A cursory study or knowledge of hermeneutics shows that without a guide for what is written, there is no way you could know if you were doing it right (understanding it). Even the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint) requires knowledge of the thought process or worldview of semitic peoples, being more reliable than the Masoretic Text. Just in that statement one can see how complex this whole issue is.
I always loved this one.
Wouldn't the Masoretic Text be more useful for tapping into the Semitic worldview?
As someone else has mentioned, that the Eucharist had not yet been established does not preclude Christ from alluding to it. He alluded to many, many things that would yet come to pass, this would not be an exception. Following that line of reasoning you would then, for example, have to make the argument that Christ never referred to the Resurrection before he had been crucified.
Sure, but there's nothing in John 6 that even mentions the Eucharist.
I think John 6:53 is more connected to John 6:35 than Mark 14:22-24.
We were discussing how you would interpet Christ's reference to His body and blood, which is mentioned in John 6.
There's not even the beginnings of a rationale in that statement. If you have the will I'd be interested to hear why Mark 14:22-24 is not very connected to John 6:53? How do you intepret Mark 14:22-24? Otherwise have a good Lord's Day yourself.
Saying Christ knows the future is a different statement than saying John 6 is about the Eucharist. There's nothing in John 6 that tells us it is.
I don't deny that Christ institutes the Eucharist in Mark 14, He clearly does. If you come to John 6, and define it's terms by Mark 14, rather than what John 6 says about itself, then you will come to a different conclusion than if you allow John 6 to stand within it's own context.
Justification by faith alone is the least legalistic soteriology that you could believe in. Unless Eastern Orthodoxy has started believing in Paul's soteriology, I'm not buying this statement.
By legalistic, I am referring to the idea that you must earn your way into God's standing. In that regard, justification by faith alone is not legalistic at all. I do not need an Orthodox priest, Orthodox sacraments, Orthodox toll houses to be justified in God's sight. God's grace is not limited to the Orthodox church. Just as the Christians in Paul's day did not need the Jewish temple and Jewish sacraments to be justified.
The question of how a person is saved is fundamental. Grace, predestination, faith, repentance, all have their part to play. But at the end of the day, if you are not righteous in God's sight, you do not have eternal life and will not be living in His presence. You are not legal where the Bible speaks of this in legal terms, but you are legal where the Bible speaks of this in terms of grace. But I think you are representing your side well. You are presenting salvation as a list of legal requirements that it is up to the individual to accomplish in order to be saved (we really have to repent, we really have to convert our hearts, we really have to accept grace). You do not see it as the work of God that He has already accomplished according to His own grace and mercy.
I recommend you read up on what Protestants believe about Sanctification before you make a statement like this. No Protestant believes salvation is "nominally changing a category." God's act of justification plays out in our sanctification.
Can a person receive God's saving grace without the Orthodox sacraments? If not, then they are a legalistic requirement of salvation. The way you are defining them makes them sound more pliable than how the Orthodox actually understand them (God's grace is locked in the sacraments).
So if someone makes the intellectual assent, he believes that God became man in Christ and is his Savior, he is still not saved? What else must he do to earn salvation?
We had a good thread that touched on this. Are you advocating for Infant Universalism or are you saying we don't know? Because I agree that we don't know. Believing that every person deserves to go to hell is not the same thing as believing that every infant goes to hell. Generally, the trend in the Reformed camp is to believe that every infant goes to heaven, without compromising the Biblical doctrine of Original Sin.
Isn't it interesting that the people whom Christ never knew are those who were trusting in their works?
Paul anathematizes anyone who would add works to their justification in Galatians. He is much harder on this issue than even most Protestants.
Calvin didn't invent predestination. It's a reoccurring theme throughout the New Testament, especially in Paul's letters.
Again, we aren't asking the same question. You are asking how to have the right category when you die so that you can enjoy comforts in Heaven. We start with the Fall of Adam and Eve. Instead of asking "How can I be saved?", we are asking "How can I be reconciled with God?". God created us for communion, not to put us into arbitrary categories that lead to either eternal comfort or eternal pain.
Maybe some protestant groups give lip service to this, but on a practical level all protestant groups believe in nominalism. Again, this is why at a protestant's funeral, the pastor declares the person "saved" and "in Heaven", and everyone without hesitation believes/assumes this. I know, since I'm descended from protestants, including ones who had zero forgiveness for people who were perceived as "unworthy", ones with porn addictions, and ones with history of aiding/getting abortion. The examples I gave above are not pure hypotheticals, but exact instances that I've seen play out in real life. These family members that I'm mentioning showed absolutely zero signs of repentance, and their pastors didn't even really know about any of these issues, since Protestantism is highly individualized and not very communal.
Absolutely the Orthodox believe that God's grace exists outside of the sacraments. When Christ teaches in John 3:5 that unless a man is reborn of water and the Spirit (referencing baptism), then he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God, he is speaking truly, but not absolutely. We know this because the thief on the Cross did not receive baptism before his death.
I think you might want to go back and re-read that passage. Christ was in fact condemning those who claimed to have faith (by calling him Lord) but who did not have good works. Or, to re-iterate the Book of James in many places, "faith without works is dead faith."
He must repent and, with the help of God's grace, transform his life so that he can grow in unity with God.
Distinction without a difference. Being reconciled to God = being saved.
In other words, you don't need Baptism to be saved. So either your interpretation of John 3 is wrong or Jesus was.
Again, there is no reason to read a works-based salvation into Matthew 7. Doing the will of the Father = believing in the one whom He has sent. Not trusting in your works. Faith without works is dead, but there are no good works without faith.
I have read your material. Based on everything you're telling me here, you are trusting in your works, otherwise we wouldn't be arguing.
Your entire post is bashing on Protestants and talking up the Orthodox Church, you guys don't come across as very humble to me. You are free to say Orthodoxy is better in every way. But I am also free to point out that it is worse (less Biblical) in every way.
There's Five Solas. Again, you are throwing a lot of heat while demonstrating unfamiliarity with Reformed Theology. Solus Christus (Christ Alone) and Soli Deo Gloria (Glory to God alone.) You can't agree with any of the Solas because they were specifically designed to get around any notion of the man-made tradition of the Sacerdotal Priesthood and Sacramental forgiveness. Even your understanding of Sola Gratia is still man-centered.
Two threads on here that prove this is false. There was no Orthodox tradition to appeal to in the days of the Apostles. There was only what the Apostles taught orally (which we do not possess) and what they wrote (the Scriptures). The Orthodox tradition, starting from Palamas onwards, is an add-on and non-essential to the Biblical faith. Worse, the deeper you dive into Orthodoxy, the more you are going astray from what the Apostles taught.
Have you stopped sinning or do you still sin?
"Interpreting Scripture through the light of the Church" is code for interpreting Scripture through the light of my tradition. Catholics says the same thing and yet you arrive at different conclusions. How about interpreting Scripture according to it's original context instead?
This canard is very tiring because it can be equally applied to Orthodoxy and it's concept of Apostolicity. 'People claim to be interpreting Scripture through the light of the Church, but they come to different conclusions, so you just have to let them do what they want.'
As if there aren't progressive Orthodox churches?