Christianity In The USA

[GodfatherPartTwo]

The Orthodox church has an unbroken line that goes back to the Apostles. Its not arbitrary. The Ecclesiology is in the Bible too if you insist on only using that.

The "tag, you're it" model of Apostolic Succession is not the mark of Apostolocity. If it was, the church in Galatia did nothing wrong by making sacraments necessary for salvation. The Pope wouldn't be wrong either, since you also believe he has Apostolic Succession. Needless to say, "tag, you're it" is unbiblical.

Protestant ecclesiology basically entails the gates of hades almost immediately prevailing against the church (although it still somehow managed to codify the Scriptures). It claims Scripture alone is sufficient and that churches based on anything else are unbiblical and wrong, even though the church existed without the canon of Scripture for 3 centuries.

The Eastern Orthodox Canon is a post-Reformation invention. The canon that you believe in wasn't canonized until 1672 by a synod in Jerusalem. If Christian's can't know what the Bible is until it's canonized, then how are there Church Fathers in the 1st century who recognize the New Testament as Inspired Scripture?

 

[Wutang]

The Orthodox church has an unbroken line that goes back to the Apostles. Its not arbitrary. The Ecclesiology is in the Bible too if you insist on only using that. There is one Church. The body of Christ cannot be divided. Christ is the head of the Church. The Lord promised that the gates of Hades would not prevail against the Church.

The Catholics also have an unbroken line to the Apostles so why not them?

 

[scorpion]

Because Orthodox ecclesiology doesn't just assert a personal interpretation of the Bible as being paramount, it claims that Christ, and the Church of whom He is the head is the source of authority. Therefore it's interpretation has authority. This ecclesiology by the way is in the Bible.

I don't think the hardcore Orthodox realize how much they sound like the Pharisees, who elevated their traditions as being on par with God's commandments (scripture). An excerpt of Mark chapter 7 below:

Spoiler

The Pharisees and some of the scribes gathered to Him after they came from Jerusalem, and saw that some of His disciples were eating their bread with unholy hands, that is, unwashed. (For the Pharisees and all the other Jews do not eat unless they carefully wash their hands, thereby holding firmly to the tradition of the elders; and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they completely cleanse themselves; and there are many other things which they have received as traditions to firmly hold, such as the washing of cups, pitchers, and copper pots.) And the Pharisees and the scribes asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk in accordance with the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with unholy hands?” But He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites, as it is written:

‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
And in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”

He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘The one who speaks evil of father or mother, is certainly to be put to death’; but you say, ‘If a person says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is, given to God),’ you no longer allow him to do anything for his father or his mother; thereby invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

Interesting, where does it say that in the Bible? I mean specifically that the power given to the Apostles was only for a while and that it just went away with them.

It's not that the Bible says this explicitly; it's that it doesn't say that others received such literal divine powers. And thus there is no reason to believe that anyone did, especially when combined with the glaring lack of evidence supporting such a claim.

Then rather than preserving the Church like the Lord promised in the Scriptures, He allowed it to drift into error for over a thousand years. Only for people to finally get things back on track with the Reformation which then divided the church into thousands of denominations who all claim that the same book is their basis, and is sufficient in itself.

God also allowed Satan to rebel with 1/3 of the angels, allowed Adam to fall into sin in Eden, and allowed his precious and perfect son to die an ignominious death on a cross in place of the most vile and wretched sinners. Maybe God's plan is simply beyond your understanding? A little humility would serve you well.

always ask Protestants to show the Scripture verses saying Scripture is the only or primary source of authority. They can never come up with anything, because it doesn't exist. But please do show us if you still believe the contrary

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. - 2 Tim. 3:16-17

But He answered and said, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes out of the mouth of God.’” - Matt. 4:4

For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account. - Hebrews 4:12-13

So shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it. - Isaiah 55:11

For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope. - Romans 15:4

Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path. - Psalm 119:105

The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever. - Isaiah 40:8

 

[Aboulia]

The canon that you believe in wasn't canonized until 1672 by a synod in Jerusalem

Synods are called when there's a problem. If you have people like Martin Luther trying to remove the book of James, you're going to have a re-affirmation of what has already been accepted, and anyone who doesn't accept that is anathema. What does it mean to "believe" in a canon? What books were added in that council that were not accepted by previous councils? You can already find a list from the 3rd Ecumenical Council that's more expansive than what's accepted by Protestants.

The Catholics also have an unbroken line to the Apostles so why not them?

That's a whole thread, the primary difference between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, is one of head vs heart, if the Catholics had accepted St Gregory Palamas there would have been a much better chance of remaining together.

 

[Hermetic Seal]

The same way you interpret whatever dogmas your church tells you to believe. By assuming words have meaning, and applying a historical-grammatical hermeneutic to the text.

This seems to me a ludicrously anachronistic bar for someone to have to jump over, which reflects nothing as much as the biases of post printing press people with easy access to vast amounts of information (and more specifically, highly-educated, literate people), which wasn't the norm for 99.9% of all Christians who ever lived. Can you imagine giving this answer to the wife of Roman soldier in the third century, a Persian orphan in the 6th century, or a Serbian grandma in the 11th century, probably none of whom could read, let alone go down to the local Christian bookstore to buy a copy of the Bible on papyrus and figure it all out for themselves?

It has practices and beliefs that cannot be found in the New Testament

But that's just begging the question, assuming that all Christian practices and beliefs are explicitly outlined in the New Testament, which purports to do no such thing. Where's the liturgy and order of worship?

This is an anachronistic presupposition of people who, for instance, buy a power tool and get an instruction manual exhaustively explaining every single thing it does. I'm sorry, but this way of thinking is extremely recent and totally foreign to how ancient people thought and the limitations of their world. Writing was slow, expensive, and inefficient. Oral teaching and training was quick and could (and indeed did) spread like wildfire. If the apostles stopped to write an instruction manual exhaustively explaining every single aspect of Christian faith and practice (especially worship), it's safe to say it would have vastly slowed their mission and greatly limited the scope of people who could even be reached.

I'm honestly curious what verses you're referring to by saying it contradicts the Bible, especially since you just quoted Matthew 18:20 in your post, which seems very clear and incontrovertible ("For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there"). Christ himself says He is there, who are you or any other man to say otherwise?

Who is Jesus addressing? Not every single person reading the text. He's talking to His Apostles. That's an important detail which seems to be omitted by people who take this verse out of context to justify a Church-less Christianity. Not to mention, using this line of reasoning, what's to stop the Judaizers, or Gnostics, or other heretics addressed in the Acts or Epistles from justifying themselves with this exact same reasoning?

If Christian's can't know what the Bible is until it's canonized, then how are there Church Fathers in the 1st century who recognize the New Testament as Inspired Scripture?

You're making a false equivocation of Church Fathers who recognized books as inspired, with the canon of books that constitute Scripture. Nobody on earth had the Protestant canon of Scripture in the first century, and some books of Scripture weren't recognized as such for a long time afterward.

The Eastern Orthodox Canon is a post-Reformation invention. The canon that you believe in wasn't canonized until 1672 by a synod in Jerusalem.

By this same line of thinking, you could argue that the Trinity was invented at the second ecumenical council, or that the divinity of Christ was only decided at the third council, or even by sexual revisionists of the Fordham variety that the Church has never said anything about Loving Homosexual Relationships in an ecumenical council. When you're leaning on the same reasoning used by skeptics and subversives, it may be time to reevaluate things.

God also allowed Satan to rebel with 1/3 of the angels, allowed Adam to fall into sin in Eden, and allowed his precious and perfect son to die an ignominious death on a cross in place of the most vile and wretched sinners. Maybe God's plan is simply beyond your understanding? A little humility would serve you well.

This is really missing the point, since you're basically saying that Jesus contradicted himself, if not outright lied. And it's not even an argument. "God works in mysterious ways, bro."

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. - 2 Tim. 3:16-17

Who is the "Man of God"? Protestants seem to just assume it refers to anybody who calls himself a Christian, but in Scripture it has a very particular semantic range usually applied to Old Testament prophets, and here, to Timothy, a bishop, ordained by Paul's laying of hands.

Scorpion follows with a long list of nice Bible verses, all of which say positive things about Scripture or God's word, but not what analyst_green requested: "verses saying Scripture is the only or primary source of authority." These verses only show that Scripture is positive, beneficial, or can be used to correct error. Orthodox don't dispute any of these things, none of which are equivocal to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

I think the real lynchpin quote in this discussion is here:

It's not the fault of the Bible if a church apostatizes.

Some of the commenters here like GodfatherPartTwo seem to think that Orthodox are somehow insulting Scripture and must rush to defend it, but this seems totally misplaced. Nobody here is denigrating Scripture, just criticizing the way that it's used in the (varying) protestant traditions and pressed into a role it wasn't meant to be utilized, and various negative effects resulting (eg., massive doctrinal plurality, centuries-long irreconcilable disputes between protestant traditions over fundamental doctrines and practices, and so on.) We love Scripture, we just don't think it's the sole source and repository of Christian doctrine and practice - which I would argue is not just an idea that came a lot later, but an anachronistic, post-printing press perspective borne from highly literate people used to having vast amounts of text easily recorded and distributed via print at low cost, and have a bit of a hard time grasping what things were like before that.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

This seems to me a ludicrously anachronistic bar for someone to have to jump over, which reflects nothing as much as the biases of post printing press people with easy access to vast amounts of information (and more specifically, highly-educated, literate people), which wasn't the norm for 99.9% of all Christians who ever lived.

Reading the Scriptures literally and plainly has been done from before the time of the Apostles, up to this very day. What is a tragedy, is how the illiterate masses were disallowed from learning to read the text on pain of death. There are more Christians alive today than there ever were and they now have access to the Biblical text thanks to the printing press and the Reformation.

But that's just begging the question, assuming that all Christian practices and beliefs are explicitly outlined in the New Testament, which purports to do no such thing. Where's the liturgy and order of worship?

While there is nothing as intricate as Chrysostom's liturgy, the New Testament text gives all the parts necessary for a liturgy.

This is an anachronistic presupposition of people who, for instance, buy a power tool and get an instruction manual exhaustively explaining every single thing it does.

The only anachronism is pretending that all the Church Fathers believed everything you as an Eastern Orthodox Christian do. It ignores the vast swath of variance in what they believed.

You're making a false equivocation of Church Fathers who recognized books as inspired, with the canon of books that constitute Scripture. Nobody on earth had the Protestant canon of Scripture in the first century, and some books of Scripture weren't recognized as such for a long time afterward.

The books are canonical because they are what God inspired. To separate canonicity from inspiration is to make a false-distinction. How can a God-Breathed book not be canonical (authoritative)? The Protestant Canon does have a Patristic precedent in the first millennium, which is more than I can say for the Eastern Orthodox Canon.

By this same line of thinking, you could argue that the Trinity was invented at the second ecumenical council, or that the divinity of Christ was only decided at the third council,

The Trinity and the Divinity of Christ are Biblical truths. You could argue otherwise, you'd be wrong. But if you make the argument that Christians couldn't know what the Scriptures were until they were canonized, then it would be just as fallacious as saying you can't know Christ is God from the Bible.

Who is the "Man of God"? Protestants seem to just assume it refers to anybody who calls himself a Christian, but in Scripture it has a very particular semantic range usually applied to Old Testament prophets, and here, to Timothy, a bishop, ordained by Paul's laying of hands.

Here is John Chrysostom's commentary on 2 Tim 3:16: For this is the exhortation of the Scripture given, that the man of God may be rendered perfect by it; without this therefore he cannot be perfect. You have the Scriptures, he says, in place of me. If you would learn anything, you may learn it from them. And if he thus wrote to Timothy, who was filled with the Spirit, how much more to us!

Timothy isn't the only "Man of God." If you want to argue that, take it up with Chrysostom. All Christians are a priesthood unto God, according to Peter. They are all "Men of God."

These verses only show that Scripture is positive, beneficial, or can be used to correct error. Orthodox don't dispute any of these things, none of which are equivocal to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

The first verse he shared says the Scripture is able to make the Man of God complete in Doctrine and Godliness. It never says that about the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Nobody here is denigrating Scripture, just criticizing the way that it's used in the (varying) protestant traditions and pressed into a role it wasn't meant to be utilized, and various negative effects resulting (eg., massive doctrinal plurality, centuries-long irreconcilable disputes between protestant traditions over fundamental doctrines and practices, and so on.)

Denying the plain testimony of Scripture; that it is sufficient to make you complete in Godliness and Doctrine, is the biggest denigration of Scripture there is.

 

[Lawrence87]

It's not that the Bible says this explicitly; it's that it doesn't say that others received such literal divine powers. And thus there is no reason to believe that anyone did, especially when combined with the glaring lack of evidence supporting such a claim.

The Lord gave the Apostles power to bind and loose etc so that they can instantiate the church. 1 Timothy 4:14 Saint Paul literally speaks about gifts being transmitted through the laying on of hands.

God also allowed Satan to rebel with 1/3 of the angels, allowed Adam to fall into sin in Eden, and allowed his precious and perfect son to die an ignominious death on a cross in place of the most vile and wretched sinners. Maybe God's plan is simply beyond your understanding? A little humility would serve you well.

God didn't promise that this wouldn't happen whereas He promised that the gates of Hades would not prevail against the Church. I need to be humble for believing that the Lord was speaking plainly? Anyway I thought the Bible interprets itself... Who gets to interpret this, and why are they right?

The Catholics also have an unbroken line to the Apostles so why not them?

Without going into detail, they apostatized and decided to change the creed and now the Pope wants to baptize faggots and trannies...

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

The Lord gave the Apostles power to bind and loose etc so that they can instantiate the church. 1 Timothy 4:14 Saint Paul literally speaks about gifts being transmitted through the laying on of hands.

The Scriptures never record Timothy then passing on those sign gifts to others. The sign gifts ceased with the Apostles.

He promised that the gates of Hades would not prevail against the Church.

It seems your understanding of this is "Unless all the Apostles and Church Fathers believed everything that I as an Eastern Orthodox Christian believe, then the gates of Hades overpowered the Church." Last I checked, the Christian faith is the largest in the world.

Without going into detail, they apostatized and decided to change the creed and now the Pope wants to baptize faggots and trannies...

How can they apostatize if they have Apostolic Succession?

 

[Lawrence87]

The Scriptures never record Timothy then passing on those sign gifts to others. The sign gifts ceased with the Apostles.

So if it's not explicitly written it didn't happen?

It seems your understanding of this is "Unless all the Apostles and Church Fathers believed everything that I as an Eastern Orthodox Christian believe, then the gates of Hades overpowered the Church." Last I checked, the Christian faith is the largest in the world.

How many of those have the correct interpretation of Scripture? And by whose standard?

Btw I am just asserting what Protestants tend to believe. That at least by Saint Emperor Constantine, if not before, the Orthodox church had fallen into serious error on numerous fronts. And it remains the case for the church that persisted from that point up untill the Reformation.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

So if it's not explicitly written it didn't happen?

I don't see Apostolic sign gifts today, do you?

How many of those have the correct interpretation of Scripture? And by whose standard?

Btw I am just asserting what Protestants tend to believe. That at least by Saint Emperor Constantine, if not before, the Orthodox church had fallen into serious error on numerous fronts. And it remains the case for the church that persisted from that point up untill the Reformation.

Only God knows, and by His standard.
Some Church Fathers were more Biblical than others. I believe there were genuine Christians from the time of Christ through till today. I wish that Protestants, and all Christians, would familiarize themselves with church history more.

 

[Lawrence87]

I feel like probably I derailed this thread by bringing up Sola Scriptura. My intention was to relate it as a possible reason behind the degradation of Christianity in the West, but it seems to have devolved into a debate about that, which might be better served in another topic. Apologies for that.

I am happy to continue the discussion elsewhere but probably we have gone a bit far from the intended subject of this thread.

 

[Samseau]

Given that the Eastern Orthodox Church has a Biblical Canon that cannot be found in the first millennium of Church History, not until the post-Reformation as a point of fact.

The Eastern Orthodox Canon is a post-Reformation invention. The canon that you believe in wasn't canonized until 1672 by a synod in Jerusalem.

You keep repeating this falsehood, but I can assure you it is nothing what you think it is.

First off, it's a synod, which means it's not across all of Orthodoxy but just a particular church within Orthodoxy, in this case the Church of Jerusalem. I understand that most Orthodox would agree with this synod, but strictly speaking it was only a synod, not a council. Council's are what are truly definitive within Orthodoxy.

Second, that synod merely reaffirmed the use of scripture that had been in place for over a thousand years. Nothing in it was new, but it was explained in a way for Protestants and Catholics to understand within the context of the Protestant reformation.

I repeat: Nothing in it was new, it was the same practice that had been done for over a thousand years, but reaffirmed. So this idea that we use a Biblical Cannon from this time is simply a lie, no idea where you learned it from but it is indeed a lie.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Jerusalem_(1672)

I sorta see why so many place importance on this synod, perhaps because it was a synod addressed to Europeans and so they actually noticed it, but aside from addressing the latest innovations of the Protestant Church there was nothing new inside of it.

 

[Samseau]

As for Sola Scripture debates, and other theological debates:

These will pop up from time to time, and airing out thoughts and opinions is good and healthy, just remember we aren't going to necessarily convince each other so it is good to be patient and humble in discussing these topics.

Make your points, and move on.

 

[scorpion]

We love Scripture, we just don't think it's the sole source and repository of Christian doctrine and practice

I think we're talking past each other a great deal, unfortunately, because Protestants don't believe this either. We recognize great value in tradition, (and obviously God utilized oral tradition substantially in the early Christian era, by His grand design). The only difference is that wherever tradition and scripture conflict, we unhesitatingly confirm the preeminence and authority of scripture. That's what sola scriptura means.

These will pop up from time to time, and airing out thoughts and opinions is good and healthy, just remember we aren't going to necessarily convince each other so it is good to be patient and humble in discussing these topics.

I agree. I hope everyone can walk away from these discussions without anger in their hearts. None of us know the mind of God, and can only do our best to grasp at Christ's perfection as we glimpse Him "through a glass darkly". (1 Cor. 13:12)

 

[Aboulia]

I think we're talking past each other a great deal, unfortunately, because Protestants don't believe this either. We recognize great value in tradition, (and obviously God utilized oral tradition substantially in the early Christian era, by His grand design). The only difference is that wherever tradition and scripture conflict, we unhesitatingly confirm the preeminence and authority of scripture. That's what sola scriptura means.

Traditions and Holy Scripture don't really conflict if you read it with the proper understanding, things can seemingly contradict because it's always aiming at the narrow path, trials, temptations and troubles appear no matter where one goes.

Forgive me but I have a hard time believing your words. I brought up St Ignatius earlier, because he was a direct disciple of St John (who wrote the Gospel), and ordained a bishop by St Peter (the Apostle), and he brings up the structure of the Church, which the reformed churches have always ignored.

Are you willing to make the argument that although St John's Gospel was preserved for roughly 2000 years, St John couldn't even pass down a proper understanding of the faith to his disciple (whom St Peter thought worthy to make a bishop)?

Spoiler: This isn't my own idea

Fr John Whiteford mentioned in a podcast that this is what converted him from Protestantism.

 

[Hermetic Seal]

Reading the Scriptures literally and plainly has been done from before the time of the Apostles, up to this very day.

For the first 1500-plus years by a privileged minority of literate people. Most people being able to read and easily access a Bible was not the historical norm. Are they just crap outta luck?

What is a tragedy, is how the illiterate masses were disallowed from learning to read the text on pain of death.

Okay. Not familiar with any Orthodox synod that proclaimed such a thing.

While there is nothing as intricate as Chrysostom's liturgy, the New Testament text gives all the parts necessary for a liturgy.

No it doesn’t, and this is why Protestants can’t agree what worship should look like. The apostolic churches don’t have this problem, and it wasn’t even an issue before the Reformation.

The only anachronism is pretending that all the Church Fathers believed everything you as an Eastern Orthodox Christian do. It ignores the vast swath of variance in what they believed.

This is just a deflection that doesn’t address my point at all, and just reveals that your don’t understand how the Church actually operates or parses the many ancient Christian writings. The Church has always endorsed some, and rejected other parts, often the speculations (eg, some of St. Augustine’s teachings) that are in error. This is a vast topic a bit beyond the scope of this discussion, but suffice to say the Patristic Consensus looks a whole lot more like Orthodoxy than Calvinism.

The books are canonical because they are what God inspired.

Sure, but recognizing that isn’t self evident. There’s nothing in the text of Matthew, for example, telling us who wrote it. We know based on… tradition. Discerning the canon was a process which took time, and had a variety of factors, such as which books were read liturgically in worship - which was the main way Christians would encounter Scripture and learn it, by the way.

To separate canonicity from inspiration is to make a false-distinction.

They’re not the same thing. A text can be inspired but not Scripture - like many writings of the Church Fathers, the liturgical texts, the Ecumenical Councils, and so on.

The Trinity and the Divinity of Christ are Biblical truths. You could argue otherwise, you'd be wrong. But if you make the argument that Christians couldn't know what the Scriptures were until they were canonized, then it would be just as fallacious as saying you can't know Christ is God from the Bible.

I’m not saying that Christians couldn’t know what was Scripture, but that they couldn’t know by themselves without the Church. Again, the notion that every atomized individual could or should be able to figure out what texts are Scripture on their own in a vacuum based on critical textual analysis or whatever is just betraying the particular biases of post printing press, individualistic westerners.

Here is John Chrysostom's commentary on 2 Tim 3:16: For this is the exhortation of the Scripture given, that the man of God may be rendered perfect by it; without this therefore he cannot be perfect. You have the Scriptures, he says, in place of me. If you would learn anything, you may learn it from them. And if he thus wrote to Timothy, who was filled with the Spirit, how much more to us!

Nothing here clashes with anything that I - or the Church - says. This is saying Scripture is good and beneficial. Not Sola Scriptura. St. John is simply saying that the same instruction that benefitted St. Timothy is beneficial for his listeners as well.

All Christians are a priesthood unto God, according to Peter. They are all "Men of God."

Wrong. Israel was called a nation of priests (Exodus 19.6), but had particular duties properly performed by the Levitical priesthood alone. So it is with the Church in which we are all in a sense a priesthood, but there is still a particular priesthood - not in the order of the Levites, but the order of Melchizedek.

Denying the plain testimony of Scripture; that it is sufficient to make you complete in Godliness and Doctrine, is the biggest denigration of Scripture there is.

Again, you’re reading into the text things that aren’t there. St Paul says (in the KJV, which I’m sure is an accurate enough translation of this passage) that Scripture is “profitable for doctrine,” not complete. He’s telling Timothy that knowledge of Scripture will make him well equipped for his duties as a bishop, which we completely affirm. He does not tell Timothy that Scripture contains every single thing he needs to know and teach.

At any rate, St. Paul is talking about the Old Testament scriptures, since when St. Timothy was young the New Testament hadn’t been written, and was only partially written at the time of this epistle. If you want to make the argument above, you’re basically saying the New Testament isn’t necessary for any of those things since the OT already provides everything needed! Or one could easily argue that 2 Peter, the Appcalypse, various other books after 2 Timothy are precluded from being authentic Scripture on this same basis as well.

 

[scorpion]

Forgive me but I have a hard time believing your words. I brought up St Ignatius earlier, because he was a direct disciple of St John (who wrote the Gospel), and ordained a bishop by St Peter (the Apostle), and he brings up the structure of the Church, which the reformed churches have always ignored.

Call me mistaken if you'd like, debate me vociferously if you feel compelled, and by all means correct me if you think I'm in error, but if you accuse me of deliberately lying again I'll show you the door. Roosh had his red lines, I have mine, and you're nudging up on one of them with that remark. I'm very lax with moderation as far as allowing people to post their honestly held opinions, but I'm not going to allow you or anyone else to impugn my character by suggesting that I'm lying or intentionally misrepresenting my views.

Let others heed this warning, as well, and recognize that it doesn't apply only when directed at me. Show your fellow forum members respect, and do not insult them by accusing them of lying or misrepresenting themselves (unless you have strong reasons or evidence to support such a belief). If you can't comport yourself in in the midst of contentious discussion like a gentleman, you have no place here.

Are you willing to make the argument that although St John's Gospel was preserved for roughly 2000 years, St John couldn't even pass down a proper understanding of the faith to his disciple (whom St Peter thought worthy to make a bishop)?

I'm willing to make the argument that the letters of Ignatius are not divinely inspired, God-breathed scripture, and thus cannot be said to be inerrant, regardless of their merits. For this reason, whatever traditions are derived from them cannot supersede what is taught in scripture. I'm sure Ignatius had many great insights and teachings, but regardless of whatever he said, his letters are ultimately just the opinions of a man, and not the word of God.

 

[Iacobus]

I'm willing to make the argument that the letters of Ignatius are not divinely inspired, God-breathed scripture, and thus cannot be said to be inerrant, regardless of their merits. For this reason, whatever traditions are derived from them cannot supersede what is taught in scripture. I'm sure Ignatius had many great insights and teachings, but regardless of whatever he said, his letters are ultimately just the opinions of a man, and not the word of God.

Let's say I grant your point that St. Ignatius was not writing in the Spirit, not divinely inspired, not inerrant. Are his letters not still a testimony of the Church as it was founded? Or was it totally altered changed and corrupted in a single generation?

Furthermore I keep seeing the implication that tradition is contradicting Scripture without evidence of this actually being the case. Tradition adds to and complements Scripture, it doesn't supersede it. One example I saw Godfather bring up was infant baptism, but nowhere in Scripture does it say to not baptize infants and there is evidence to the contrary.

I don't think the argument can be that "where Scripture and tradition conflict, Scripture must be deferred to," what I'm consistently seeing is more "if it is not in the Scripture then it is not Christian or Godly" which is a bolder claim. I understand that you may not necessarily be making this claim yourself.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

For the first 1500-plus years by a privileged minority of literate people. Most people being able to read and easily access a Bible was not the historical norm. Are they just crap outta luck?

What are you even arguing for at this point?
We all recognize that, and that situation has been rectified, thanks to God's Providence. What do you want to do about it?

No it doesn’t, and this is why Protestants can’t agree what worship should look like. The apostolic churches don’t have this problem, and it wasn’t even an issue before the Reformation.

Reading the text, singing, praying, communion, etc. are all in the text. This is only an "issue" if you think every church should be following Chrysostom's liturgy.

The Church has always endorsed some, and rejected other parts, often the speculations (eg, some of St. Augustine’s teachings) that are in error.

That mostly comes from Romanides. There's Eastern theologians who affirm that Augustine was correct on Original Sin.

Patristic Consensus looks a whole lot more like Orthodoxy than Calvinism.

Patristic Consensus didn't have the Orthodox Canon, had no concept of Essence-Energies Distinction, affirmed Original Sin. Patristic "Consensus" means whatever your church tells you was the consensus. Just as Catholics will say Patristic "Consensus" was that the Pope had universal jurisdiction. It comes down to your church.

Discerning the canon was a process which took time

It took 1600 years in the case of Eastern Orthodoxy.

Sure, but recognizing that isn’t self evident. There’s nothing in the text of Matthew, for example, telling us who wrote it.

The title: The Gospel according to Matthew, which is a feature of the manuscripts, should give you a clue.

Nothing here clashes with anything that I - or the Church - says. This is saying Scripture is good and beneficial. Not Sola Scriptura. St. John is simply saying that the same instruction that benefitted St. Timothy is beneficial for his listeners as well.

I'm going to keep quoting 2 Timothy 3:16 until you quit downplaying what it says: it doesn't say "the Scriptures are helpful." It says "the Scriptures are sufficient to make you complete in Doctrine and Godliness."

Wrong. Israel was called a nation of priests (Exodus 19.6), but had particular duties properly performed by the Levitical priesthood alone. So it is with the Church in which we are all in a sense a priesthood, but there is still a particular priesthood - not in the order of the Levites, but the order of Melchizedek.

It's not wrong. It's what the Scriptures say. All Christians are a priesthood unto God, so says the Apostle Peter through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Levitical Priests were not for the Church. The only priesthood of the New Covenant is the Melchizedek priesthood.

Again, you’re reading into the text things that aren’t there. St Paul says (in the KJV, which I’m sure is an accurate enough translation of this passage) that Scripture is “profitable for doctrine,” not complete.

Let's do it again, I'll even reword sufficient: The Scriptures are profitable to make you complete in Doctrine and Godliness.

He’s telling Timothy that knowledge of Scripture will make him well equipped for his duties as a bishop, which we completely affirm. He does not tell Timothy that Scripture contains every single thing he needs to know and teach.

Bishop is nowhere to be found in this text. Now who's reading things in? You're still pretending that it doesn't say complete, fully equipped. Not "well equipped," fully equipped as John Chrysostom noted.

At any rate, St. Paul is talking about the Old Testament scriptures, since when St. Timothy was young the New Testament hadn’t been written, and was only partially written at the time of this epistle.

Given that Paul refers to the Gospel of Luke as Scripture in 1 Timothy, this is unlikely. It also has nothing to do with the fact that he is commenting on the nature of all Scripture.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Let's say I grant your point that St. Ignatius was not writing in the Spirit, not divinely inspired, not inerrant. Are his letters not still a testimony of the Church as it was founded? Or was it totally altered changed and corrupted in a single generation?

Given that the Scripture never refers to anything else as God-Breathed, the first point should be a given. His letters are not a testimony of the Church as it was founded, no. He was no Apostle. He is of the generation after. "Totally altered, changed and corrupted" is loaded. Biblically, Episkopos and Presbuteros have no distinction.

Furthermore I keep seeing the implication that tradition is contradicting Scripture without evidence of this actually being the case. Tradition adds to and complements Scripture, it doesn't supersede it. One example I saw Godfather bring up was infant baptism, but nowhere in Scripture does it say to not baptize infants and there is evidence to the contrary.

Praying to humans and angels is unbiblical. Creating images for religious worship is unbiblical. Making sacraments necessary for salvation is unbiblical. The list can go on.