OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 01, 2014, 02:28:58 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Does Sola Scriptura actually exist?  (Read 4867 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,348



« Reply #90 on: April 29, 2013, 09:07:46 AM »

What was it again that Christ said the gates of Hades wouldn't overwhelm?

The Church built on St. Thaddaeus ... or was it the Church built on St. Peter?

(I don't know Scripture very well either.  Wink)

Church at Antioch ftw!!!  Wink
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,128



« Reply #91 on: April 30, 2013, 08:47:01 AM »

What was it again that Christ said the gates of Hades wouldn't overwhelm?

The Church built on St. Thaddaeus ... or was it the Church built on St. Peter?

(I don't know Scripture very well either.  Wink)

Church at Antioch ftw!!!  Wink

I agree. (Which may go without saying given the "Melkite" in my profile. But I wanted to say it anyhow. Smiley)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,836


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #92 on: April 30, 2013, 05:20:28 PM »

Getting back to the main point, y'all should read a 360-page book "The Shape of Sola Scriptura" (Keith A. Mathison, Canon Press, Moscow, Idaho, 2001). It is most enlightening about the evolution of Protestant thought and belief on this matter.
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
Daedelus1138
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 315


« Reply #93 on: May 01, 2013, 11:45:24 PM »

...but the scriptures are plain and easy to understand the things pertaining to salvation, which is the whole point.   

Okey-doke. But if the Scriptures are plain and easy to understand, why so many different understandings?

    Is interpretive pluralism a bad thing in itself?   
Logged
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #94 on: May 01, 2013, 11:52:56 PM »

...but the scriptures are plain and easy to understand the things pertaining to salvation, which is the whole point.   

Okey-doke. But if the Scriptures are plain and easy to understand, why so many different understandings?

    Is interpretive pluralism a bad thing in itself?   

Quote from: 2 Timothy 4:3
  The time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
Logged
Daedelus1138
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 315


« Reply #95 on: May 02, 2013, 12:24:51 AM »

  This thread has convinced me that many Eastern Orthodox don't appreciate the Protestant approach.   Protestants never pretend that they have an inerrant guide to the Scriptures (merely a sufficient guide), but Orthodox do say they have an inerrant guide in the church hierarchy.  And yet, we know from looking at history that bishops can be wrong, councils can be wrong.... and dare i say, popes can be wrong too.  How is a layman to evaluate any of these issues, except appealing to something that is objective like the Holy Scriptures, specificly the New Testament canon (which we all agree upon).  

  Of course tradition has a place.  One shouldn't casually dismiss tradition, and churches that do so are foolish, but at the same time blind, unreasoning adherence to tradition is hardly a guide to truth.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2013, 12:27:33 AM by Daedelus1138 » Logged
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #96 on: May 02, 2013, 12:40:24 AM »

  This thread has convinced me that many Eastern Orthodox don't appreciate the Protestant approach.


We don't, obviously.

Quote from: Daedelus1138 link=topic=50880.msg918351#msg918351 date=1367468691
Protestants never pretend that they have an inerrant guide to the Scriptures (merely a sufficient guide), but Orthodox do say they have an inerrant guide in the church hierarchy.  And yet, we know from looking at history that bishops can be wrong, councils can be wrong.... and dare i say, popes can be wrong too.

People are not inerrant. Not all bishops "rightly divide the word of truth". We pray that they do so. But the Church remains the "pillar and foundation of truth" and the "gates of hell shall not prevail against it", because it is guided by the infallible Spirit of God. 

How is a layman to evaluate any of these issues, except appealing to something that is objective like the Holy Scriptures, specificly the New Testament canon (which we all agree upon).

A layman is part of the Church. He reads and understands Scripture through the eyes of the Church (i.e. with Orthodox phronema/understanding), not against it. Now, a free-thinker is not a layman (= part of the people of God), but has his own point of view. An ecclesiastical mindset cannot be individualistic.     
« Last Edit: May 02, 2013, 01:11:04 AM by Romaios » Logged
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,371


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #97 on: May 02, 2013, 12:56:47 AM »

Of course we are too simplistic about it.

It's because we are too lazy with our apologetics. "Oh Bible only? WHY YOU NO TRADITION?"
The best critique of sola scriptura I have seen recently is actually by a Protestant theologian, Dr. James Sawyer;[1] some of the RC and EO critiques *can* be less insightful -especially to the extent that they neglect primary sources of those they deem to critique (not always, but often, the case), and there are subtleties about how it is understood in different Protestant trajectories that are sometimes missed by Orthodox interpreters (cf. the Regulative Principle in Reformed theology as vs. the Normative Principle in Lutheranism with regard to worship, the distinction in Protestant apologetics between sola scriptura vs. SOLO scriptura / scripture over tradtion vs. fundamentalist/scripture without tradition. It is also often not sufficiently appreciated outside or inside Protestantism the extent to which Protestantism offers us not so much sola scriptura (singular) as sola scripturas (plural); this is brought out by the brilliant late Evangelical writer Donald Bloesh (cf..Bloesch, Holy Scripture).
________
[1] http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37670.0.html
« Last Edit: May 02, 2013, 01:28:26 AM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,371


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #98 on: May 02, 2013, 01:17:44 AM »

...Orthodox do say they have an inerrant guide in the church hierarchy.
This is incorrect; we Orthodox certainly do not believe in an inerrant hierarchy.

Even in Roman Catholic historiography one does not find papal infallibility dogmatically declared until 1870; prior to that date we, rather, have opposition to the notion of papal infallibility by earlier popes. It is not even a topic of discussion (or implied by any historical praxis) in the whole of the first millennium, as Roman Catholic Cardinal Yves Congar candidly admitted (Congar having been a specialist in this area) -not even the "germ" of what developed into the idea(!) existed before the Middle Ages according to Congar.

Rejection of an infallible hierarch, then, is actually a point of agreement between Protestants and Eastern Orthodox contra Roman Catholics.

« Last Edit: May 02, 2013, 01:45:58 AM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
Ashman618
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukranian catholic
Jurisdiction: Philadelphia
Posts: 503



« Reply #99 on: May 02, 2013, 01:33:27 AM »

 This thread has convinced me that many Eastern Orthodox don't appreciate the Protestant approach.   Protestants never pretend that they have an inerrant guide to the Scriptures (merely a sufficient guide), but Orthodox do say they have an inerrant guide in the church hierarchy.  And yet, we know from looking at history that bishops can be wrong, councils can be wrong.... and dare i say, popes can be wrong too.  How is a layman to evaluate any of these issues, except appealing to something that is objective like the Holy Scriptures, specificly the New Testament canon (which we all agree upon).  

  Of course tradition has a place.  One shouldn't casually dismiss tradition, and churches that do so are foolish, but at the same time blind, unreasoning adherence to tradition is hardly a guide to truth.

This is comming from a non-orthodox perspective, and I realize your words weren't directly aimed at the Orthodox Church but for what it's worth....

I have never heard any Orthodox person or teaching that every remotely promotes blind adherence.

Quite the opposite actually I get the impression that any Orthodox person should have, to the honest best of there ability, a firm understanding of why it is they do what they do.
Logged
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,320


Ceci n'est pas un Poirot


« Reply #100 on: May 02, 2013, 02:52:45 AM »

Orthodox do say they have an inerrant guide in the church hierarchy.

"Moreover, neither Patriarchs nor Councils could then have introduced novelties amongst us, because the protector of religion is the very body of the Church, even the people themselves"
-Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848.
Logged

"Eheu fugaces, Postume, Postume,
labuntur anni"
-Horace, Odes II:14
Daedelus1138
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 315


« Reply #101 on: May 02, 2013, 06:57:51 AM »

How is a layman to evaluate any of these issues, except appealing to something that is objective like the Holy Scriptures, specificly the New Testament canon (which we all agree upon).

  Do Christians need to agree on every point regarding the religious and spiritual life to be said to have the same faith?

  Now the discussion is moving somewhere, now that we have moved past the cheap stereotypes of what "Protestants" believe.  I think most Protestants groups are to some degree or another, confessional, regardless of what the Roman Catholic polemic against Protestantism states about Sola Sciptura.  
« Last Edit: May 02, 2013, 07:04:25 AM by Daedelus1138 » Logged
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #102 on: May 02, 2013, 07:10:57 AM »

Quote from: St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, I, 10
The Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world. But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shines everywhere, and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth. Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master); nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition. For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it.
Logged
Daedelus1138
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 315


« Reply #103 on: May 02, 2013, 07:48:57 AM »

   Isn't it possible that Iranaeus was being overly romantic and overstating the agreement of the early church?  

« Last Edit: May 02, 2013, 07:51:57 AM by Daedelus1138 » Logged
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #104 on: May 02, 2013, 08:16:08 AM »

  Isn't it possible that Iranaeus was being overly romantic and overstating the agreement of the early church?  



Why should we assume that? I fully understand why an Anglican might think that given that within the same church there are so many serious disagreements in areas that cannot be described in any other way than as fundamentals of the faith, but when I look at what St. Irenaeus writes he could be describing Orthodoxy today. Clearly he is excluding the heretics (and I note that this is what Anglicanism is unwilling to do, it seems) from the Church but this is not because he is being overly romantic but because their adoption of heresy has excluded them from the Church, which was not in his time, nor is it now, nor has it ever been some nebulous entity consisting of all 'believers' no matter how little they agree. When Protestants (and in this instant this most certainly includes Anglicans) speak of the Church they mean something very different to what the Fathers did and to what the Orthodox still do.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,371


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #105 on: May 02, 2013, 08:23:32 AM »

  Isn't it possible that Iranaeus was being overly romantic and overstating the agreement of the early church?  


“There was for example Hegesippus (a name which is evidently a Greek disguise for Joseph), who flourished in the middle of the second century; he was a convert from Palestinian Judaism, and one of the first Christians to conceive the idea that the true faith could be identified by ascertaining the consensus of belief in all the apostolic churches. In pursuit of this quest, he traveled from Palestine to Rome, questioning the churches which he visited on the way about the beliefs that they held, and recorded his findings in five books of Memoirs. His conclusion was that ‘in each [Episcopal] succession and in each city the faith is just as the law and the prophets and the Lord proclaim it’ [Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., IV, 23.2]. His Memoirs, long since, unfortunately, lost, contained many interesting items of ecclesiastical tradition from Jerusalem and the other churches with which he became acquainted; he was, in fact, one of the first Christian writers of the post-apostolic age who tried to support his theological belief on the basis of history” (F. F. Bruce, The Spreading Flame (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), p. 273).
Logged

Silly Stars
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,371


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #106 on: May 02, 2013, 08:39:59 AM »

I think most Protestants groups are to some degree or another, confessional, regardless of what the Roman Catholic polemic against Protestantism states about Sola Sciptura.  

That is more so of the mainline churches, which are in decline; it is not generally true of fundamentalism, prosperity groups, neo-pentecostal groups like the UPCI which proclaims the old heresy of Sabellianism; one also is reminded of the "no creeds but Christ" stance of the Campellites and Restorationist Heritage, e.g. the Christian Churches, Disciples of Christ, the Church of Christ, the Independent Christian Churches and so on. It is also easy when reading confessional accounts of sola scriptura to falsely suppose one is encountering "the" version of sola scriptura, which does not exist in a statistically meaningful way within the broad swath of what has recently been identified as over 40,000 Protestant denominations. The early Reformers never foresaw such a situation; they genuinely believed making the Bible the final authority would bring theological unity to Christendom. Instead it brought on the political front wars of religion everywhere until brought in check in large part due to secular reactions, and theologically and epistemologically a crisis of authority, fragmentation, and pluralization that rather than showing signs of waning appears to be increasing exponentially with no end in sight, with ever-new novelties appearing like open view theism, the explicitly anti-doctrinal emphasis within the emerging church movements, not to mention the dissolution of traditional views causing multiple splits via theological liberalism and its conservative opponents and so on. There is also great difficulty and lack of consensus providing a firm line between orthodoxy (small "o") and heresy when heresy becomes, rather than private opinion in isolation from the mind of the Church (the Greek word can be translated as "parties") something at odds with some person or group's individual reading of the Bible, therefore Jehovah's Witnesses claim all the rest of Christendom is in heresy and they are simply proclaiming the plain teaching of the Bible. This paragraph is really only a tiny snapshot of a reality that is increasingly amorphic and chaotic.

To answer the OP in brief, not just sola scriptura, but solo scriptura certainly "exists" (which explains why attention to rebuttal is apparent among confessional Protestants who reject it) and in no small hidden corner. That it is not the only view of sola scriptura does not negate  not only its presence but its prevalence, and critiques addressed to this variety are for this reason still apropos. I do not pay attention to those who claim sola scriptura is this and not that in denial of the extreme pluralism we find in Protestantism "on the ground"; there is nothing in Protestantism to really establish "an official view" of sola scriptura any more than anything else.

Sola scriptura (singular) s no less a myth than Protestant theology (singular); we have, rather Sola scripturaS (plural) and Protestant theologies (plural); their name and appearance is legion for they are many.

! Cor 1:10 "I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought." Orthodoxy and Catholicism are the only Christian trajectories I see that can even show lip service to the theoretical possibility of a church united not only in something ambiguous like "love," but in mind and thought. For RC that is papal authority, but it is paradoxically disunited(!) in that there is nothing like that in the entire first millennium of Christianity. For Orthodoxy that is the phronema and a praxis that is remarkably uniform wherever it is found throughout the world despite different languages, cultures, and centuries it thrives in.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2013, 09:11:46 AM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,854



« Reply #107 on: May 02, 2013, 09:13:34 AM »

  Isn't it possible that Iranaeus was being overly romantic and overstating the agreement of the early church?  
Based on history, no.

Irenaeus describes in some detail disagreement, but the dissenters wanted no part of the early Church (thinking that they were it) and the early Church had no part of them.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Daedelus1138
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 315


« Reply #108 on: May 02, 2013, 09:33:46 AM »

It is also easy when reading confessional accounts of sola scriptura to falsely suppose one is encountering "the" version of sola scriptura, which does not exist in a statistically meaningful way within the broad swath of what has recently been identified as over 40,000 Protestant denominations.  

 Roman Catholics talk about the 40,000 + Protestant denominations as justification for their church's authoritarianism and dogmatism... it's disappointing to hear Orthodox echo this.  Why can't I point to the multiple overlapping "jurisdictions" of Orthodoxy in the US?  Face it, you all are Protestantized here.   Maybe the issue is religious pluralism. Do you have issues with each man or woman following their conscience?

Quote
 The early Reformers never foresaw such a situation; they genuinely believed making the Bible the final authority would bring theological unity to Christendom.  

    I'm not sure they were under those delusions.  Can you cite evidence for this from primary sources?  

Quote
 Instead it brought on the political front wars of religion everywhere until brought in check in large part due to secular reactions, and theologically and epistemologically a crisis of authority,

  Again, do you have a problem with freedom of conscience? All these things were greatly encouraged by the overall Reformational trends that western society undertook. I have no problem with constructive critiques of the West from the East.  It's sad and unfortunate so much blood was shed but then again this has been happening since Cain killed Abel.  Perhaps its better not to blame people who had a sincere desire that the laity be able to read and understand the Bible, receive the Sacrament in both kinds and be freed from the spiritual manipulations of the Roman Magisterium and its sale of indulgences?

  I object to the underlying tone that somehow justifies the contempt of the West which is what I see many Orthodox proponents encouraging.  This is ugly and bigoted.

« Last Edit: May 02, 2013, 09:38:26 AM by Daedelus1138 » Logged
LBK
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,877


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #109 on: May 02, 2013, 09:41:42 AM »

Roman Catholics talk about the 40,000 + Protestant denominations as justification for their church's authoritarianism and dogmatism... it's disappointing to hear Orthodox echo this.  Why can't I point to the multiple overlapping "jurisdictions" of Orthodoxy in the US?  Face it, you all are Protestantized here.   Maybe the issue is religious pluralism. Do you have issues with each man or woman following their conscience?

Overlapping jurisdictions is an administrative matter, not a doctrinal matter. The Menaion, Triodion, Pentecostarion, Divine Liturgy, and canonical iconography in each of them are all teaching and proclaiming the same things and the same faith, all over the world.

Orthodoxy indeed has a unity of faith, unlike the sad and unholy mess that is present-day Anglicanism.
Logged
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,371


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #110 on: May 02, 2013, 09:54:51 AM »

Roman Catholics talk about the 40,000 + Protestant denominations as justification for their church's authoritarianism and dogmatism... it's disappointing to hear Orthodox echo this.  Why can't I point to the multiple overlapping "jurisdictions" of Orthodoxy in the US?  
Because all Orthodox jurisdictions proclaim the same Orthodox faith.

While the question of what 40,000 denominations "justifies" might be open, the fact and problem of 40,000 denominations remains a fact. There is enormous disagreement upon such basic matters as what God is like, what is salvation and how is it appropriated, can it be lost and is it even important how one lives at all, the proper form, candidate, and nature and or necessity or not of Christian baptism, the proper balance between legalism and license (e.g. the so-called "lordship salvation" debate), whether one can be "saved" without belief in things like the Holy Trinity, and on and on from there.  The 40,000 denominations issue is not the invention of apologists for the ancient churches, but demographic realities as described by contemporary sociologists. More disappointing than seeing what you claim is abuse of such statistics by some Roman Catholic apologist is seeing it not squarely faced as a problem by some (certainly not all) Protestant apologists.

Quote
I'm not sure they were under those delusions.  Can you cite evidence for this from primary sources?
within a couple of hundred years we can count the major trajectories of Protestantism on our fingers; now there are over 40,000 denominations. I know of no reason to suppose this was anticipated by the early Reformers; respectfully, the very suggestion seems absurd to me.

I have no problem with constructive critiques of the West from the East.  What I have is the underlying tone that somehow this justifies the wholesale abandonment of Western culture and its numerous benefits to the world, which is what I see many Orthodox proponents encouraging.  This is ugly and bigoted.
That Orthodoxy entails wholesale rejection of Western culture is, along with your notion above that Orthodoxy affirms an "inerrant hierarchy" a misconception. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Rite_Orthodoxy  Perhaps as you advocate critics of sola scriptura are better off taking time and effort to aquaint themselves with what they presume to critique you might consider learning more about Orthodoxy before offering your own critiques.

Again, do you have a problem with freedom of conscience?
It is a cornerstone of our faith. Our unity is not "imposed" from above or based on as you supposed an inerrant hierarchy. We do not believe in forcing anyone to believe anything in any way, yet we do exhibit unity in our beliefs of our own free will, that is why most of us are Orthodox. As Frederica Mathewes-Green explains:

"From a Roman Catholic perspective, unity is created by the institution of the church. Within that unity there can be diversity; not everyone agrees with official teaching, some very loudly. What holds things together is membership. This kind of unity makes immediate sense to Americans: Whatever their disagreements, everyone salutes the flag, and all Catholics salute, if not technically obey, Rome’s magisterium. When Roman Catholics look at Orthodoxy, they don’t see a centralized, global institution. Instead, the church appears to be a jumble of national and ethnic bodies (a situation even more confused in the U.S. as a result of immigration). To Catholics, the Orthodox Church looks like chaos. But from an Orthodox perspective, unity is created by believing the same things. It’s like the unity among vegetarians or Red Sox fans. You don’t need a big bureaucracy to keep them faithful. Across wildly diverse cultures, Orthodox Christians show remarkable unity in their faith. (Of course there are plenty of power struggles and plain old sin, but the essential faith isn’t challenged.) What’s the source of this common faith? The consensus of the early church, which the Orthodox stubbornly keep following. That consensus was forged with many a bang and dent, but for the past millennium major questions of faith and morals have been pretty much at rest in the Eastern hemisphere. This has not been the case in the West. An expanded role for the pope was followed by other theological developments, even regarding how salvation is achieved. In the American church, there is widespread upheaval. From the Orthodox perspective, the Catholic Church looks like chaos. This is hard for Catholics to understand; for them, the institution of the church is the main thing. If the church would enforce its teachings, some adherents say, there would be unity. The Orthodox respond: But faith must be organic. If you have to force people to it, you’ve already lost the battle; that wouldn’t be unity at all. So we’ve got two different definitions of "unity." Is "unity" membership in a common institution or a bond of shared belief? The Orthodox take their cue from Christ’s prayer to his Father, "that they all may be one, even as we are one." What kind of unity do the Father and the Son have? They are not held together by an outside force; they are one in essence and have a common mind. If we are "partakers of the divine nature," as St. Peter said, then, the Orthodox believe, we’ll participate in that mind. That’s what makes us the "body of Christ," the church.Thus the Orthodox hesitate at a phrase like the pope’s "multiform fullness." Catholic diversity makes it easy for Catholics to embrace us: When they look at us, they see the early church. We fit right in. But when the Orthodox look at Catholics, we see an extra thousand years of theological development, plus rebellion in the pews. What kind of unity do Catholics have, at present, that we could enter? There are plenty of good reasons for the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches to talk. Discussion clears away misunderstanding, and common causes can benefit from the energies of both churches. But we can’t be fully united until we agree on what "unity" means." http://www.antiochian.org/node/17748

« Last Edit: May 02, 2013, 10:27:09 AM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #111 on: May 02, 2013, 09:57:14 AM »

Happy, I saw a few things in your early posts that I thought could be engaged with, but they seem to have gone unnoticed.

I can only speak as a Lutheran but Sola Scriptura means that the final authority is the Scriptures. That the only thing we know as divinely inspired are the Holy Scriptures and what is contained in them has everything we need for eternal salvation. The Apostle John, towards the conclusion of his Gospel states: "But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." John never mentioned the Church in his Gospel. Now, of course before that he states:  "Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book" which leads to a good argument that their is more fullness in certain churches.

Also, being a Lutheran we accept the Dogmas of the 7 ecumenical councils. We recite the Apostles Creed, Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed. We have the Book of Concord which is the Lutheran tradition. We baptize infants even though it isn't specifically talked about in the Scriptures.

Yes he did, quite a bit. The Vine talk is a good place to start.

Quote
How can you be sure what is and is and is not Scripture?

The early church didn't. Eusebius wrote their were 18 "uncontested books" which were the 4 Gospels and Paul's letters. Over time the church, of which you must give them credit canonized 27 books. Again, as John stated, just his Gospel has the information needed to have life in Christs name.

Try harder.

Quote
I have to make a point I made in the other thread, Protestants did not start the seperations of the church, that was you guys with your excommunications of each other making it impossible to know who was right, if anyone. If the church was united in the reformation era as it was when the scriptures were canonized I doubt we would be having this discussion.

Can you provide an explanation or evidence that the Great Schism made the Reformation possible?
Logged
rachel
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Christian
Posts: 310



« Reply #112 on: May 02, 2013, 03:43:08 PM »

If you look for a "pillar and foundation" of it you will look to the Church.

Indeed! Now we're getting somewhere.

well, I trust you have the discernment to distinguish between that which supports the truth and that which IS the truth.

Quote
If I am unique in holding a doctrine,  it merits suspicion.

So a doctrine should have antiquity? I.e it must be believed by Christians everywhere at any time - it shouldn't be a later invention?

my statement above does not merit any of these conclusions. The orthodox doctrines are rooted in scripture. If they'd been delivered yesterday, they'd be no less sound.

Quote
Nowhere can one find any justification whatsoever for the presumption that ,  at some nebulous point in history, the church acquired infallibility.

What was it again that Christ said the gates of Hades wouldn't overwhelm?
so Christ admonished the Church without cause? Two things: 1] She is not perfected 2] She will not be overwhelmed. Both scriptural, both true.
Logged

Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria,   Sola Scriptura
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,320


Ceci n'est pas un Poirot


« Reply #113 on: May 02, 2013, 05:13:40 PM »

Roman Catholics talk about the 40,000 + Protestant denominations as justification for their church's authoritarianism and dogmatism... it's disappointing to hear Orthodox echo this.  Why can't I point to the multiple overlapping "jurisdictions" of Orthodoxy in the US?  Face it, you all are Protestantized here.   Maybe the issue is religious pluralism. Do you have issues with each man or woman following their conscience?

Are all protestant denominations in communion with eachother and hold the same faith?
Logged

"Eheu fugaces, Postume, Postume,
labuntur anni"
-Horace, Odes II:14
Happy Lutheran
Servant of Christ
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Lutheran
Posts: 256



« Reply #114 on: May 02, 2013, 07:40:48 PM »


Yes he did, quite a bit. The Vine talk is a good place to start.

You are saying the vine parable has only to do with the Orthodox Church? "Every branch of mine" is up to Christ. If you want to twist the parables as a way to says Protestants are out I guess we're not going to have much of a fruitful discussion. John never mentioned the ekklesia, which is what I was discussing.

Quote
Can you provide an explanation or evidence that the Great Schism made the Reformation possible?

Obviously no evidence. It's reasonable to assume that without the Schism, Rome wouldn't have got so drunk on power, there would not have been sales of Indulgences, Inquisitions, and consciences bound that if you don't accept the Pope and all his teachings you were condemned to hell. Considering the history of what they were doing, it's reasonable learned Christian men (Who can doubt Tyndale, Luther, Hus, Melanchthon were) would stand up against this and the people would follow them. 
Logged

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
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,371


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #115 on: May 02, 2013, 11:59:15 PM »

Getting back to the main point, y'all should read a 360-page book "The Shape of Sola Scriptura" (Keith A. Mathison, Canon Press, Moscow, Idaho, 2001). It is most enlightening about the evolution of Protestant thought and belief on this matter.
There is a pretty good discussion of that book here (part 1); the other parts are also worth reading.
http://orthodoxbridge.com/contra-sola-scriptura-1-of-4/
http://orthodoxbridge.com/contra-sola-scriptura-part-2-of-4/
http://orthodoxbridge.com/contra-sola-scriptura-part-3-of-4/
http://orthodoxbridge.com/contra-sola-scriptura-part-4-of-4/
Logged

Silly Stars
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #116 on: May 05, 2013, 01:42:52 PM »


Yes he did, quite a bit. The Vine talk is a good place to start.

You are saying the vine parable has only to do with the Orthodox Church? "Every branch of mine" is up to Christ. If you want to twist the parables as a way to says Protestants are out I guess we're not going to have much of a fruitful discussion. John never mentioned the ekklesia, which is what I was discussing.

Yes, that is exactly what I said. I very explicitly indicated that I think the vine parable is only about the Orthodox. I could even quote myself to prove that I said that. More importantly, that was exactly my point.

Quote
Quote
Can you provide an explanation or evidence that the Great Schism made the Reformation possible?

Obviously no evidence. It's reasonable to assume that without the Schism, Rome wouldn't have got so drunk on power, there would not have been sales of Indulgences, Inquisitions, and consciences bound that if you don't accept the Pope and all his teachings you were condemned to hell. Considering the history of what they were doing, it's reasonable learned Christian men (Who can doubt Tyndale, Luther, Hus, Melanchthon were) would stand up against this and the people would follow them. 

OK, so you don't know what you are talking about.

Orthodox patriarchates have gotten drunk on power.

Indulgences have been sold in the Orthodox Church.

Heretics have been broadly persecuted in the Orthodox Church.

Moreover, there were sweeping reform movements in the Byzantine East (Bogomils, Paulicians). Their leaders were persecuted and the movements were eventually suppressed, since, unlike the Protestants, they had no political backing, except from the Muslims.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,331


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #117 on: May 06, 2013, 01:19:11 AM »

But you said that if the Church were important to John, he would have said so. That's your argument, not John's.

That is not at all what I said, I said: If the church was a requirement, he would have mentioned it. I never implied he didn't think it was important.
Don't you think you're quibbling over picayune details? If the Church is not a requirement for salvation, then it's not important. Additionally, I still don't see that you've done anything more yet to address the fact that you're resorting to an argument from silence.
Logged
Happy Lutheran
Servant of Christ
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Lutheran
Posts: 256



« Reply #118 on: May 06, 2013, 06:51:44 AM »


Yes, that is exactly what I said. I very explicitly indicated that I think the vine parable is only about the Orthodox.

What Rubbish!!

You ARE saying the Gospel of John and the teaching of the vine have more to do with you, rather than say someone like Mary Sandvick and millions like her. Mary, for 70 years has run a Christian based homeless center in Minneapolis, which specifically caters to battered women. She feeds; cloths, gives support, and most importantly preach the word of God at her center.

Also, do you think John’s story of the vine wouldn’t apply to the homeless woman that gained faith through the homeless shelter and even with her situation she has a new peace of conscience from having trust in Christ as her savior? That it is exclusively for the Orthodox? Why were you not helping her and preaching the Gospel?

I believe (I can’t believe I have to say I believe here as someone else would not believe this)Christ’s words are for all that hear them and as far as I know the Eastern Orthodox, Assyrian church, Roman Catholics, Ethiopians, Coptic, and all other Orthodox and other Christians can’t produce one single quote outside of scripture.  “My sheep hear my voice” “you will know them by their fruits” “blessed are the poor” “anyone not against us is for us”

You think associations are more important than merits (Faith, Love, Works) for salvation.



Quote
Orthodox patriarchates have gotten drunk on power.

Indulgences have been sold in the Orthodox Church.

Heretics have been broadly persecuted in the Orthodox Church.


I don’t know what everyone the Orthodox Church persecuted believed, but would fully find it reasonable if you were doing such things people would rightfully stand up against them. 

You can have the last word, I'm bored with every thread on this board turning into some nonsense about you believe in a different Jesus or that does not apply to you.
Logged

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
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 925


« Reply #119 on: May 06, 2013, 07:17:39 AM »

I think the main problem is that most Protestants deny the Church is the body of Christ,and this body is one  and is not separated.

How can a man be saved outside Christ/ the body of Christ?
« Last Edit: May 06, 2013, 07:23:47 AM by walter1234 » Logged
rachel
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Christian
Posts: 310



« Reply #120 on: May 06, 2013, 08:01:05 AM »

I think the main problem is that most Protestants deny the Church is the body of Christ,and this body is one  and is not separated.

the Church is comprised of regenerate people. The Church is the Bride of Christ

Quote
How can a man be saved outside Christ/ the body of Christ?
ask the Ethiopian eunuch
Logged

Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria,   Sola Scriptura
LBK
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,877


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #121 on: May 06, 2013, 08:03:46 AM »

... and the Ethiopian eunuch was promptly baptized after his encounter with Apostle Philip, and therefore became a member of the Church.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2013, 08:04:22 AM by LBK » Logged
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 925


« Reply #122 on: May 06, 2013, 08:35:10 AM »

.....and most Protestants claim that the Church is the gathering of believers simply due to Matthew 18:19-20.

However, when I read Matthew 18:19-20 again,again and again. Jesus said , 'where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.'  Jesus never said that where two or three are gathered together in His name, they are the Church.

Protestants are revising the Scriptures.And I cannot find other verses to support that the Church is the assembly of the believers
« Last Edit: May 06, 2013, 09:02:24 AM by walter1234 » Logged
Daedelus1138
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 315


« Reply #123 on: May 06, 2013, 08:58:44 AM »

Don't you think you're quibbling over picayune details? If the Church is not a requirement for salvation, then it's not important. Additionally, I still don't see that you've done anything more yet to address the fact that you're resorting to an argument from silence.

  Anybody that has been baptized into Christ, following the ancient Trinitarian formula with following the intention that the Church has always had, is a member of the Church- this is the understanding of Cyprian and Augustine. 
Logged
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,320


Ceci n'est pas un Poirot


« Reply #124 on: May 06, 2013, 09:03:24 AM »

Don't you think you're quibbling over picayune details? If the Church is not a requirement for salvation, then it's not important. Additionally, I still don't see that you've done anything more yet to address the fact that you're resorting to an argument from silence.

  Anybody that has been baptized into Christ, following the ancient Trinitarian formula with following the intention that the Church has always had, is a member of the Church- this is the understanding of Cyprian and Augustine. 

St. Cyprian certainly did not consider the Novatians to be part of the Church.

"Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ (St. Cyprian, On the Unity of the Catholic Church, 6)"

and

"Even if such men [Novatians] were slain in confession of the Name, that stain is not even washed away by blood: the inexpiable and grave fault of discord is not even purged by suffering. He cannot be a martyr who is not in the Church; he cannot attain unto the kingdom who forsakes that which shall reign there. (idem, 14)"
« Last Edit: May 06, 2013, 09:07:25 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Eheu fugaces, Postume, Postume,
labuntur anni"
-Horace, Odes II:14
Ashman618
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukranian catholic
Jurisdiction: Philadelphia
Posts: 503



« Reply #125 on: May 06, 2013, 11:15:13 AM »

Don't you think you're quibbling over picayune details? If the Church is not a requirement for salvation, then it's not important. Additionally, I still don't see that you've done anything more yet to address the fact that you're resorting to an argument from silence.

  Anybody that has been baptized into Christ, following the ancient Trinitarian formula with following the intention that the Church has always had, is a member of the Church- this is the understanding of Cyprian and Augustine. 

St. Cyprian certainly did not consider the Novatians to be part of the Church.

"Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ (St. Cyprian, On the Unity of the Catholic Church, 6)"

and

"Even if such men [Novatians] were slain in confession of the Name, that stain is not even washed away by blood: the inexpiable and grave fault of discord is not even purged by suffering. He cannot be a martyr who is not in the Church; he cannot attain unto the kingdom who forsakes that which shall reign there. (idem, 14)"

That's rather blunt stuff Shocked
Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,348



« Reply #126 on: May 06, 2013, 11:18:23 AM »

St. Cyprian was pretty hardcore.  I would not have wanted to cross him.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Daedelus1138
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 315


« Reply #127 on: May 06, 2013, 12:43:14 PM »

"Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ (St. Cyprian, On the Unity of the Catholic Church, 6)"

  This is no different than the backwoods fundamentalist that searches the Scriptures for that "gotcha" verse to prove a point.  I'm not impressed with this kind of theological reasoning.  There is a difference between pulling a verse out of thin air and trying to understand what the overall mindset of the Fathers is.
 
  In fact, I'm pretty much unimpressed with the Eastern Orthodox arguments on this forum, period.   
« Last Edit: May 06, 2013, 12:45:45 PM by Daedelus1138 » Logged
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,320


Ceci n'est pas un Poirot


« Reply #128 on: May 06, 2013, 12:48:52 PM »

"Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ (St. Cyprian, On the Unity of the Catholic Church, 6)"

  This is no different than the backwoods fundamentalist that searches the Scriptures for that "gotcha" verse to prove a point.  I'm not impressed with this kind of theological reasoning.  There is a difference between pulling a verse out of thin air and trying to understand what the overall mindset of the Fathers is.
 
  In fact, I'm pretty much unimpressed with the Eastern Orthodox arguments on this forum, period.   

It's good to know that the Episcopalians have acquired the mind of the Fathers....

Come on, I gave you two quotes and I could give you a dozen more if you want them. Now give me one quote of St. Cyprian that supports your position or retract your statement altogether.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2013, 12:49:51 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Eheu fugaces, Postume, Postume,
labuntur anni"
-Horace, Odes II:14
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #129 on: May 06, 2013, 01:17:06 PM »


Yes, that is exactly what I said. I very explicitly indicated that I think the vine parable is only about the Orthodox.

What Rubbish!!

You ARE saying the Gospel of John and the teaching of the vine have more to do with you, rather than say someone like Mary Sandvick and millions like her. Mary, for 70 years has run a Christian based homeless center in Minneapolis, which specifically caters to battered women. She feeds; cloths, gives support, and most importantly preach the word of God at her center.

Also, do you think John’s story of the vine wouldn’t apply to the homeless woman that gained faith through the homeless shelter and even with her situation she has a new peace of conscience from having trust in Christ as her savior? That it is exclusively for the Orthodox? Why were you not helping her and preaching the Gospel?

I believe (I can’t believe I have to say I believe here as someone else would not believe this)Christ’s words are for all that hear them and as far as I know the Eastern Orthodox, Assyrian church, Roman Catholics, Ethiopians, Coptic, and all other Orthodox and other Christians can’t produce one single quote outside of scripture.  “My sheep hear my voice” “you will know them by their fruits” “blessed are the poor” “anyone not against us is for us”

You think associations are more important than merits (Faith, Love, Works) for salvation.

Oh dear, let me help you here. First, let's take a look at my full quote:

John never mentioned the Church in his Gospel.

Yes he did, quite a bit. The Vine talk is a good place to start.

You are saying the vine parable has only to do with the Orthodox Church? "Every branch of mine" is up to Christ. If you want to twist the parables as a way to says Protestants are out I guess we're not going to have much of a fruitful discussion. John never mentioned the ekklesia, which is what I was discussing.

Yes, that is exactly what I said. I very explicitly indicated that I think the vine parable is only about the Orthodox. I could even quote myself to prove that I said that. More importantly, that was exactly my point.

You're looking at an example of the rhetorical device of irony. Here's an explanation of it: http://rhetoric.byu.edu/figures/i/irony.htm

I was hoping that the patently ironic statement would lead you to reread my earlier post and notice what I did and did not say. I'll give you a line-by-line translation:

"Yes, that is exactly what I said."
trans.: I absolutely said no such thing.

"I very explicitly indicated that I think the vine parable is only about the Orthodox."
trans.: stop acting hysterical.

"I could even quote myself to prove that I said that."
trans.: If you look over my statement, you will see that you cannot find any evidence that I advocated such a position.

"More importantly, that was exactly my point."
trans.: You have completely missed my point.

Another thing that will make a big difference: when reading, never assume that the text means anything it doesn't actually say. Start with the explicit meaning of the text, and then you can start trying to work out any implicit meanings. This method is rather simplistic, but in general it works fine.

Hopefully I haven't irritated you too much, which isn't my intent.

Does this help? And are you OK with taking a look at the Vine parable and telling me what you think of my statement that Christ was talking about the Church?
Logged
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,320


Ceci n'est pas un Poirot


« Reply #130 on: May 06, 2013, 01:27:59 PM »

Come on, I gave you two quotes and I could give you a dozen more if you want them.

To prove my bold assertion:

Quote from: St. Cyprian of Carthage
1. "Marcianus, who abides at Aries, has associated himself with Novatian, and has departed from the unity of the Catholic Church (St. Cyprian, Epistle 66)"

2. "When we were together in council, dearest brethren, we read your letter which you wrote to us concerning those who seem to be baptized by heretics and schismatics, (asking) whether, when they come to the catholic Church, which is one, they ought to be baptized. (St. Cyprian, Epistle 69)"

3. "Remission of sins is not granted except in the Church, and that among heretics, where there is no Church sins cannot be put away. (Idem)"

4. "Those who have been dipped abroad outside the Church, and have been stained among heretics and schismatics with the taint of profane water, when they come to us and to the Church which is one ought to be baptized. (St. Cyprian, Epistle 71)"

5."For it has been delivered to us, that there is one God, and one Christ, and one hope, and one faith, and one Church, and one baptism ordained only in the one Church, from which unity whosoever will depart must needs be found with heretics. (St. Cyprian, Epistle 73.11)"

6. "Therefore, dearest brother, having explored and seen the truth; it is observed and held by us, that all who are converted from any heresy whatever to the Church must be baptized by the only and lawful baptism of the Church (St. Cyprian, Epistle 73.12)"

7. For which reason Novatian neither ought to be nor can be expected, inasmuch as he also is without the Church and acting in opposition to the peace and love of Christ, from being counted among adversaries and antichrists. (St. Cyprian, Epistle 75.1)

8. In addition, moreover, the Lord establishes it in His Gospel, and says, "But if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto you as a heathen man and a publican." Now if they who despise the Church are counted heathens and publicans, much more certainly is it necessary that rebels and enemies, who forge false altars, and lawless priesthoods, and sacrilegious sacrifices, and corrupter names, should be counted among heathens and publicans; since they who sin less, and are only despisers of the Church, are by the Lord's sentence judged to be heathens and publicans. (St. Cyprian, Epistle 75.1)

9. Wherefore, since the Church alone has the living water, and the power of baptizing and cleansing man, he who says that any one can be baptized and sanctified by Novatian must first show and teach that Novatian is in the Church or presides over the Church. For the Church is one, and as she is one, cannot be both within and without. For if she is with Novatian, she was not with Cornelius. But if she was with Cornelius, who succeeded the bishop Fabian by lawful ordination, and whom, beside the honour of the priesthood, the Lord glorified also with martyrdom, Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be reckoned as a bishop, who, succeeding to no one, and despising the evangelical and apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. (St. Cyprian, Epistle 75.3)

10. They strive to set before and prefer the sordid and profane washing of heretics to the true and only and legitimate baptism of the Catholic Church, not considering that it is written, "He who is baptized by one dead, what avails his washing? "  Now it is manifest that they who are not in the Church of Christ are reckoned among the dead. (St. Cyprian, Epistle 70.1)

11. And they say that in this matter they follow ancient custom; although among the ancients these were as yet the first beginnings of heresy and schisms, so that those were involved in them who departed from the Church, having first been baptized therein (St. Cyprian, Epistle 70.2)

12. For when they [the Novatians] say, "Do you believe the remission of sins and life eternal through the holy Church? "they lie in their interrogatory, since they have not the Church. (St. Cyprian, Epistle 75.7)
« Last Edit: May 06, 2013, 01:35:44 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Eheu fugaces, Postume, Postume,
labuntur anni"
-Horace, Odes II:14
Daedelus1138
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 315


« Reply #131 on: May 06, 2013, 05:13:56 PM »

Come on, I gave you two quotes and I could give you a dozen more if you want them. Now give me one quote of St. Cyprian that supports your position or retract your statement altogether.

   I'm curious to know why you think baptism is not the initiation into Christ's body, the Church?   Under what circumstances is baptism valid or invalid?
Logged
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,320



« Reply #132 on: May 07, 2013, 10:38:21 AM »

...but the scriptures are plain and easy to understand the things pertaining to salvation, which is the whole point.   

Okey-doke. But if the Scriptures are plain and easy to understand, why so many different understandings?

    Is interpretive pluralism a bad thing in itself?   


It is if the interpretations are diametrically opposed or contradictory.
Logged

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

 St. John Chrysostom
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,427


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #133 on: May 07, 2013, 12:24:54 PM »

I think after the 5th wave of sola nonsense, I just no longer care. You'll have those who will look at Christianity through the history of the Early Church and what the apostles taught, and those who will look at it through the much newer history of the buffet style contemporary church.....Im gonna go see what my nutcase lefty pals Marc and Achronos are up to while I wait for the hyper-righteous protestant fire to diminish as it always does.
Logged

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

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #134 on: May 07, 2013, 12:49:47 PM »

I think after the 5th wave of sola nonsense, I just no longer care. You'll have those who will look at Christianity through the history of the Early Church and what the apostles taught, and those who will look at it through the much newer history of the buffet style contemporary church.....
Good luck getting more than a tiny fraction of people to care about early Church history. If this is what our evangelism is based on, we're doomed.

Quote
Im gonna go see what my nutcase lefty pals Marc and Achronos are up to while I wait for the hyper-righteous protestant fire to diminish as it always does.

^^
Logged
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.189 seconds with 73 queries.