bullies.

Offline Benjamin the Red

  • Recovering Calvinist
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,601
  • Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.
Truth is that Orthodoxy, Non-Chalcedonians, Rome and Protestantism are four different religions. We don't worship the same God, the same Jesus, although we use the same words. And this sense of one being closer to the other is more conditioned by local alliances and local history than anything else. People are socially closer in certain places and then they simply wish doctrinal and historical differences were non-existant.

You are departing from both the teaching of the Church Fathers, as well as common sense.

I'd leave this line of thought alone.
"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

Offline Fabio Leite

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,761
  • За Россию без Путина. For Russia without Putin.
    • Vida Ortodoxa
We are all heretics in relation to each other. That's the fact. Where do the Fathers say that heretics worship the same God?

Now, said cultural constraints, globalist ethics, political correctness or even their best hopes have made some Orthodox and Romans think they are the closest thing there is this side of the eschaton. Here in this forum and I see in some American sites, the "intelligent" thing to adopt is the idea that Orthodox and Non-Chalcedoneans are the real true buddies. Converts from Rome and Protestantism, on the other hand never cease to commend how Orthodoxy is just a natural continuity of their former experience, so close they are.

What this spells to me is that the four "branches" of Christianity all have points where they come together and where they deviate from each other and that is what is factual and historical about them, each claiming to be the Church of Christ and considering the others to be heretics. Sometimes being a "heretic" meant simply "you are wrong about this" sometimes it meant "I have a license to kill you". From all four. And locally and temporally limited experiences give a bias to the perception of some people in terms to whom they are closer. Usually two get together to bash one of the remaining two. There is a fifth branch in the making, which basically bashes all the previous four, claiming that"all this is relative, let's just put our differences aside and be social and political and charitable", the "Ecumenic Christianity". If it will stay as transversal "spirituality" contaminating all churches or if it will chrystalize into a new formal church with defectors from all the previous four joining it as the "true" expression of their former groups, it remains to be seen.

But being, "traditional" and considering that we are heretics in relation to each other, where do the Fathers say heretics worship the same God as Orthodox (considering "orthodox" your own church?)


Truth is that Orthodoxy, Non-Chalcedonians, Rome and Protestantism are four different religions. We don't worship the same God, the same Jesus, although we use the same words. And this sense of one being closer to the other is more conditioned by local alliances and local history than anything else. People are socially closer in certain places and then they simply wish doctrinal and historical differences were non-existant.

You are departing from both the teaching of the Church Fathers, as well as common sense.

I'd leave this line of thought alone.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2013, 03:33:17 PM by Fabio Leite »
There is no such a thing as holly bullies.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Toumarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,201
  • Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)
My point is that I was not Orthodox when I did the study.

I don't think Protestants are really more distant from Orthodox than Rome or Non-Chalcedoneans, at least not the traditional ones.

The "proximity" of the Non-Chalcedoneans and Rome to Orthodoxy is basically aesthetical in that they all have Liturgies, hierarchy, traditional hymns.

And this perception of proximity is also culturally biased. Here in Brazil, traditionally a Roman country, the "progressist" thing to think is that Rome and Orthodoxy are almost the same, we are not like those Protestants or those Orientals, no-no-no, no way. I wouldn't be surprise that this feeling has even gotten stronger in Argentina lately.

Truth is that Orthodoxy, Non-Chalcedonians, Rome and Protestantism are four different religions. We don't worship the same God, the same Jesus, although we use the same words. And this sense of one being closer to the other is more conditioned by local alliances and local history than anything else. People are socially closer in certain places and then they simply wish doctrinal and historical differences were non-existant.

I, particularly, see much piety in many Protestants and a lot of lay asceticism in their behaviour,  and simplicity in their temples and in that they are much closer to Orthodoxy than some festive liturgical Romans or ethnically grounded Non-Chalcedoneans. Now, of course, I say this because the Orthodox Churches here are rather welcoming of non-ethnics and I know fom the Internet that it is more closed elsewhere. So, as I said, this feeling of "proximity" is more related to the personal experience of groups and invidividuals than anything else.


Rather than talk about EO, OO, and Catholic differences, I wanted to concentrate more on how Protestantism is a far distance from these Apostolic traditions, because when you get to the whole depth of the issue between our churches, we actually have a lot more in common that what divides us.

It's very easy for me to claim, that when I read history, I am convinced of the principles the Oriental Orthodox Church went through in standing against the "sociological ruptures" of the overbearing Roman empire via Byzantine Caesaropapism/Latin Papism  ::) .  But let's not play these games here.  No church is without her historical "baggage".

Well, Fabio, this is your chance.  Prove to me that you and I worship different gods.  Start another thread about this, and prove it.

As far as I've seen, your claims are nothing but disproven fluff.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2013, 04:35:36 PM by minasoliman »
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline Fabio Leite

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,761
  • За Россию без Путина. For Russia without Putin.
    • Vida Ortodoxa
See above.



My point is that I was not Orthodox when I did the study.

I don't think Protestants are really more distant from Orthodox than Rome or Non-Chalcedoneans, at least not the traditional ones.

The "proximity" of the Non-Chalcedoneans and Rome to Orthodoxy is basically aesthetical in that they all have Liturgies, hierarchy, traditional hymns.

And this perception of proximity is also culturally biased. Here in Brazil, traditionally a Roman country, the "progressist" thing to think is that Rome and Orthodoxy are almost the same, we are not like those Protestants or those Orientals, no-no-no, no way. I wouldn't be surprise that this feeling has even gotten stronger in Argentina lately.

Truth is that Orthodoxy, Non-Chalcedonians, Rome and Protestantism are four different religions. We don't worship the same God, the same Jesus, although we use the same words. And this sense of one being closer to the other is more conditioned by local alliances and local history than anything else. People are socially closer in certain places and then they simply wish doctrinal and historical differences were non-existant.

I, particularly, see much piety in many Protestants and a lot of lay asceticism in their behaviour,  and simplicity in their temples and in that they are much closer to Orthodoxy than some festive liturgical Romans or ethnically grounded Non-Chalcedoneans. Now, of course, I say this because the Orthodox Churches here are rather welcoming of non-ethnics and I know fom the Internet that it is more closed elsewhere. So, as I said, this feeling of "proximity" is more related to the personal experience of groups and invidividuals than anything else.


Rather than talk about EO, OO, and Catholic differences, I wanted to concentrate more on how Protestantism is a far distance from these Apostolic traditions, because when you get to the whole depth of the issue between our churches, we actually have a lot more in common that what divides us.

It's very easy for me to claim, that when I read history, I am convinced of the principles the Oriental Orthodox Church went through in standing against the "sociological ruptures" of the overbearing Roman empire via Byzantine Caesaropapism/Latin Papism  ::) .  But let's not play these games here.  No church is without her historical "baggage".

Well, Fabio, this is your chance.  Prove to me that you and I worship different gods.  Start another thread about this, and prove it.

As far as I've seen, your claims are nothing but disproven fluff.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2013, 04:58:22 PM by Fabio Leite »
There is no such a thing as holly bullies.

Offline Hiwot

  • Christ is Risen!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,959
  • Job 19:25-27
Rather than talk about EO, OO, and Catholic differences, I wanted to concentrate more on how Protestantism is a far distance from these Apostolic traditions, because when you get to the whole depth of the issue between our churches, we actually have a lot more in common that what divides us.

It's very easy for me to claim, that when I read history, I am convinced of the principles the Oriental Orthodox Church went through in standing against the "sociological ruptures" of the overbearing Roman empire via Byzantine Caesaropapism/Latin Papism  ::) .  But let's not play these games here.  No church is without her historical "baggage".

hehehe Mina,Excellent point, so very aptly made :)  I find Fabio's  "the  Myths and Fables of Byzantium on steroid" approach as a solid reminder of why caesaropapisim remains at the very heart of the entire experience of those that oppose it as well as those who propagate it.even now the edict keeps coming, and at the heart of it remains the same blatant and arrogant lie.(when I encounter such arrogance which attempts to tell me my Faith is not what I openly declare  to be my Faith , then I say: I do not believe what I believe  to please or displease you, but because I believe it to be True. and in that Faith in that Truth I cast the fate of my very Soul, so what makes you think you can get me to deny it or hide it, when I am willing to give my life for it?) the fabricated lie had a lot of imperial and papal power and the pretext used worked only in so far as it killed not convince.  now what it can not do anymore is unleash the carnage it was able to before. and if we have held on to our Orthodox Faith in the face of assured slaughter, stripped of its lance, mere fable will only hurt those who continue to tell it.

  
 anyway the different God argument is so hilarious in its shamelessness lol I was entertained by it.
To God be the Glory in all things! Amen!

Only pray for me, that God would give me both inward and outward strength, that I may not only speak, but truly will; and that I may not merely be called a Christian, but really be found to be one. St.Ignatius of Antioch.Epistle to the Romans.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Toumarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,201
  • Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)
See above.



My point is that I was not Orthodox when I did the study.

I don't think Protestants are really more distant from Orthodox than Rome or Non-Chalcedoneans, at least not the traditional ones.

The "proximity" of the Non-Chalcedoneans and Rome to Orthodoxy is basically aesthetical in that they all have Liturgies, hierarchy, traditional hymns.

And this perception of proximity is also culturally biased. Here in Brazil, traditionally a Roman country, the "progressist" thing to think is that Rome and Orthodoxy are almost the same, we are not like those Protestants or those Orientals, no-no-no, no way. I wouldn't be surprise that this feeling has even gotten stronger in Argentina lately.

Truth is that Orthodoxy, Non-Chalcedonians, Rome and Protestantism are four different religions. We don't worship the same God, the same Jesus, although we use the same words. And this sense of one being closer to the other is more conditioned by local alliances and local history than anything else. People are socially closer in certain places and then they simply wish doctrinal and historical differences were non-existant.

I, particularly, see much piety in many Protestants and a lot of lay asceticism in their behaviour,  and simplicity in their temples and in that they are much closer to Orthodoxy than some festive liturgical Romans or ethnically grounded Non-Chalcedoneans. Now, of course, I say this because the Orthodox Churches here are rather welcoming of non-ethnics and I know fom the Internet that it is more closed elsewhere. So, as I said, this feeling of "proximity" is more related to the personal experience of groups and invidividuals than anything else.


Rather than talk about EO, OO, and Catholic differences, I wanted to concentrate more on how Protestantism is a far distance from these Apostolic traditions, because when you get to the whole depth of the issue between our churches, we actually have a lot more in common that what divides us.

It's very easy for me to claim, that when I read history, I am convinced of the principles the Oriental Orthodox Church went through in standing against the "sociological ruptures" of the overbearing Roman empire via Byzantine Caesaropapism/Latin Papism  ::) .  But let's not play these games here.  No church is without her historical "baggage".

Well, Fabio, this is your chance.  Prove to me that you and I worship different gods.  Start another thread about this, and prove it.

As far as I've seen, your claims are nothing but disproven fluff.

You said nothing "above".  Thus far, you've proven nothing but empty words.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2013, 08:21:37 PM by minasoliman »
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline walter1234

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 928
It's interesting that everyone of the Church fathers also believe in Tradition, the Councils, the ordained Priesthood, etc.

Like Papal Infallibility or the Immaculate Conception? What council's? Rome has had many the Eastern churches reject. Who's tradition?  RC, OO, EO, Assyrian, other churches that broke away from these over corruption like selling salvation and Inquisitions?

I think Saint John Chrysostom put it best when he stated:

There comes a heathen and says, "I wish to become a Christian, but I know not whom to join: there is much fighting and faction among you, much confusion: which doctrine am I to choose?" How shall we answer him? "Each of you" (says he) "asserts, 'I speak the truth.'" No doubt: this is in our favor. For if we told you to be persuaded by arguments, you might well be perplexed: but if we bid you believe the Scriptures, and these are simple and true, the decision is easy for you. If any agree with the Scriptures, he is the Christian; if any fight against them, he is far from this rule.
What good does it do, however, to merely "believe the Scriptures" when by merely "believing the Scriptures", you Protestants have splintered into numerous different sects?

Salvation? There are now 2.2 Billion Christians in the world, that is good. Over 600,000,000 of them Protestants, 1.1 Billion Catholics and 300,000,000 Orthodox.

One Faith - In Christ Jesus
One Baptism - with the Holy Spirit
One God - the Creator

If all those good people who attend their local church, believe in God the creator, believe in Christ their savior, believe in the power of the Holy Spirit and do good works (whether as a fruit of faith or requirement).  I sincerely hope God does not punish us/them to eternal hell for not understanding perfect theology.

Protestants didn't start the separations of the church, that was you guys with all your excommunications of each other making it impossible to know the truth of who's right, if anyone is.

Protestant, Orthodox, Catholic did not believe in and preach the same gospel. And I am sure that two of them are the false gospel.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2013, 12:22:23 PM by walter1234 »

Offline Kra-nion

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 16
#.........do you know what antiFaith is..what the false belief is.......john chap.5 ..christ tells the christ killers what they think!.....  christ killers impute life to the scriptures...............orthodox know' 'it's the spirit that gives life'..........john chap.6.............../......to believe book is god?......not true.     god is not book and book is not god. ...............think ,...bible canonized year 393.....so .no one individual person had what we have today till all the loose paperwork was assembled.......even then they had to remove the junk- .......................*# remember;old testament plus bible = holy scripture......new testament = consecrated cup of the lord's blood.........so if you call book word jn1;1 ,you void eucharist in your wittiness

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,031
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Uhhh, what?  ???
Quote from: Mor Ephrem
Why can't you just take your spiritual edification like a man? 

Offline adampjr

  • Karamazov
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 89
  • Penguin
Do you mean like Sola Scriptura protestants does today?

Yes. Believe in bible but do not believe in the Church

No. That would have been impossible, since at the time they were largely inseparable.
But, despite many things Protestants might not like about the Church Fathers, a staunch devotion to the authority of Scriptures is there. But, of course, not outside of the context (the Church).

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Toumarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,201
  • Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)
#.........do you know what antiFaith is..what the false belief is.......john chap.5 ..christ tells the christ killers what they think!.....  christ killers impute life to the scriptures...............orthodox know' 'it's the spirit that gives life'..........john chap.6.............../......to believe book is god?......not true.     god is not book and book is not god. ...............think ,...bible canonized year 393.....so .no one individual person had what we have today till all the loose paperwork was assembled.......even then they had to remove the junk- .......................*# remember;old testament plus bible = holy scripture......new testament = consecrated cup of the lord's blood.........so if you call book word jn1;1 ,you void eucharist in your wittiness

On the right side of your keyboard, there is an "Enter" button. In other keyboards, it may be called "Return".  Use it rather than "............"
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.