OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 01, 2014, 12:46:10 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 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: How to Interpret the Scriptures  (Read 4975 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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 #765 on: May 22, 2013, 01:52:58 PM »

*grabs popcorn to watch the mouth frothing*
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
rachel
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Christian
Posts: 310



« Reply #766 on: May 22, 2013, 03:55:11 PM »

Rachel, what exactly are you trying to accomplish with all this nonsense?
Well I have quoted scripture. It is a great shame that you consider his word nonsense. I said:
Since scripture says that all scripture is Spirit breathed it is through scripture that the Spirit has chosen to speak. The scriptures are full of references to the Holy Spirit being given to individuals. Here are just a few.
Luke 11:13
If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!”
John 20:22
And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
Acts 1:5
for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”
Acts 1:8
But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”
Acts 2:4
And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
Acts 4:31
And when they had prayed, the place where they were assembled together was shaken; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they spoke the word of God with boldness.
Acts 5:32
And we are His witnesses to these things, and so also is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey Him.”
Acts 10:44
[ The Holy Spirit Falls on the Gentiles ] While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word.
1 Corinthians 6:19
Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?
Ephesians 1:13
In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,

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

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

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

Posts: 9,319


Ceci n'est pas un Poirot


« Reply #767 on: May 22, 2013, 04:01:57 PM »

Well I have quoted scripture. It is a great shame that you consider his word nonsense.

I don't consider Scripture nonsense. I consider your far-fetched and ridiculous exegesis nonsense. Most of the times the passages of Scripture that you quote aren't even relevant to the point you're trying to make.

Since scripture says that all scripture is Spirit breathed it is through scripture that the Spirit has chosen to speak. The scriptures are full of references to the Holy Spirit being given to individuals. Here are just a few.

I'm not denying that the Holy Spirit fills individuals. I'm only denying that you speak with the authority of the Holy Spirit. That's all.

Quote
According to you, God's Holy Spirit is caged up in the Orthodox church. That is blasphemous. And God takes a very serious view of this:

You're putting words into my mouth. I never said so.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2013, 04:02:36 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

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

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Christian
Posts: 310



« Reply #768 on: May 22, 2013, 04:04:35 PM »

Rachel, you do realize that the Church almost decided to exclude the Apocalypse of St. John (Revelation) from the New Testament? The fact that you can even cite it as Scripture against the Church is itself dependent on the authority of the Church. If the Church had rejected the Apocalypse of St. John, would you now be able to turn it against us?

This presents an interesting situation, Peter.  You state the Church almost excluded Apocalypse of St. John; however, for whatever reason, they did not.  Having this knowledge, should we ignore it for its “almost” exclusion or should we use it for its actual inclusion?
I never said we should ignore the Apocalypse simply because the Church almost rejected it. In the end, the Church accepted it as Scripture, so the Apocalypse now has the same authority as the Gospels. I posited the near-exclusion of the Apocalypse merely as a way to set up the authority of the Church against rachel's preaching of sola scriptura.
Did the Holy Spirit decide it should be there or not? If so, it is there by his authority not by the authority of any church.
That's what you don't understand, rachel. We wouldn't know the witness of the Holy Spirit if not for the authority of the Church, because it's through the Church that the Holy Spirit has chosen to speak.
Since scripture says that all scripture is Spirit breathed it is through scripture that the Spirit has chosen to speak. The scriptures are full of references to the Holy Spirit being given to individuals. Here are just a few.
Circular reasoning, plain and simple... You cannot cite Scripture as the foundation of its own authority, since doing so requires you to bring to the discussion an a priori conclusion drawn from an outside source.
What you are thus saying is that scripture is not God's word. So you are saying that nothing can be argued from scripture thus denying that it is God's propositional word to man. The Holy Spirit is the authority of scripture.

Quote
Doesn't fly with me, nor did it fly with St. Paul, for he who wrote to St. Timothy that verse about Scripture being God-breathed also wrote in the same epistle a verse about the Church being the pillar and foundation of the truth.
The church [which is all those who accept God's word, not any one denomination] supports the truth it doesn't make it.
Logged

Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria,   Sola Scriptura
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,320



« Reply #769 on: May 22, 2013, 04:06:34 PM »

Well I have quoted scripture. It is a great shame that you consider his word nonsense.

I don't consider Scripture nonsense. I consider your far-fetched and ridiculous exegesis nonsense. Most of the times the passages of Scripture that you quote aren't even relevant to the point you're trying to make.

See, this is the problem. If you disagree, then you don't believe Scripture, when all you're really doing is disagreeing with their own individual interpretation or understanding of Scripture.

It's a difficult concept for many Protestants to grasp. And I'm not being mean or snarky. It requires a whole different way of looking at yourself and Scripture.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2013, 04:06:53 PM by katherineofdixie » 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
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,345



« Reply #770 on: May 22, 2013, 04:09:09 PM »

Quote
The church [which is all those who accept God's word, not any one denomination] supports the truth it doesn't make it.
1. We know who is in the church because it is anyone who accepts God's Word and has the Holy Spirit.  
2. We know that we are interpreting God's Word correctly and have the Holy Spirit because we are the church.

Doesn't this seem to be circular logic to you?
« Last Edit: May 22, 2013, 04:09:44 PM by TheTrisagion » Logged

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

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Christian
Posts: 310



« Reply #771 on: May 22, 2013, 04:20:36 PM »

Well I have quoted scripture. It is a great shame that you consider his word nonsense.

I don't consider Scripture nonsense. I consider your far-fetched and ridiculous exegesis nonsense. Most of the times the passages of Scripture that you quote aren't even relevant to the point you're trying to make.
So please explain how the verses I have quoted are not relevant to my point that the Spirit is given to individuals. Please explain in what way my point is far fetched and ridiculous rather than just call it nonsense.  The verses are:
Luke 11:13
If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!”
John 20:22
And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
Acts 1:5
for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”
Acts 1:8
But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”
Acts 2:4
And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
Acts 4:31
And when they had prayed, the place where they were assembled together was shaken; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they spoke the word of God with boldness.
Acts 5:32
And we are His witnesses to these things, and so also is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey Him.”
Acts 10:44
[ The Holy Spirit Falls on the Gentiles ] While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word.
1 Corinthians 6:19
Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?
Ephesians 1:13
In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,

Since scripture says that all scripture is Spirit breathed it is through scripture that the Spirit has chosen to speak. The scriptures are full of references to the Holy Spirit being given to individuals. Here are just a few.

Quote
I'm not denying that the Holy Spirit fills individuals. I'm only denying that you speak with the authority of the Holy Spirit. That's all.
Well I've quoted scripture to you. Scripture has the authority of the Holy Spirit. So which bit is nonsense and far fetched?


Logged

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

Posts: 9,319


Ceci n'est pas un Poirot


« Reply #772 on: May 22, 2013, 04:24:37 PM »

So now I'll have to accept you as an infallible Pope, guided by the Holy Spirit?
Logged

"Eheu fugaces, Postume, Postume,
labuntur anni"
-Horace, Odes II:14
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,640


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #773 on: May 22, 2013, 04:26:04 PM »

So now I'll have to accept you as an infallible Pope, guided by the Holy Spirit?

Something tells me she isn't going to be wearing a miter any time soon.
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Happy Lutheran
Servant of Christ
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Lutheran
Posts: 256



« Reply #774 on: May 22, 2013, 04:34:37 PM »

Rachel, what exactly are you trying to accomplish with all this nonsense?

James 5:20
remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of their way will save them from death and cover over a multitude of sins.

 Cheesy
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
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,319


Ceci n'est pas un Poirot


« Reply #775 on: May 22, 2013, 04:35:43 PM »

I don't get it. The Lutherans, the Reformed, the Mennonites, the Evangelicals, the Methodists and thousand other protestant sects all differ among eachother. How can they all be led by the Holy Spirit? God is not the author of confusion.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2013, 04:37:36 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Eheu fugaces, Postume, Postume,
labuntur anni"
-Horace, Odes II:14
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,319


Ceci n'est pas un Poirot


« Reply #776 on: May 22, 2013, 04:37:48 PM »

Rachel, what exactly are you trying to accomplish with all this nonsense?

James 5:20
remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of their way will save them from death and cover over a multitude of sins.

 Cheesy

 Smiley
Logged

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

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Christian
Posts: 310



« Reply #777 on: May 22, 2013, 04:38:23 PM »



According to you, God's Holy Spirit is caged up in the Orthodox church. That is blasphemous. And God takes a very serious view of this:

You're putting words into my mouth. I never said so.
I don't believe I have said that you did say this. I was replying to a post by Peter The Aleut who said,
"That's what you don't understand, rachel. We wouldn't know the witness of the Holy Spirit if not for the authority of the Church, because it's through the Church that the Holy Spirit has chosen to speak."
I believe, although correct me if I am wrong, that when he says the church, he means the Orthodox church. My understanding of this statement is that a claim is being made that it is only through this church that the Holy Spirit speaks. That is limiting the Spirit [caging the Spirit]. If you think it means otherwise, please explain.
Logged

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

Posts: 9,319


Ceci n'est pas un Poirot


« Reply #778 on: May 22, 2013, 04:41:28 PM »

And he would be correct. Even you would have to admit it. The New Testament was written by the Church and the entire Bible was compiled by the Church. Note that the verb that PtA used was "to choose".
« Last Edit: May 22, 2013, 04:43:02 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Eheu fugaces, Postume, Postume,
labuntur anni"
-Horace, Odes II:14
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,330


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #779 on: May 22, 2013, 04:41:53 PM »

Rachel, you do realize that the Church almost decided to exclude the Apocalypse of St. John (Revelation) from the New Testament? The fact that you can even cite it as Scripture against the Church is itself dependent on the authority of the Church. If the Church had rejected the Apocalypse of St. John, would you now be able to turn it against us?

This presents an interesting situation, Peter.  You state the Church almost excluded Apocalypse of St. John; however, for whatever reason, they did not.  Having this knowledge, should we ignore it for its “almost” exclusion or should we use it for its actual inclusion?
I never said we should ignore the Apocalypse simply because the Church almost rejected it. In the end, the Church accepted it as Scripture, so the Apocalypse now has the same authority as the Gospels. I posited the near-exclusion of the Apocalypse merely as a way to set up the authority of the Church against rachel's preaching of sola scriptura.
Did the Holy Spirit decide it should be there or not? If so, it is there by his authority not by the authority of any church.
That's what you don't understand, rachel. We wouldn't know the witness of the Holy Spirit if not for the authority of the Church, because it's through the Church that the Holy Spirit has chosen to speak.
Since scripture says that all scripture is Spirit breathed it is through scripture that the Spirit has chosen to speak. The scriptures are full of references to the Holy Spirit being given to individuals. Here are just a few.
Circular reasoning, plain and simple... You cannot cite Scripture as the foundation of its own authority, since doing so requires you to bring to the discussion an a priori conclusion drawn from an outside source.
What you are thus saying is that scripture is not God's word.
No, you're putting words into my mouth. Stop it.

So you are saying that nothing can be argued from scripture thus denying that it is God's propositional word to man.
I say that you, rachel, cannot support your philosophy by arguing from Scripture, for the Scriptures are not meant to be used as a source manual for whatever philosophy you want to construct.

The Holy Spirit is the authority of scripture.
And how would you know that the Holy Spirit is the authority of Scripture? To assert that you know because the Scriptures tell you this is the epitome of circular logic. You will not admit it, but the only reason you view the Holy Spirit as the authority of Scripture is because you bring that assumption to your reading of Scripture. Who taught you to do that?

Quote
Doesn't fly with me, nor did it fly with St. Paul, for he who wrote to St. Timothy that verse about Scripture being God-breathed also wrote in the same epistle a verse about the Church being the pillar and foundation of the truth.
The church [which is all those who accept God's word, not any one denomination] supports the truth it doesn't make it.
No one's saying the Orthodox Church makes truth. We only share that truth which has been revealed to us by the Apostles.
Logged
rachel
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Christian
Posts: 310



« Reply #780 on: May 22, 2013, 04:42:57 PM »

Well I have quoted scripture. It is a great shame that you consider his word nonsense.

I don't consider Scripture nonsense. I consider your far-fetched and ridiculous exegesis nonsense. Most of the times the passages of Scripture that you quote aren't even relevant to the point you're trying to make.

See, this is the problem. If you disagree, then you don't believe Scripture, when all you're really doing is disagreeing with their own individual interpretation or understanding of Scripture.


It's a difficult concept for many Protestants to grasp. And I'm not being mean or snarky. It requires a whole different way of looking at yourself and Scripture.
So please explain what your interpretation of these verses is then. I note you disagree but have not given any explanation.
Logged

Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria,   Sola Scriptura
rachel
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Christian
Posts: 310



« Reply #781 on: May 22, 2013, 04:46:38 PM »

So now I'll have to accept you as an infallible Pope, guided by the Holy Spirit?
You don't have to accept anything but please answer my question, I asked which bits were nonsense and far fetched?
Logged

Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria,   Sola Scriptura
rachel
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Christian
Posts: 310



« Reply #782 on: May 22, 2013, 04:47:45 PM »

So now I'll have to accept you as an infallible Pope, guided by the Holy Spirit?

Something tells me she isn't going to be wearing a miter any time soon.

Hats just don't suit me.
Logged

Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria,   Sola Scriptura
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,330


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #783 on: May 22, 2013, 04:50:00 PM »



According to you, God's Holy Spirit is caged up in the Orthodox church. That is blasphemous. And God takes a very serious view of this:

You're putting words into my mouth. I never said so.
I don't believe I have said that you did say this. I was replying to a post by Peter The Aleut who said,
"That's what you don't understand, rachel. We wouldn't know the witness of the Holy Spirit if not for the authority of the Church, because it's through the Church that the Holy Spirit has chosen to speak."
I believe, although correct me if I am wrong, that when he says the church, he means the Orthodox church. My understanding of this statement is that a claim is being made that it is only through this church that the Holy Spirit speaks. That is limiting the Spirit [caging the Spirit]. If you think it means otherwise, please explain.
No, that's exactly what I mean. The Holy Spirit can blow wherever He wills and speak to whomever He desires, but He has chosen to speak authoritatively through the Church. If there's any "caging of the Spirit", it's because the Spirit has so chosen to confine Himself so we can understand Him most clearly. Since God cannot contradict Himself, if His Holy Spirit says anything to anyone outside the Church, then what He says MUST be perfectly consistent with what He has revealed through the Church.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,330


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #784 on: May 22, 2013, 04:51:41 PM »

rachel, before you submit another post to this thread, please read the directive I posted above. If you have any questions, please PM me.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,51355.msg926739.html#msg926739
« Last Edit: May 22, 2013, 04:52:03 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
rachel
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Christian
Posts: 310



« Reply #785 on: May 22, 2013, 04:53:03 PM »

And he would be correct. Even you would have to admit it. The New Testament was written by the Church and the entire Bible was compiled by the Church. Note that the verb that PtA used was "to choose".
Are you claiming that the New Testament originated in the Orthodox church? Is it the word of God or the word of the Orthodox church?
Are you suggesting that the Holy Spirit chose to limit himself to the Orthodox church? If so please provide scripture to support this.
Logged

Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria,   Sola Scriptura
rachel
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Christian
Posts: 310



« Reply #786 on: May 22, 2013, 05:13:32 PM »

Rachel, you do realize that the Church almost decided to exclude the Apocalypse of St. John (Revelation) from the New Testament? The fact that you can even cite it as Scripture against the Church is itself dependent on the authority of the Church. If the Church had rejected the Apocalypse of St. John, would you now be able to turn it against us?

This presents an interesting situation, Peter.  You state the Church almost excluded Apocalypse of St. John; however, for whatever reason, they did not.  Having this knowledge, should we ignore it for its “almost” exclusion or should we use it for its actual inclusion?
I never said we should ignore the Apocalypse simply because the Church almost rejected it. In the end, the Church accepted it as Scripture, so the Apocalypse now has the same authority as the Gospels. I posited the near-exclusion of the Apocalypse merely as a way to set up the authority of the Church against rachel's preaching of sola scriptura.
Did the Holy Spirit decide it should be there or not? If so, it is there by his authority not by the authority of any church.
That's what you don't understand, rachel. We wouldn't know the witness of the Holy Spirit if not for the authority of the Church, because it's through the Church that the Holy Spirit has chosen to speak.
Since scripture says that all scripture is Spirit breathed it is through scripture that the Spirit has chosen to speak. The scriptures are full of references to the Holy Spirit being given to individuals. Here are just a few.
Circular reasoning, plain and simple... You cannot cite Scripture as the foundation of its own authority, since doing so requires you to bring to the discussion an a priori conclusion drawn from an outside source.
What you are thus saying is that scripture is not God's word.
No, you're putting words into my mouth. Stop it.
If scripture is God's word then it is its own authority. You have denied this. You said,
"you cannot cite scripture as the foundation of its own authority."

So you are saying that nothing can be argued from scripture thus denying that it is God's propositional word to man.
Quote
I say that you, rachel, cannot support your philosophy by arguing from Scripture, for the Scriptures are not meant to be used as a source manual for whatever philosophy you want to construct.
I'm not setting out to construct any philosophy, I'm setting out to defend the authority of scripture.

The Holy Spirit is the authority of scripture.
Quote
And how would you know that the Holy Spirit is the authority of Scripture? To assert that you know because the Scriptures tell you this is the epitome of circular logic. You will not admit it, but the only reason you view the Holy Spirit as the authority of Scripture is because you bring that assumption to your reading of Scripture. Who taught you to do that?
So who, if not the Spirit is the authority of scripture? If the scriptures tell me something why should I not believe them? Is God a man that he should lie? God's word tells me that scripture is inspired by him.
2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,


Quote
Doesn't fly with me, nor did it fly with St. Paul, for he who wrote to St. Timothy that verse about Scripture being God-breathed also wrote in the same epistle a verse about the Church being the pillar and foundation of the truth.
The church [which is all those who accept God's word, not any one denomination] supports the truth it doesn't make it.
Quote
No one's saying the Orthodox Church makes truth. We only share that truth which has been revealed to us by the Apostles.
But I don't have to be part of the Orthodox church to know the truth revealed to us by the apostles. I can read that in scripture.
Logged

Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria,   Sola Scriptura
Jovan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Diocese of Great Britain and Scandinavia
Posts: 515



« Reply #787 on: May 22, 2013, 05:17:38 PM »

Quote
What you are thus saying is that scripture is not God's word. So you are saying that nothing can be argued from scripture thus denying that it is God's propositional word to man. The Holy Spirit is the authority of scripture.

That is not the problem dear brother Rachel, with all due respect and love.

We both acknowledge the Holy Spirit is the worker and authority of scripture. But the Holy Spirit didn´t became a poet with hands to read and write here on earth. Whoever had the power, grace and light of the Spirit within him, that person should we really ask for truth. That person is the church. Or else you need to clarify with what pen the Holy spirit wrote with.


Please pray and forgive me Rachel if I offended you, with humble regards, remember me in your prayers.
Logged

“Belatedly I loved thee, O Beauty so ancient and so new, belatedly I loved thee. For see, thou wast within and I was without, and I sought thee out there."
rachel
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Christian
Posts: 310



« Reply #788 on: May 22, 2013, 05:19:53 PM »



According to you, God's Holy Spirit is caged up in the Orthodox church. That is blasphemous. And God takes a very serious view of this:

You're putting words into my mouth. I never said so.
I don't believe I have said that you did say this. I was replying to a post by Peter The Aleut who said,
"That's what you don't understand, rachel. We wouldn't know the witness of the Holy Spirit if not for the authority of the Church, because it's through the Church that the Holy Spirit has chosen to speak."
I believe, although correct me if I am wrong, that when he says the church, he means the Orthodox church. My understanding of this statement is that a claim is being made that it is only through this church that the Holy Spirit speaks. That is limiting the Spirit [caging the Spirit]. If you think it means otherwise, please explain.
No, that's exactly what I mean. The Holy Spirit can blow wherever He wills and speak to whomever He desires, but He has chosen to speak authoritatively through the Church.
Who told you this? Where in scripture does it say so?

 
Quote
If there's any "caging of the Spirit", it's because the Spirit has so chosen to confine Himself so we can understand Him most clearly.
Who told you he has chosen to confine himself? Where in scripture does it say this?
Quote
Since God cannot contradict Himself, if His Holy Spirit says anything to anyone outside the Church, then what He says MUST be perfectly consistent with what He has revealed through the Church.
What he says MUST be perfectly consistent with what he has revealed through scripture.
Logged

Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria,   Sola Scriptura
rachel
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Christian
Posts: 310



« Reply #789 on: May 22, 2013, 05:24:37 PM »

with humble regards, remember me in your prayers.
I will do so Jovan.
Logged

Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria,   Sola Scriptura
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,330


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #790 on: May 22, 2013, 05:27:51 PM »

Rachel, you do realize that the Church almost decided to exclude the Apocalypse of St. John (Revelation) from the New Testament? The fact that you can even cite it as Scripture against the Church is itself dependent on the authority of the Church. If the Church had rejected the Apocalypse of St. John, would you now be able to turn it against us?

This presents an interesting situation, Peter.  You state the Church almost excluded Apocalypse of St. John; however, for whatever reason, they did not.  Having this knowledge, should we ignore it for its “almost” exclusion or should we use it for its actual inclusion?
I never said we should ignore the Apocalypse simply because the Church almost rejected it. In the end, the Church accepted it as Scripture, so the Apocalypse now has the same authority as the Gospels. I posited the near-exclusion of the Apocalypse merely as a way to set up the authority of the Church against rachel's preaching of sola scriptura.
Did the Holy Spirit decide it should be there or not? If so, it is there by his authority not by the authority of any church.
That's what you don't understand, rachel. We wouldn't know the witness of the Holy Spirit if not for the authority of the Church, because it's through the Church that the Holy Spirit has chosen to speak.
Since scripture says that all scripture is Spirit breathed it is through scripture that the Spirit has chosen to speak. The scriptures are full of references to the Holy Spirit being given to individuals. Here are just a few.
Circular reasoning, plain and simple... You cannot cite Scripture as the foundation of its own authority, since doing so requires you to bring to the discussion an a priori conclusion drawn from an outside source.
What you are thus saying is that scripture is not God's word.
No, you're putting words into my mouth. Stop it.
If scripture is God's word then it is its own authority. You have denied this. You said,
"you cannot cite scripture as the foundation of its own authority."
But who told you that Scripture is God's word?

Quote
So you are saying that nothing can be argued from scripture thus denying that it is God's propositional word to man.
I say that you, rachel, cannot support your philosophy by arguing from Scripture, for the Scriptures are not meant to be used as a source manual for whatever philosophy you want to construct.
I'm not setting out to construct any philosophy, I'm setting out to defend the authority of scripture.
Defending the authority of Scripture by citing Scripture is a logical fallacy. You simply cannot do this. You have to reference an outside source. So what extrabiblical tradition has taught you that Scripture is the word of God?
But you cannot argue that Scripture is God's propositional word to man by citing the Scriptures, since this philosophy is not found in Scripture.

Quote
The Holy Spirit is the authority of scripture.
And how would you know that the Holy Spirit is the authority of Scripture? To assert that you know because the Scriptures tell you this is the epitome of circular logic. You will not admit it, but the only reason you view the Holy Spirit as the authority of Scripture is because you bring that assumption to your reading of Scripture. Who taught you to do that?
So who, if not the Spirit is the authority of scripture? If the scriptures tell me something why should I not believe them? Is God a man that he should lie? God's word tells me that scripture is inspired by him.
2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

Scripture tells you that Scripture is inspired by God, but who told you to trust the Scriptures?

Quote
Quote
Doesn't fly with me, nor did it fly with St. Paul, for he who wrote to St. Timothy that verse about Scripture being God-breathed also wrote in the same epistle a verse about the Church being the pillar and foundation of the truth.
The church [which is all those who accept God's word, not any one denomination] supports the truth it doesn't make it.
No one's saying the Orthodox Church makes truth. We only share that truth which has been revealed to us by the Apostles.
But I don't have to be part of the Orthodox church to know the truth revealed to us by the apostles. I can read that in scripture.
But who told you to trust the Scriptures? Your Sunday School teacher? Your pastor? If they offered you no guidance, then how would you know that the Scriptures are the word of God?
« Last Edit: May 22, 2013, 05:39:03 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Jovan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Diocese of Great Britain and Scandinavia
Posts: 515



« Reply #791 on: May 22, 2013, 05:28:25 PM »

Quote
Are you claiming that the New Testament originated in the Orthodox church? Is it the word of God or the word of the Orthodox church?
Are you suggesting that the Holy Spirit chose to limit himself to the Orthodox church? If so please provide scripture to support this.

That is not fair to say dear brother. What about this, the New Testament originated through the Orthodox Church, not in it. So therefore it is the word of God, spoken through his one and only Church. That little "in" changes it all, rather "through" is more preferable. Because Christ and the church is not distant things, as your question supposes.

The question you should ask would rather be:

Did the New testament need to originate through any truthful and specific church back in the days? If not, we could go with the church of Jehovas witnesses.

What God promised us, Our beloved Lord Jesus Christ. Was that the truthful and Holy Spirit would work within the church, so that the gates of hell wouldn´t prevail against it. If the church and the word of God are seperable things, not able to be in perfect union, then we make Christ and the Holy Spirit a liar. Christ didn´t say:

Peter, at this rock I will build my word of God, and the gates of hell wont prevail against the word of God.

Christ must have thought about THE church from his time, untill this day, untill the ages of ages, that would survive and keep his teaching as he spoke it to the apostles.

Therefore, the church and Christ is in union. Not two separable things. We should know by Christs own words that the church = expression of the word and truth of God.

So therefore the "word of the orthodox church", or whatever church we chose to follow. Must in Christs own terms be the word of God, not literally speaking though. But by truth...
« Last Edit: May 22, 2013, 05:36:54 PM by Jovan » Logged

“Belatedly I loved thee, O Beauty so ancient and so new, belatedly I loved thee. For see, thou wast within and I was without, and I sought thee out there."
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,330


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #792 on: May 22, 2013, 05:29:26 PM »



According to you, God's Holy Spirit is caged up in the Orthodox church. That is blasphemous. And God takes a very serious view of this:

You're putting words into my mouth. I never said so.
I don't believe I have said that you did say this. I was replying to a post by Peter The Aleut who said,
"That's what you don't understand, rachel. We wouldn't know the witness of the Holy Spirit if not for the authority of the Church, because it's through the Church that the Holy Spirit has chosen to speak."
I believe, although correct me if I am wrong, that when he says the church, he means the Orthodox church. My understanding of this statement is that a claim is being made that it is only through this church that the Holy Spirit speaks. That is limiting the Spirit [caging the Spirit]. If you think it means otherwise, please explain.
No, that's exactly what I mean. The Holy Spirit can blow wherever He wills and speak to whomever He desires, but He has chosen to speak authoritatively through the Church.
Who told you this? Where in scripture does it say so?

 
Quote
If there's any "caging of the Spirit", it's because the Spirit has so chosen to confine Himself so we can understand Him most clearly.
Who told you he has chosen to confine himself? Where in scripture does it say this?
Quote
Since God cannot contradict Himself, if His Holy Spirit says anything to anyone outside the Church, then what He says MUST be perfectly consistent with what He has revealed through the Church.
What he says MUST be perfectly consistent with what he has revealed through scripture.
You're not engaging criticism of your beliefs, rachel. Please do so.
Logged
rachel
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Christian
Posts: 310



« Reply #793 on: May 22, 2013, 05:32:58 PM »

Sorry -posted message twice by mistake.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2013, 05:34:38 PM by rachel » Logged

Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria,   Sola Scriptura
rachel
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Christian
Posts: 310



« Reply #794 on: May 22, 2013, 06:03:33 PM »

Rachel, you do realize that the Church almost decided to exclude the Apocalypse of St. John (Revelation) from the New Testament? The fact that you can even cite it as Scripture against the Church is itself dependent on the authority of the Church. If the Church had rejected the Apocalypse of St. John, would you now be able to turn it against us?

This presents an interesting situation, Peter.  You state the Church almost excluded Apocalypse of St. John; however, for whatever reason, they did not.  Having this knowledge, should we ignore it for its “almost” exclusion or should we use it for its actual inclusion?
I never said we should ignore the Apocalypse simply because the Church almost rejected it. In the end, the Church accepted it as Scripture, so the Apocalypse now has the same authority as the Gospels. I posited the near-exclusion of the Apocalypse merely as a way to set up the authority of the Church against rachel's preaching of sola scriptura.
Did the Holy Spirit decide it should be there or not? If so, it is there by his authority not by the authority of any church.
That's what you don't understand, rachel. We wouldn't know the witness of the Holy Spirit if not for the authority of the Church, because it's through the Church that the Holy Spirit has chosen to speak.
Since scripture says that all scripture is Spirit breathed it is through scripture that the Spirit has chosen to speak. The scriptures are full of references to the Holy Spirit being given to individuals. Here are just a few.
Circular reasoning, plain and simple... You cannot cite Scripture as the foundation of its own authority, since doing so requires you to bring to the discussion an a priori conclusion drawn from an outside source.
What you are thus saying is that scripture is not God's word.
No, you're putting words into my mouth. Stop it.
If scripture is God's word then it is its own authority. You have denied this. You said,
"you cannot cite scripture as the foundation of its own authority."
But who told you that Scripture is God's word?
St Paul.
2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

Don't you believe him?

So you are saying that nothing can be argued from scripture thus denying that it is God's propositional word to man.
Quote
I say that you, rachel, cannot support your philosophy by arguing from Scripture, for the Scriptures are not meant to be used as a source manual for whatever philosophy you want to construct.
I'm not setting out to construct any philosophy, I'm setting out to defend the authority of scripture.
Quote
Defending the authority of Scripture by citing Scripture is a logical fallacy. You simply cannot do this. You have to reference an outside source. So what extrabiblical tradition has taught you that Scripture is the word of God?
But I'm referencing God. He says that this is his word to mankind. If the writings of the apostles are their own words and ideas and not God's what is your religion about?
Quote
But you cannot argue that Scripture is God's propositional word to man by citing the Scriptures, since this philosophy is not found in Scripture.
If it is not God's word to us then whose words are scripture?
St Paul would disagree with you. Refer the verse in Timothy.

The Holy Spirit is the authority of scripture.
Quote
And how would you know that the Holy Spirit is the authority of Scripture? To assert that you know because the Scriptures tell you this is the epitome of circular logic. You will not admit it, but the only reason you view the Holy Spirit as the authority of Scripture is because you bring that assumption to your reading of Scripture. Who taught you to do that?
So who, if not the Spirit is the authority of scripture? If the scriptures tell me something why should I not believe them? Is God a man that he should lie? God's word tells me that scripture is inspired by him.
2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

Quote
Scripture tells you that Scripture is inspired by God, but who told you to trust the Scriptures?
Jesus is revealed to us through the scripture. The implication of what you have said is that you never took a leap of faith that scripture constitutes the revelation of God to his creation and therefore never accepted the gospel of Jesus Christ. The test that the bible is Gods word is an experiential one which follows a leap of faith that the bible is indeed God's word to his creation. The confirmation that this is so is given subsequently to the believer by the change in his epistemology which is termed by scripture the seal of the Spirit i.e. the personal assurance of the individual that he is indwelt by the living Christ, that his sins are forgiven and that he possesses eternal life.
If scripture is not to be trusted then we can throw it away and we know nothing of God.

Quote
Doesn't fly with me, nor did it fly with St. Paul, for he who wrote to St. Timothy that verse about Scripture being God-breathed also wrote in the same epistle a verse about the Church being the pillar and foundation of the truth.
The church [which is all those who accept God's word, not any one denomination] supports the truth it doesn't make it.
Quote
No one's saying the Orthodox Church makes truth. We only share that truth which has been revealed to us by the Apostles.
But I don't have to be part of the Orthodox church to know the truth revealed to us by the apostles. I can read that in scripture.
Quote
But who told you to trust the Scriptures? Your Sunday School teacher? Your pastor? If they offered you no guidance, then how would you know that the Scriptures are the word of God?
See above.
Logged

Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria,   Sola Scriptura
rachel
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Christian
Posts: 310



« Reply #795 on: May 22, 2013, 06:07:00 PM »

You're not engaging criticism of your beliefs, rachel. Please do so.
Please cite instances.
Logged

Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria,   Sola Scriptura
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,330


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #796 on: May 22, 2013, 06:21:11 PM »

You're not engaging criticism of your beliefs, rachel. Please do so.
Please cite instances.
rachel, I'm not going to take on the impossible task of citing instances of something you're not doing. It is your responsibility to prove to me that you are engaging criticisms of your beliefs by engaging criticisms of your beliefs. Seeing also that I'm posting in green text as a moderator, that means you are required to comply. If you disagree, then please PM me. Any more attempt to argue publicly with my moderatorial instructions to you will draw a formal warning.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2013, 11:53:11 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,345



« Reply #797 on: May 22, 2013, 09:00:23 PM »

Rachel, I admire your tenacity in coming to a forum that you are clearly in the minority and giving your beliefs.  I don't agree with any of them but I am glad you are here.  I think the frustration that many here have is this.

You consistently claim that the Holy Spirit is directing you in your interpretation of Scripture, but you haven't been able to demonstrate how or if that actually occurs. I know you are fond of quoting copious amounts of Scripture, but none of that Scripture explains how you have been given the answers.  The Scripture you quote is Scripture that we agree with, but we interpret it differently, so quoting it really doesn't have the effect you hope to have.  To avoid confusion, here is what I and (I think) many would like the answers to.  Your answers, not quotations of Scripture. Most can be answered just by a yes or no.

1. You have Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists, Evangelicals, etc.  They all have VERY different beliefs.  Do you believe that only one of them is teaching truth?
2. How do you know that YOU are not being deceived?
3. Is it possible that you have misinterpreted something important in Scripture?  You don't even have to acknowledge that the Orthodox position is correct, but do you acknowledge that it is POSSIBLE that you may have incorrectly understood what the Holy Spirit meant in Scripture?

I can't speak for others, but one thing that attracted me to Orthodoxy is that I no longer have to rely on my own interpretation, I can look back to see what has been believed for 2000 years.  I don't see how you have any assurance other than being very self confident if your own mind and then claiming it is the Holy Spirit.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #798 on: May 22, 2013, 09:33:10 PM »

I don't get it. The Lutherans, the Reformed, the Mennonites, the Evangelicals, the Methodists and thousand other protestant sects all differ among eachother. How can they all be led by the Holy Spirit? God is not the author of confusion.

They might cite that incident at Babel as proof otherwise. They're cheeky blighters.
Logged

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

Posts: 9,319


Ceci n'est pas un Poirot


« Reply #799 on: May 23, 2013, 02:58:23 AM »

And he would be correct. Even you would have to admit it. The New Testament was written by the Church and the entire Bible was compiled by the Church. Note that the verb that PtA used was "to choose".
Are you claiming that the New Testament originated in the Orthodox church?

Most certainly. But would you please answer this question first:

I don't get it. The Lutherans, the Reformed, the Mennonites, the Evangelicals, the Methodists and thousand other protestant sects all differ among eachother. How can they all be led by the Holy Spirit? God is not the author of confusion.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2013, 02:58:59 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Eheu fugaces, Postume, Postume,
labuntur anni"
-Horace, Odes II:14
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,371


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #800 on: May 23, 2013, 03:23:03 AM »

Quote from: rachel
But I don't have to be part of the Orthodox church to know the truth revealed to us by the apostles. I can read that in scripture.
Heretics read and interpret the scriptures; reading and interpreting the scriptures of itself is therefore indisputably not enough in and of itself to guarantee one's orthodoxy. Many of your interpretations of scripture are in comparison with paleo-orthodoxy as expressed by the first millennium fathers heterodox.

Here are a few points which might help to clarify our perspective on doctrinal truth and scripture, condensed from chapter 1 "The Authority of the Fathers" in Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 1, The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (University of Chicago Press), pp. 8-36. I have verified that all of these pages are viewable through Google Books here should you desire further detail on particular points.

1. In any theological argument about the nature of our faith it was necessary to produce the voices of the fathers in evidence (St. Maximos) (p. 8). Why this is so will become clearer below.
2. Going beyond the fathers was to be avoided (p. 9).
3. The theologian does not present his own ideas, but what God has revealed (p. 9).
4. Faith in action which unifies us to God is "the faith of the church"; saving truth, deriving from God, is understood as changeless truth, "uniform and unshakable by its very nature... [it ]cannot be subjected to differences of viewpoint or to temporal changes... always the same teaching advocating the same thing" as opposed to falsehood which by characteristic was "splintered into many parts and many theories, changing suddenly from one thing into another" (p. 13-14; St. Maximos as quoted by Theodore of Studio).
5. Characteristic marks of heretics and heresy: innovation; new prophecy; new theories; intimate knowledge of God vs. modest claims about God (p. 15).
6. Dogmas of the evangelists and apostles and prophecy / source and norm of traditional doctrine; words of heaven require continuous meditation as a path to spiritual health (p. 16)
7. Heretics always manage to deceive themselves despite scripture; cruciality of scripture: words of scripture reach us in a bodily manner lest the mind and word of God remain unknown, unspoken, and his life incomprehensible. Proper interpretation of scripture as symbolic and sacramental because of the ineffable nature of the truth communicated by it (p. 17)
8. Supernatural vs. natural meaning and fullness of meaning is impossible without the Spirit. Purpose of scripture: not simply natural information, but to confer the gift of deification. Only those who are truly worthy are true authorities for the spiritual sense because they deal with the words of God mystically. "Christ instituted not only apostles and prophets but also teachers in the church... [this] meant that we are taught by all of the Holy Scripture by the Old and the New Testament, and by the holy teachers and councils." What the fathers taught did not derive from their own resources (18).
9. The authority of scripture according to the spiritual sense is always in harmony with spiritual exegesis; though exegesis could diverge in small detail, but without altering our unity and dependance with the spiritual fruit of the God-bearing fathers preceding us (cf. unity of the Church in the Spirit across time). Impossibility of expounding the fullness of doctrine from the Scripture "without the guidance of those who had developed the exact understanding of the mysteries of the scripture" before oneself, viz. from "the mystae and mystagogues" who lived it worthily. Heresies lack the authority of the Bible or the fathers. Reflection in attributes and epithets (Athanasius the "God-bearing teacher"; "inerrant winner of contests"; Basil "the great eye of the Church"; Gregory of Nazianzus "God-bearing teacher" whose produced saying "most divine" etc.). St. Maximos: "we do not invent new formulas as our opponents charge, but we confess the statements of the fathers. Nor do we make up terms according to our own ideas, for this is a presumptuous thing to do, the work and invention of a heretical and deranged mind. But what has been understood and stated by the saints, that we reverently adduce as our authority" (pp. 19-20).
10. Consensus patrum -not individual private opinions or views of the fathers. Phronema (mind of the Church) is the true and authentic consensus. (p. 21). Sometimes ancient meant foolish, however all orthodox truth was ancient.
11. Book of Acts/ when conflicting opinion among apostles appeared, the sides did not appeal to Paul or even James, but to a council. One changeless orthodox truth: doctors, scriptures, councils. (23-29; discussion of the Seven Ecumenical Councils).
12. Scripture is authoritative, but also "is a forerunner of the more perfect word to be revealed by him [God] in an unwritten way in the spirit" (St. Maximos). Dogma is not exhausted by councils; St. Maximos e.g. divinization. Authority in doctrine as authority "of a council or of a father or of scripture"; these, however, point beyond themselves to something which in turn qualifies them. Theological mystagogy transcended the councils; negative statements about divine matters are the true ones ("a unique species of knowledge that affirmed the unknowaility of what it knew" (Pelikan). (pp. 30-31)
13. Subjective knowledge of Christian experience in monasticism/patristic psychology. "The truth was changeless and static, but the experience of it was dynamic and variable. There had long been a distinction between 'theology' and 'economy' "...Also important was the distinction between a theology that dealt with the symbols of revelation and a theology that proceeded demonstratively. But this implied that theology was obliged to recognize at one and the same time its validity and its limitations, shunning speculation as well as doctrinal indifference, and concentrating on the task of communication 'neither to concern ourselves with those things that are above us, nor to neglect the knowledge of God, but to give to others of the things that have been granted to us... Seek not what is too difficult for you, nor investigate what is beyond your power. Reflect upon what has been assigned to you, for you do not need what is hidden' (St. Maximos)"
(p. 31).
14. Apophaticism "not in the sense that the name 'God' had no meaning, but in the sense that it transcended all meaning and all understanding..." Known and unknown: "if God who was literally... beyond measure, were to reveal himself in his true being, the trauma in the human mind would be the same as that inflicted by the unveiled sun on the naked eye." God known through a knowing ignorance; knowledge through contraries: God transcends both affirmations and negations. He participates in the reality of creation, but "in a non-participatory way." Not just language about God, but about divine things, e.g. life and light. "...the very fact of knowing nothing is knowledge surpassing the mind (St. Maximos, citing St. Gregory of Nazianzus and pseudo Dionysius) (p. 32).
« Last Edit: May 23, 2013, 03:35:52 AM by xariskai » Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,371


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #801 on: May 23, 2013, 03:59:19 AM »

A few additional points on the ancient view regarding perception of spiritual truth:

One cannot know the word who does not live the word. That is not a matter of "earning" or "meriting" anything, but a matter of faith in action, the only authentic faith (e.g. the just shall LIVE BY faith) which therefore bears fruit and receives glorification and grace freely given by God to those who repent (Gk. present/continual action) and believe (Gk. present/continual) who do not reject it (who abide in union/communion with Christ). Repentance is no mere human work: it is the gift of God -God's work, in/through us.
For those who remain/abide in union with Christ there is no condemnation (note end of phrase: IN CHRIST -a reference to union. In the Gospel of John Christ does not assume his disciples automatically abide/remain, but commands them to see to it that they do using the Gk. imperative, which expresses command).
The "fleshly Christian" whose diet consists of milk rather than meat will find his or her spiritual senses numbed and handicapped (1 Cor 2:14). He or she, like the churches in the book of Revelation, is called to repent, and do deeds consistent with true repentance as described in Acts.
The rational-deductive element is not eliminated, but it is the lowest level. The heart is the key issue, and the healing (salvation in Gk. lit means healing) and renewal/transfiguration thereof.
The one who arrives at theoria -"spiritual perception of one sent by God... possible only to the believer" ("Theorao" in Arndt and Gingrich, Greek-English Lexicon of the NT and Early Christian Literature) has a heart trained to see Truth, transformed by the Spirit, toward purity and godliness. "Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God" (Matt 5:8).

The New Covenant (Jer 31) was not to be like the covenant of old which consisted simply of written tablets and interpreters, but written upon the heart.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2013, 04:32:26 AM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
rachel
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Christian
Posts: 310



« Reply #802 on: May 23, 2013, 04:26:52 PM »

You're not engaging criticism of your beliefs, rachel. Please do so.
Please cite instances.
rachel, I'm not going to take on the impossible task of citing instances of something you're not doing. It is your responsibility to prove to me that you are engaging criticisms of your beliefs by engaging criticisms of your beliefs.
Dear Peter, when someone criticises my beliefs I have tried to engage with such criticism. I do try not to ignore people although there are times when time constraints make detailed replies difficult. I accept that you do not agree with a lot of my beliefs but that surely doesn't equate to non engagement on my part. Rather it would seem that your beef is that I do engage when you would rather I was silent.  I really do not understand why you see any problem with debate between Orthodox belief and Protestant belief on a section of the site labelled Orthodox-Protestant discussion. Do Orthodox hold a different view of what constitutes debate? How does debate break your rules?
Quote
Seeing also that I'm posting in green text as a moderator, that means you are required to comply. If you disagree, then please PM me. Any more attempt to argue publicly with my moderatorial instructions to you will draw a formal warning.[/color]
So no debate allowed?
rachel, I have told you repeatedly that if you wish to argue with a moderatorial directive, you are to do so ONLY via private message. I'm not trying to silence legitimate debate, and I am allowing you an avenue by which you can voice your disagreements with my actions as a moderator. This forum, however, requires that you at least respect a moderator's authority to do what is necessary to keep this forum running smoothly and civilly. This respect requires that you address disagreements with forum moderation in private, not on the board for all to see.

From the Rules Page
Quote
* Respect the mod/admin staff -- The moderators and administrative staff of oc.net keep this place running tidy.  While you don't have to agree with a particular decision they make, we ask that you at least respect it publicly.  Do not complain about forum moderation, or the specific official actions taken by the moderators, global moderators, or administrators, on the forum.

For continuing to argue publicly with my moderatorial directive in spite of my repeated warnings to stop, you are receiving this formal warning to last for the next 21 days. Continue to argue with my directives even more, and you will be placed on post moderation, a state where every one of your posts will need to be screened by a moderator before it appears on the forum.

If you think this action wrong, please appeal it to me via private message (and only via private message).

- PeterTheAleut
« Last Edit: May 23, 2013, 05:13:54 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged

Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria,   Sola Scriptura
rachel
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Christian
Posts: 310



« Reply #803 on: May 23, 2013, 04:31:02 PM »

Rachel, I admire your tenacity in coming to a forum that you are clearly in the minority and giving your beliefs.  I don't agree with any of them but I am glad you are here. 
That is very welcoming of you. It is appreciated. I will look at what you have said in detail later but do not have the time now.
Logged

Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria,   Sola Scriptura
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,320



« Reply #804 on: May 23, 2013, 04:48:33 PM »

One can debate or discuss opinions on the meaning of Scripture (which is, forgive me, what yours are) until the cows come home.
Honestly the only support that can be offered for opinions is that "it seems to me," or "this is my understanding of this particular passage/idea. "Any one of us, "leaning upon our own understanding" can be wrong. Even if we *feel* that we have been guided and inspired by the Holy Spirit. Because we all bring to this individual interpretation our own culture, experiences, knowledge etc. We can't help it - we read Scripture through the lens of our own assumptions and yes, even prejudices.

What the Orthodox Church has, which Protestants lack, is a couple of millenia of what Christians have believed, preached and taught, the Faith at all times and in all places (to paraphrase St. Vincent of Lerins.) As I said before, this is one of the most difficult concepts for Protestants, especially Evangelicals, to wrap their heads around. Because of this, we often use the same words and terminology and mean totally different things.

I encourage you to read The Orthodox Church by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware or do a little research into the historical Church. I think you'll be surprised by what you find. At least, you will have some idea of where it's coming from.
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
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,345



« Reply #805 on: May 23, 2013, 05:32:49 PM »

I am in no way questioning the moderation, and this is addressed solely to my fellow Orthodox forumers.  Perhaps out of respect for Rachel, it would be best if only one person would respond to her post so she is not trying to answer several different responses to each of her posts.  I can understand how that would be difficult.  If someone gives Rachel a question or answer to her post, perhaps it would be best to not respond in an effort to make it more manageable for her responses.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,312

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #806 on: May 24, 2013, 10:12:56 AM »

I am in no way questioning the moderation, and this is addressed solely to my fellow Orthodox forumers.  Perhaps out of respect for Rachel, it would be best if only one person would respond to her post so she is not trying to answer several different responses to each of her posts.  I can understand how that would be difficult.  If someone gives Rachel a question or answer to her post, perhaps it would be best to not respond in an effort to make it more manageable for her responses.

That's basically why I stopped posting on this thread. I think most of us are asking Rachel the same essential questions. The thing about discussing theology with Protestants is that we are always starting with two different foundations. They begin with the autonomous authority of themselves - their own interpretation of scripture - and we begin with the divine authority of the Church. So without a common foundational authority, the discussion and debate will never be resolved. We have asked Rachel to prove the authority of "Sola Scriptura" from scripture itself, and of course she is unable to do so. So I personally don't think it's productive to continue to engage her in discussion unless she first substantiates why "Sola Scriptura" is a valid starting point.


Selam
Logged

"Those who have nothing constructive to offer are masters at belittling the offerings of others." +GMK+
Dpaula
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian w/ Romanian background
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 295


« Reply #807 on: May 24, 2013, 11:13:42 AM »

I believe Rachel said "Sola Scriptura" is valid because "Scriptura" says so, and she gave a bunch of quotes from "Scriptura" that prove this.

 "Scriptura" is the only authority of the "Scriptura" and no one but "Scriptura" can prove that "Scriptura" is the only thing you need to understand "Scriptura".

Makes sense?


Logged

Not posting anymore due to the rudeness on this site.
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 925


« Reply #808 on: May 24, 2013, 02:28:44 PM »

Quote
2Th2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. [/u]


2 Thess 2:15 directly deny Sola Scriptural!

« Last Edit: May 24, 2013, 02:29:19 PM by walter1234 » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,330


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #809 on: May 24, 2013, 02:34:18 PM »

Quote
2Th2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. [/u]


2 Thess 2:15 directly deny Sola Scriptural!
Watch it, Walter. police Rachel actually has turned that verse around and cited it as a biblical argument in favor of sola scriptura (though I have no idea how she can do that without violating the clear meaning of the text).
Logged
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 »   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 0.217 seconds with 73 queries.