Iakobos
Orthodox
You said this:
The verse you quoted said this:
The verse doesn't say what you said. That's what I meant by interpretation.
Christianity Lounge
- Thread starter Blade Runner
- Start date
- Featured
You said this:
The verse you quoted said this:
The verse doesn't say what you said. That's what I meant by interpretation.
It doesn't say what I said in that precise formulation, but it says what it says. If the Scriptures do not contain the fullness of the Apostolic faith, then why does Paul say that they are able to make you complete and fully equipped by their teaching? Shouldn't Paul have said partially complete, partially equipped, for some good works?
Last edited:
Iakobos
Orthodox
Another follow-up, do I understand your position correctly that you would say it would be impossible for the apostles and their successors to have e.g. taught and practiced a liturgical worship not in Scripture, on the basis of the verse you quoted above from 2 Timothy?
The Scriptures do not contain a specific, liturgical worship service but they do contain all the parts necessary to make one. These would be the preaching of God's Word, the Lord's Supper, Baptism, singing hymns, first day of the week, tithes, etc. The word 'liturgy' has changed over time. In our contexts, we use it in a very narrow sense, but it originally had a broader meaning.
Agreed. I may disagree with someone but God willing I will never abuse my "power" to silence them on that basis, as long as they are keeping within the rules.
Lots of stuff, but you wouldn't know as you aren't in His Church.
A few examples:
- The Eucharist: Not merely symbolic bread and wine, but the true Body and Blood of Christ, consecrated through Apostolic succession. This is the heart of Christian life, and outside the Church it cannot exist. I partook of it today and I honestly can't describe how amazing the experience is. I could try, but I think you have to personally experience it to really understand.
- Holy Relics: The incorrupt relics of saints (e.g. St. Spyridon, St. John Maximovitch) and miracle-working relics preserved in Orthodox churches. These are tangible testimonies of sanctity that protestantism rejects or ignores.
- Writings of the Holy Fathers as authoritative: While some heterodox may read the Holy Fathers, only the Orthodox Church actually receives them as living teachers within the same tradition. For example the homilies of St. John Chrysostom are not “extra commentary” but part of the Church’s continuous life. They are essential.
- Holy Icons and murals: More than mere artwork, they are windows into heaven, blessed for veneration and participation in worship. Their presence and miracles (weeping icons, healings) are testimonies of God’s grace in His Church.
- Liturgical Life: The Divine Liturgy, Vespers, Matins, and the full cycle of prayer that goes back to the Apostles and Temple worship. Protestant worship services, however sincere, are contrivances and innovations without continuity or authenticity.
- The Canon of Scripture itself: The very knowledge of which books belong in the Bible comes from the Church. Protestants may read the Bible but cannot account for its canon apart from the authority of the early Church.
Regarding your quote from Timothy, Paul says that “all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable” but profitable does not mean sufficient. If Paul meant that only scripture was necessary, he would be contradicting himself in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, since there exists both oral and written tradition. This is typical protestant pilpul because they have only scripture to rely on their arguments tend to rely on technicalities and become very legalistic.
In fact, when Paul wrote to Timothy, the “scriptures” he referenced were primarily the Old Testament since the New Testament was still being written and not yet canonized. By your logic this would mean the Old Testament alone is sufficient, which no protestant actually believes. Or do you? (you don't).
The Orthodox position harmonizes both passages because scripture is indeed inspired and essential, but it is always received within and alongside the living tradition of the Church. Paul’s own words show that Apostolic tradition, oral and written, is necessary for the fullness of Christian faith. Btw I'm not sure if you know this, but the Orthodox read and sing extensively from scripture in all of our services, and when the Priest gives his homily he usually quotes from it, etc. We revere and follow it as much as any protestant does, but we also maintain it in the proper place and context inside the Church alongside the various other traditions and sacraments.
While we are on the subject, a funny thought occured to me the other day while I was pondering the "logic" of this protestant fallacy and I think I had an epiphany (I didn't think I was capable of those, so I'm probably wrong, but please bear with me). It was something along the lines of: by detaching scripture from the Church and Councils that birthed and guarded it for thousands of years, protestants have effectively turned the Bible itself into an idol. And as a result instead of receiving it as the living word proclaimed, interpreted, and enacted in the Body of Christ, they treat the text itself as a self-interpreting authority, each individual becoming their own pope.
This is not actually reverence, but misuse, deeply rooted in pride and ego, as the Bible was never meant to stand alone cut off from the Apostolic tradition and the Eucharistic life of the Church. In the end, protestantism does not exalt scripture as claimed but actually diminishes it, because apart from the Church’s tradition and guidance by the Holy Spirit, it becomes fractured into thousands of competing interpretations (as we see in real life, so this isn't just a theory), and the truth of the Logos is in fact corrupted and ultimately lost. Then you end up with stuff like gay pride parades and rock concerts and female clergy or even priests (God forbid) in "the church". The Orthodox Church by contrast does not idolize the text but venerates it rightly as the inspired witness safeguarded and rightly understood only within the one, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church that Christ Himself founded.
Earlier today on the way home from Divine Liturgy my wife shared with me an excellent homily by Fr. Moses and it made me realize something else. Protestants are described very accurately in the parable of the wedding feast from Matthew 22:1-14.
For those that aren't familiar, Christ’s parable of the wedding feast shows that God invited many, but some refused, and some even mistreated His servants, and they were all cast out. The banquet itself symbolizes the Kingdom of God made present in His Church. Throughout history, the faithful have entered that banquet through the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, preserved in Orthodoxy.
Christ Himself says in John 14:6 there is no way to the Father except through Him, and yet these people however well meaning and convinced of their own correctness continue to reject the intent and legacy of His Church. Why did Christ even bother to establish and teach about His Church if you don't need it? Or I guess you think you are in it, and it's some imaginary and invisible "church" and you don't need to bother with the real visible earthly Church, which is clearly founded and rooted in scripture, which you profess to follow. Please make it make sense.
To put it another way, when heterodox reject the Church and its sacramental life and the many gifts offered by Christ, they act like those invited guests who declined the king’s summons because they had something better to do, or thought themselves to be above it, or considered it "optional". The warning of the parable is clear: it is not enough to claim belief in Christ while refusing His banquet. We must enter the feast in the way He established, through His visible, Apostolic Church.
Another example that comes to mind is from Matthew 7:21-23 where Christ says “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’”
Christ makes it clear that simply calling on His name or doing works in His name is not enough. What matters is doing the will of the Father. Christ established His Church, gave it to the Apostles, and commanded that the faith be handed down through them, and he clearly expected his faithful servants to participate in it. To reject that visible Apostolic Church is to refuse His will, no matter how sincerely one proclaims “Lord, Lord”.
Like the guests in the parable who declined the king’s banquet, those who reject the Orthodox Church may claim to be justified but they stand outside the wedding feast. True obedience and humility in Christ is not inventing new paths but remaining in the one Body of Christ, the Church, where He is truly known.
The last thing I will say on this is I think a lot of these obstinate and prideful mis-guided beliefs originally stem from actually valid and right objections to the corruptions and abuses of the roman catholic church. I grew up in a protestant family and I bristled at the idea of someone standing between me and God and I believed many of their traditions to be heretical (and still do), and the corruption and decay within that church was obvious even to me as a teenager. Where some make a huge mistake however, I suspect, is by extending those same feelings and incorrect beliefs towards and about the Orthodox Church.
Unlike the roman catholics, the Orthodox Church has remained faithful to the traditions of Christ and His Apostles and their Councils and resisted the many innovations and heresies over thousands of years, it does not have a rampant child-abuse problem, nor a heretical "infallable" papacy, it doesn't have trillions of dollars of net worth like they do, our priests are allowed to marry and have families, etc. The difference is really night and day and I really think it would behoove a lot of folks to take a closer look and compare the two and try to understand why protestantism arose in the first place, as a necessary and correct movement, but also realize that the Orthodox are not your enemy and ultimately come home to His true Church. How many of you have actually attended a service at an Orthodox Church or spoken to an Orthodox Priest? I think you might be surprised if you ever did.
Anyway, I know some people won't hear the truth of this no matter what I say or do, and that is between them and Christ, but I will share it for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear. For the others, I'll continue to pray for you and humbly beg for your forgiveness if I have offended you. I know I am not very intelligent or persuasive and am unworthy to speak His name but I only do what I can out of love for my brothers and sisters in Christ and my desire to share the truth of His word.
And I've said this before but regardless what you believe I love you and want only good things for you. God willing I would never make the mistake of saying someone is a bad person or that they aren't saved even if they might not be following the correct teachings or be a member of the Orthodox Church. It may seem like some of my comments are personal attacks but I promise you they aren't.
If you got this far thank you for reading. Take care and God bless.
In Christ,
Servant of Christ
Here is what Paul says in 2 Timothy 3:15:
"and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to make you wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus."
Are the Scriptures sufficient for your salvation? The Apostles said they are.
Like I said above, even if Paul is only referring to the Old Testament, his claim for Scriptural sufficiency becomes even stronger. I do believe that the prophets and patriarchs were saved through faith in Christ, and all they had was the Old Testament. When the Apostles first began to evangelize, the Scriptures say that they "proved Christ from the Scriptures."
They did exactly that. Though not just one book, but a full body of works, meant to correct and lead the church.
We want to avoid the error of anachronism, so we do not intepret the 1st century Scriptures according to 8th century councils. We want to know what the Apostles meant in their own context. When you say "living tradition", you essentially mean the same thing as liberals when they say the Constitution is "a living, breathing document." As for turning the Bible into an idol, can God's Word be an idol?
Thanks. While browsing this I was helpfully reminded of something:
John 21:25: “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.” (KJV)
It's almost like scripture, while being correct and necessary, is not by itself all-knowing and all-encompassing when it comes to the life of Christ and the Christian faith.
It's also scripture itself proving that not everything was written down. Check-mate.
Would would have thought?
John 20:30 Therefore many other signs Jesus also did in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.
A view I've heard expounded and which I agreed with is that Scripture contains everything necessary for salvation. That means that even though Christ and the disciples and the early church did things that weren't recorded in the New Testament, what is recorded in the New Testament is what is necessary for salvation.
Scripture has indeed said not everything done by Christ was written down but it is an error to make the logical leap that therefore there was other teachings essential to the faith that wasn't written down. The verse "and there was many other things that Jesus did' doesn't mean "and there was many other things that Jesus did and taught that were only preserved in the oral tradition " which seems to be the (incorrect) interpretation that is being made here.
To use a early example that would be relevant to the current discussion, it would mean that things like icons could have been used very early on in church history but they aren't necessary for salvation even if they could be a useful tool for believers in worship. If icons were essential they would have been included in the New Testament in addition to some of the other things that are listed as needed for a proper gathering of believes such as having well respected elders of good character being part of the congregation.
EDIT: GodfatherPart2 basically makes the same argument I do or more precisely, he quotes the Bible that already contains the argument which I merely just expounded on.
Scripture has indeed said not everything done by Christ was written down but it is an error to make the logical leap that therefore there was other teachings essential to the faith that wasn't written down. The verse "and there was many other things that Jesus did' doesn't mean "and there was many other things that Jesus did and taught that were only preserved in the oral tradition " which seems to be the (incorrect) interpretation that is being made here.
To use a early example that would be relevant to the current discussion, it would mean that things like icons could have been used very early on in church history but they aren't necessary for salvation even if they could be a useful tool for believers in worship. If icons were essential they would have been included in the New Testament in addition to some of the other things that are listed as needed for a proper gathering of believes such as having well respected elders of good character being part of the congregation.
EDIT: GodfatherPart2 basically makes the same argument I do or more precisely, he quotes the Bible that already contains the argument which I merely just expounded on.
Last edited:
Does being "wise unto" something mean possessing that thing? Or perhaps knowing about it generally, or how it works, or something else? Does that guarantee salvation?
Thank you for admitting you were taking Paul out of context.
... so they actually didn't, as you yourself just proved with that comment. As much as you wish they did. I'm honestly getting a bit tired of people not being precise with their language. It's bordering on maliciousness. You shouldn't be so desparate to "win" a debate that you intentionally mis-represent the saying or teachings of Christ or the Apostles. I promise, even if it helps you "win", you will lose in the end. Also, that "body of works" was later compiled by who? The Holy Fathers, Councils, and the Orthodox Church. Next.
If you truly want those things I have amazing and wonderful news! You need only consult with the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church which has been faithfully uphoding the teachings of Christ and the Apostles since the day of Pentecost.
Would you like me to help you locate a nice Orthodox Church nearby? I'm being a little bit snarky but also 100% serious. I am certain you would enjoy and learn a lot by attending a Divine Liturgy and speaking with an Orthodox Priest. And if you are certain in your beliefs there is nothing to lose or fear by trying, right?
Anyway...
Take care & God bless my brother.
In Christ,
SoC
I'm curious what his criteria is. You have direct citations in the patristics to the Bible. But you also have allusions. Direct citations are easily identified. Allusions can be more difficult to identify.
The devil knows all Scripture by heart, so did all the heretics in history.
Scripture by itself without the interpretation of the Church Fathers will not save anyone. Scripture interpretted correctly by the Church Fathers without the Mysteries of the Church will not save anyone. The Mysteries by themselves without asceticism will not save anyone. Asceticism by itself without the guidance of a spiritual father with valid Apostolic succession will not save anyone. A spiritual father with valid Apostolic succession by himself without the Holy Tradition will not save anyone. The holy Tradition by itself without the scriptures will not save anyone.
To be saved, one needs to believe the totality of the Faith, as it was deposited by the Holy Spirit to the Apostles and their successors and was spread by writing AND orally. Saint Paul tought in Ephessus for 3 years and he wrote one epistle.
So get over your fake protestant either/or dualities which are based on man-made traditions, invented from 16th century until today. You are making up as you go.
Last edited:
The Church though is key, as He set up the hierarchy while he was still on earth. It wasn't just a loosely affiliated invisible hierarchy. He had his inner 12 disciples, and the 72 mentioned in Luke 10, this hierarchy wasn't just open to anyone just by confessing Christ's name for example in Luke 9, when the disciples asked if they should forbid those that are casting out demons in Christ's name outside the hierarchy, He replied "As long as they aren't against you they're with you". The reaction wasn't, "You're using Christ's name, you're one of us" It was you're not part of the hierarchy, what are you doing?
All of the Epistles were written to those who were called to be Saints/churches/individuals in that hierarchy, it wasn't material for the general public, nor can anyone outside the hierarchy lay claim to it.
It's also worth mentioning in Acts lots were cast between two people to take the betrayers place, showing a leadership remaining even after the death + resurrection and people like Simon Magus were rebuffed when he desired unworthily to move up, showing that the higher places in the hierarchy wasn't open to just anyone who wanted power ordained by God.
This topic is already played out. The Bible gives the full story of how the Church was founded, what offices the Apostles created to govern the church (Bishops and Deacons), what authority the bishops are under (the Word of God). Etc. This is all in Acts. It's not really worth it to reinterpret it according to how the traditions developed centuries afterward. Better to stick with the Apostles own teaching on these topics.
I'm not sure what point you're making with Luke 9 (you mean Mark 9). Jesus told the disciples to not stop the man. Are you saying they should've stopped the man and we should have the same attitude?
No, I mean Luke 9:49-50. And not to stop the man insofar as he's not against you. That's the important part. Once you set up a parallel structure or start teaching differently like the Nicolatians then you're a problem, you become opposed to Christ.
The point is that there is already an established earthly structure, the Apostles recognized that, and even though people may confess Christ by using his name, that people is still outside the structure and thus the Church which Christ built no matter, what they confess, or how good of a person they may be.
OK. So the Orthodox Church has set up a parallel structure that has a different church government than what the Apostles instituted. What should we do?
Sounds good. You should try it some time.
This is 1000% false. Have you ever attended an Orthodox Liturgy and spoken to a Priest about your concerns? I guarantee they can address and fully explain any concerns you may have.