The Shared Tradition of EOC & Catholics and the growth of the episcopacy

[superdave5221]

The following is taken from The Eternal Kingdom, by F.W. Mattox.

325 AD The Council of Nicaea exalted the bishops of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria to the position of patriarchs (or Metropolitans) and gave them charge over the Church in their respective provinces, placing all bishops under the authority of their Metropolitans. The bishop of Rome had authority over the bishops of Italy only, as the bishop of Alexandria had over Egypt, Libya and the Pentapolis.

341 AD Julius, bishop of Rome, wrote a council at Antiock that questioned that dispute should be settled at Rome as that is "the tradition handed down from the blessed Apostle Peter."

343 AD The Council of Sardiea agreed that the retrial of bishops should be held in Rome to "honor the memory of the Apostle Peter." The bishop of Rome was to preside or appoint arbitrators.

376 AD Damascus, bishop of Rome, hired Jerome to translate the Bible into Latin and Jerome appeals to him for a decision saying, "I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter.... for this I know, is the Rock on which the Church is built."

380 AD Theodosius I recognized the bishop of Rome as "Pontif".

381 AD One hundred and fifty bishops of the council of Constantinople gave the bishop of Constantinople the first place of honor in the church next after the bishop of Rome. This gave him control of the church in the East and exalted him over the bishops of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem.

382 AD Valentinian the Emperor agrees to back up with imperial force the decisions of the bishop of Rome affecting the trial of church officials. Metropolitans had to come to Rome for trial before the Roman bishop.

417 AD The Bishop of Rome tells African bishops, "Nothing should be taken as finally settled unless it came to notice of this See, that any just pronouncement might be confirmed by all the auhority of this See, and that the other churches might from thence gather what they should teach." Notice that decrees from Rome are to take the place of Scripture in determining the Truth.

424 AD The African bishops in the Synod at Carthage rejected the interference of the bishops of Rome and reminded him that at Nicaea the Metropolitan had authority in his own district.

445 AD Valentinium III decreed in favor of the Roman bishop's having universal authority. He said, "Inasmuch as the pre-eminence of the Apostolic See is assured by the merit of St. Peter, the first of the bishops, by the leading positions of the city of Rome, and also by the authority of the holy Synod, let not presumption strive to attempt anything contrary to the authority of that See.....We decree.....that nothing shall be attempted by the .....bishops....without the authority of the venerable pope of the Eternal City."

541 AD The Council of Chalcedon reaffirmed the decision of the council of Constantinople (381) exalting the bishop of Constantinople. They did not accept the idea of the "chair of Peter" but said, "For to the throne of Old Rome, the Fathers gave priveleges with good reason, because it was the imperial city. And the 150 bishops, with the same consideration in view gave equal privelages to the most holy throne of New Rome." (Constantinople). They then gave the bishop of Constantinople the right to ordain the Metropolitans in the East, who had the responsibility of ordaining bishops under them.


It is interesting that some EOC attempt to deny that shared tradition. Is it because history shows a steady slide from biblical orthodoxy to manmade doctrine and structure resulting from power struggles within the church, and a continued secularization and dependence on the power of the state.

Or is it that they cannot adequately explain how the true "Church of Christ" could split in two in 1054 over whether or not to use unleavened bread at communion? How can this bastion of Truth have broken up over something that surely should have been known for sure after a thousand years of existence?

 

[OldOrthodoxChristian]

The following is taken from The Eternal Kingdom, by F.W. Mattox.

325 AD The Council of Nicaea exalted the bishops of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria to the position of patriarchs (or Metropolitans) and gave them charge over the Church in their respective provinces, placing all bishops under the authority of their Metropolitans. The bishop of Rome had authority over the bishops of Italy only, as the bishop of Alexandria had over Egypt, Libya and the Pentapolis.

341 AD Julius, bishop of Rome, wrote a council at Antiock that questioned that dispute should be settled at Rome as that is "the tradition handed down from the blessed Apostle Peter."

343 AD The Council of Sardiea agreed that the retrial of bishops should be held in Rome to "honor the memory of the Apostle Peter." The bishop of Rome was to preside or appoint arbitrators.

376 AD Damascus, bishop of Rome, hired Jerome to translate the Bible into Latin and Jerome appeals to him for a decision saying, "I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter.... for this I know, is the Rock on which the Church is built."

380 AD Theodosius I recognized the bishop of Rome as "Pontif".

381 AD One hundred and fifty bishops of the council of Constantinople gave the bishop of Constantinople the first place of honor in the church next after the bishop of Rome. This gave him control of the church in the East and exalted him over the bishops of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem.

382 AD Valentinian the Emperor agrees to back up with imperial force the decisions of the bishop of Rome affecting the trial of church officials. Metropolitans had to come to Rome for trial before the Roman bishop.

417 AD The Bishop of Rome tells African bishops, "Nothing should be taken as finally settled unless it came to notice of this See, that any just pronouncement might be confirmed by all the auhority of this See, and that the other churches might from thence gather what they should teach." Notice that decrees from Rome are to take the place of Scripture in determining the Truth.

424 AD The African bishops in the Synod at Carthage rejected the interference of the bishops of Rome and reminded him that at Nicaea the Metropolitan had authority in his own district.

445 AD Valentinium III decreed in favor of the Roman bishop's having universal authority. He said, "Inasmuch as the pre-eminence of the Apostolic See is assured by the merit of St. Peter, the first of the bishops, by the leading positions of the city of Rome, and also by the authority of the holy Synod, let not presumption strive to attempt anything contrary to the authority of that See.....We decree.....that nothing shall be attempted by the .....bishops....without the authority of the venerable pope of the Eternal City."

541 AD The Council of Chalcedon reaffirmed the decision of the council of Constantinople (381) exalting the bishop of Constantinople. They did not accept the idea of the "chair of Peter" but said, "For to the throne of Old Rome, the Fathers gave priveleges with good reason, because it was the imperial city. And the 150 bishops, with the same consideration in view gave equal privelages to the most holy throne of New Rome." (Constantinople). They then gave the bishop of Constantinople the right to ordain the Metropolitans in the East, who had the responsibility of ordaining bishops under them.


It is interesting that some EOC attempt to deny that shared tradition. Is it because history shows a steady slide from biblical orthodoxy to manmade doctrine and structure resulting from power struggles within the church, and a continued secularization and dependence on the power of the state.

Or is it that they cannot adequately explain how the true "Church of Christ" could split in two in 1054 over whether or not to use unleavened bread at communion? How can this bastion of Truth have broken up over something that surely should have been known for sure after a thousand years of existence?

The following source

proves that Protestant

(Lutheran) tradition

and doctrine is man

made tradition, and

has no basis in

Scripture or in Church

history

"Martin Luther, "An

Open Letter on

Translating", 1530 AD

Luther's Open Letter on Translating

Rome gradually

developed into a dictatorship and Papocaesarism.

Orthodoxy did not have

this problem. No Orthodox Patriarch was considered to be the

ruler of the whole world (earth/universe).

In Erie PA USA January

2012 AD Mr. Scott R.

Harrington

 

[superdave5221]

Why are you so obsessed with Luther? Luther has never spoken, nor claimed to have spoken for all Christians. He merely wished to address the corruption and excesses that were clearly being practiced in the church. These excesses and corruption did not begin in 1054 AD, but were evident much earlier, (not the same ones that Luther was complaining about, but other ones), when the EOC and Catholics shared the same tradition. Prior to the invention of the printing press, there were few bibles, and people were wholly dependent on the Church for God's Truth. The Church had abused that responsibility and were being called out for it.

Luther never claimed to have, or to be the source of Truth, but instead abrogated that authority to God's word found in the Holy Scriptures, where it belongs. He believed this to be necessary because the visible church structure at that time, which include Roman Catholics, and the EOC, had all proven to be unreliable as a source of Truth.

There is a useful place for tradition as a theological source. However, history has shown that tradition, whether it be Roman Catholic, EOC, or Luther, cannot be totally relied upon.

Holy Scriptures, however, can be totally relied on, and should thus be the primary source of theological truth.

It is probably a good rule of thumb that as one gets closer to the beginnings of the church, i.e. in the first 300-400 years after Pentecost, the more reliable tradition becomes because there has been less time for manmade corruption to distort it's meaning.

I actually agree with you that Luther and Calvin, among others, have distorted the Truth. In this, they are no better or worse than the organized church.

Our disagreement is over where do we go to find an authority or standard to use when formulating doctrine? In this I agree with Luther, the bible is the final standard and authority, and everything else must be measured by it.

 

[dscherck]

Why are you so obsessed with Luther? Luther has never spoken, nor claimed to have spoken for all Christians. He merely wished to address the corruption and excesses that were clearly being practiced in the church. These excesses and corruption did not begin in 1054 AD, but were evident much earlier, (not the same ones that Luther was complaining about, but other ones), when the EOC and Catholics shared the same tradition. Prior to the invention of the printing press, there were few bibles, and people were wholly dependent on the Church for God's Truth. The Church had abused that responsibility and were being called out for it.

Luther never claimed to have, or to be the source of Truth, but instead abrogated that authority to God's word found in the Holy Scriptures, where it belongs. He believed this to be necessary because the visible church structure at that time, which include Roman Catholics, and the EOC, had all proven to be unreliable as a source of Truth.

There is a useful place for tradition as a theological source. However, history has shown that tradition, whether it be Roman Catholic, EOC, or Luther, cannot be totally relied upon.

Holy Scriptures, however, can be totally relied on, and should thus be the primary source of theological truth.

It is probably a good rule of thumb that as one gets closer to the beginnings of the church, i.e. in the first 300-400 years after Pentecost, the more reliable tradition becomes because there has been less time for manmade corruption to distort it's meaning.

I actually agree with you that Luther and Calvin, among others, have distorted the Truth. In this, they are no better or worse than the organized church.

Our disagreement is over where do we go to find an authority or standard to use when formulating doctrine? In this I agree with Luther, the bible is the final standard and authority, and everything else must be measured by it.

The main issue with the false belief that Scripture alone is the final authority is that Scripture itself says the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, NOT Scripture. Not to mention the fact that there was a Christian Church before any of the New Testament was even written. Simple logic dictates then that Scripture is a product of the Christian faith, not the source of it.

When you take Scripture out of its proper context, the Church, then you lose a lot and cause confusion.

 

[superdave5221]

The main issue with the false belief that Scripture alone is the final authority is that Scripture itself says the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, NOT Scripture. Not to mention the fact that there was a Christian Church before any of the New Testament was even written. Simple logic dictates then that Scripture is a product of the Christian faith, not the source of it.

When you take Scripture out of its proper context, the Church, then you lose a lot and cause confusion.

Indeed the Church did exist before the New Testament. The Truth was vested in Peter and the apostles, (Matt. 28) and in those whom they layed their hands on and appointed as representatives of the church. Paul was given this authority by Jesus Christ Himself. That authority gradually shifted from those specially appointed apostles and disciples, (as they died out) to written authority as Paul's letters and the Gospels became available. Peter mentions Paul's letters as Scripture in 2 Peter 3:16. Most of the bible as we know it was available in the first three generations of the church, a period of time which allows for little corruption, even though it was not collected into the form that we know it until later.

Simple logic dictates that only God, and His Word is pure and perfect, and that man, over time will corrupt that word, if not written down as God intended it. The state of the Church in the 16th century is evidence enough of that, selling salvation, and even selling papacies (Benedict IX sold the papacy to Gregory VI in 1044, prior to the 1054 break with the eastern church).

The bible has remainded pure as God's word, the church and it's tradition has not.

One final question. Why do you think that the Hebrews, who had a strong oral tradition, were told by God to write down the O.T. Scriptures? Why did God write the ten commandments? Is it possible that even a people with a strong oral tradition would forget TEN commandments? Think about it.

 

[iamsoandso]

would god have destroyed "an carnal temple,a.d.70",and say he "would not again dwell in a temple made of hands of men"?,,,,,,,,why would jesus say he would raise it in three days and then again raise it in "another carnal form"????and have men "build it with the hands of men"?????,,,,why would Jesus say his body was the "temple of god",,,,,and have men take wood and stones and hands and make an "image of it"??????,children until they see dress up and play cowboy,and some take dolls and play mamma,,,,,,,,,,,but when they grow older,when they eat meat,,,,,,,they set it aside,,,,,,,,,Paul told you "it was your school master",,,,,,,,while you drink milk,,,,,,,,some men read and follow "bible commentaries" written by men in 1500 when they believed the earth was flat. before the Americas were discovered,men were always men.,,,,,only men are so worried about the hat they wear,or the robe,so they look good to other men,,,to build them such a godly looking place to dwell in. to stand in it and say "they are the appointed men of god",,,,,,,,men throw their hands to their cheeks and say "he is a man of god",,,,one dresses up in hunting season all in camouflage,,,,,,and men throw their hands to their face and say "he's a mighty hunter",,,,,,,Christ did not,he wasn't born into the elite,,,,,,,,,,,he did not dress in beautiful garments,,,,and though he was a carpenter,,,,,,,,,,he did not "build you a building and say this is my church",,,,,,,,,,as well as children play with toy cars,,,,until they come to the real engines,,and cars,and girls play with dolls until they are women,,,,,,,let them play "men of god till they come to meat,,,forsake not the assembly",,,for if they at least go through the motions and seek to be men of god some will fulfill it,,,,,,,,,let them build houses to look at let them,, dress up as if godly men.what do they hinder the word of god?,are they not even among the unlearned?,and are you not of them said 'forsake not the assembly"????there are not but two covenants made one to Hagar,,,,,,,which is carnal and will not inherit the promise.,,,,,and the covenant to Sarah,,, which is the house made without hands in heaven,,,,,that Yerusalem and it is the city where the the house of god resides.

 

[SantoSubito]

Why are you so obsessed with Luther? Luther has never spoken, nor claimed to have spoken for all Christians. He merely wished to address the corruption and excesses that were clearly being practiced in the church. These excesses and corruption did not begin in 1054 AD, but were evident much earlier, (not the same ones that Luther was complaining about, but other ones), when the EOC and Catholics shared the same tradition. Prior to the invention of the printing press, there were few bibles, and people were wholly dependent on the Church for God's Truth. The Church had abused that responsibility and were being called out for it.

OOC has a weird obsession with Luther, I'd just let it be If I were you. But I don't think anyone denies there were abuses during the Reformation and the Church did reform itself very quickly, just not on Protestant terms. You can read up on the Counter-Reformation to get more information on it.

Luther never claimed to have, or to be the source of Truth, but instead abrogated that authority to God's word found in the Holy Scriptures, where it belongs. He believed this to be necessary because the visible church structure at that time, which include Roman Catholics, and the EOC, had all proven to be unreliable as a source of Truth.

I wouldn't say that Luther had a very narrow list of abuses he wanted corrected in the beginning, mostly doing with indulgences. Once he was excommunicated he became much more radical. If you look back on the things Luther objected to early on they have pretty much all been corrected.

There is a useful place for tradition as a theological source. However, history has shown that tradition, whether it be Roman Catholic, EOC, or Luther, cannot be totally relied upon.

Holy Scriptures, however, can be totally relied on, and should thus be the primary source of theological truth.

It is probably a good rule of thumb that as one gets closer to the beginnings of the church, i.e. in the first 300-400 years after Pentecost, the more reliable tradition becomes because there has been less time for manmade corruption to distort it's meaning.

All the major teachings that rely primarily on tradition can be found in the first 300-400 years. Yet for some reason Protestants still reject them.

Indeed the Church did exist before the New Testament. The Truth was vested in Peter and the apostles, (Matt. 28) and in those whom they layed their hands on and appointed as representatives of the church. Paul was given this authority by Jesus Christ Himself. That authority gradually shifted from those specially appointed apostles and disciples, (as they died out) to written authority as Paul's letters and the Gospels became available. Peter mentions Paul's letters as Scripture in 2 Peter 3:16. Most of the bible as we know it was available in the first three generations of the church, a period of time which allows for little corruption, even though it was not collected into the form that we know it until later.

That's a very interesting position. Why would authority shift from the Apostles, those they appointed, and their successors once the NT was written?

 

[dscherck]

Indeed the Church did exist before the New Testament. The Truth was vested in Peter and the apostles, (Matt. 28) and in those whom they layed their hands on and appointed as representatives of the church. Paul was given this authority by Jesus Christ Himself. That authority gradually shifted from those specially appointed apostles and disciples, (as they died out) to written authority as Paul's letters and the Gospels became available. Peter mentions Paul's letters as Scripture in 2 Peter 3:16. Most of the bible as we know it was available in the first three generations of the church, a period of time which allows for little corruption, even though it was not collected into the form that we know it until later.

There is no evidence that the authority of Christ's Church ever shifted from the episcopate (IE, those men appointed as successors to the apostles by the laying on of hands) to the Scriptures. We can see in the Scriptures themselves that the apostles held themselves to be people in an office, and that they could, and indeed are recorded as having successors appointed to them. Specifically, Matthias was appointed the successor to Judas' office.

And while the majority of what we now call the New Testament was indeed available after the 3rd century, there's still the problem in that the literacy rate wasn't really that high back among the laity. That said, I do appreciate the fact that you mention that the first 3 centuries are a short enough time to not allow much corruption in belief, because there's quite a bit of leftover writings from the leaders of the Christian Church back then. They talk about things like the practices of baptizing infants, the idea that the Eucharist was literal and not symbolic, and we see them asking departed saints for prayers as well.

Simple logic dictates that only God, and His Word is pure and perfect, and that man, over time will corrupt that word, if not written down as God intended it. The state of the Church in the 16th century is evidence enough of that, selling salvation, and even selling papacies (Benedict IX sold the papacy to Gregory VI in 1044, prior to the 1054 break with the eastern church).

No, simple logic dictates that Christ promised that His Church would prevail against the gates of Hell. And that He is perfectly capable of keeping His teachings alive not just through the written word, but through Holy Tradition. Simply because there were corrupt popes, bishops, or priests doesn't mean that all popes, bishops, and priests are corrupt. We've had corrupt US presidents, but does that mean all presidents are corrupt and they have no authority?

The bible has remainded pure as God's word, the church and it's tradition has not.

Incorrect. Christ has preserved His word to us in two forms, Holy Tradition, and Scripture, which is a subset of Holy Tradition. If you believe that the Church has not preserved God's word properly, then it appears that Christ's promise to preserve His Church have failed.

One final question. Why do you think that the Hebrews, who had a strong oral tradition, were told by God to write down the O.T. Scriptures? Why did God write the ten commandments? Is it possible that even a people with a strong oral tradition would forget TEN commandments? Think about it.

I'll answer with another question. Why do you believe that God would not be capable of preserving His teachings through Holy Tradition alongside of Scripture?

 

[iamsoandso]

yea,,yea,,,that's like saying that,,,,,,,,,"one day,,,there gonna stick a rfid in us",,,,,,,,all that stuff was "suppose to happen but never did",,,,,,,,,,,but you do got a "pin number in your forehead" and if you don't use it you cant "buy sell or eat",,,,,,,,,,,,you all want the bible to say what you want,,,,,but god is the one that's right,,,,,, you got a number in your forehead and you are the only one that "has wisdom of it",,,,,,,,,,,,and you cant so much as pay your light bill without it,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,and its was given to you by the beast ,that is ,,,,,,,,,"it gives you permission to use it",,,,,,,,,,,,,,"you got a green card",,,,,,,,,,,,its your ss card,,,,,,,,,you get to work you get to buy you get to sell,,,,,,,,,,,,,"you little booger" you got your name and you get to use their name,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,your trying to figure if your wife's cheating and she has children with another man.,,,,,whats the r.f.i.d. gonna do?????????replace the system were you get to work because you have a s.s.card,,,,,,and you have a debit card,,,,,,,,and if you don't have money in the bank you get to "sign the name of the beast"???????,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"will that be cash credit or debit????",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,its January,,,,,,,,,taxes are due,,,,,did you get a return/ well set up an "account",,,and pick a "pin number in your forehead that only you have the wisdom of",,,,,,,,,,yea, yea, "you calculate it",,,,,,pay you "property taxes",,,or they will "seize it",,,,drivers license about to expire?,,,,,,,,,well you got to have a debit card to get it,you know the number in you forehead,,,,,,,,,,want a hunting license?,,,give me your number,,,,,,,want gas?,,,,,,,,enter in your number,,,want to pay you isp account???? set it up at the bank to take it out each month,,,,"i don't have you number in your forehead you have to give it to me",,,,,,"your the only one with the wisdom of it",,,are you retired?,,,,,,,,,,,give me the number in your forehead and ill send the s.s.check to your "account",,,,,,,,,,dont want it anymore??????????????"cut it up",,,,,,,,,,,don't touch it,,,,,,,go out in your yard and plant a garden,,,,,,,,,,get the hybrid seeds from wall mart,,,,oh yea they wont reproduce,,,,,,,,,you'll have to buy them each time you plant them and that means you'll have to keep using your account number in your forehead to buy new seed,,,,,,,,,,but then your back yard ain"t big enough to feed your family any how,,,,,,,,,,,"well what a fine mess your in",,,,,,,,,,"got water",,,,,,,,well pay your h2o bill,,,,,,,,you know enter your number,,,,,,,,,or else,,,,,,,,,,,,yea all the other water is polluted isn't it.,,,,,,,,,,well,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,only one way out of it,,,,,,,,,,,,,lol,,,,,,,,,,,,,few men know it,,,,,,,,,,,,,"oh Babylon now what do i do?",,,,,,,,,i could go on and on but you think about it ,,,,,,,,,,you go right up to the atm's and get some money out ,,"its in your forhead",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"it's in your forhead",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"your number is in your forehead",,,,,,,,,,,,,,"your the only one who has wisdom of it,,,,,,,,,it's in your forehead",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"it's in your forehead",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

[superdave5221]

There is no evidence that the authority of Christ's Church ever shifted from the episcopate (IE, those men appointed as successors to the apostles by the laying on of hands) to the Scriptures. We can see in the Scriptures themselves that the apostles held themselves to be people in an office, and that they could, and indeed are recorded as having successors appointed to them. Specifically, Matthias was appointed the successor to Judas' office.

And while the majority of what we now call the New Testament was indeed available after the 3rd century, there's still the problem in that the literacy rate wasn't really that high back among the laity. That said, I do appreciate the fact that you mention that the first 3 centuries are a short enough time to not allow much corruption in belief, because there's quite a bit of leftover writings from the leaders of the Christian Church back then. They talk about things like the practices of baptizing infants, the idea that the Eucharist was literal and not symbolic, and we see them asking departed saints for prayers as well.

One clarification. I said three generations, not three centuries.

No, simple logic dictates that Christ promised that His Church would prevail against the gates of Hell. And that He is perfectly capable of keeping His teachings alive not just through the written word, but through Holy Tradition. Simply because there were corrupt popes, bishops, or priests doesn't mean that all popes, bishops, and priests are corrupt. We've had corrupt US presidents, but does that mean all presidents are corrupt and they have no authority?




Incorrect. Christ has preserved His word to us in two forms, Holy Tradition, and Scripture, which is a subset of Holy Tradition. If you believe that the Church has not preserved God's word properly, then it appears that Christ's promise to preserve His Church have failed.



I'll answer with another question. Why do you believe that God would not be capable of preserving His teachings through Holy Tradition alongside of Scripture?

The church has been preserved in the body, which is the invisible body of all people who are in a saved relationship with Christ. I will expound on this in a future thread.

Let me just point out that most Protestants are not fundamentalist, as OldOrthodoxChristian have presented us. In other words, we do not believe that Truth is available only from the Scriptures and General Revelation. I believe that there is a place for tradition, but that it must be subservient to Scripture. And I also think that reason plays an important role.

Correct me if I am wrong, but Roman Catholics confessionally would consider the Scriptures and Tradition to be of equal importance in determining Truth. This is so because they believe that Tradition is necessary to interpret Scripture. But in practice, because Tradition is more relevent to current issues, it usually takes on more importance than Scripture. This is what I take issue with, because tradition has been shown to be in error in the past.

 

[OldOrthodoxChristian]

Why are you so obsessed with Luther? Luther has never spoken, nor claimed to have spoken for all Christians. He merely wished to address the corruption and excesses that were clearly being practiced in the church. These excesses and corruption did not begin in 1054 AD, but were evident much earlier, (not the same ones that Luther was complaining about, but other ones), when the EOC and Catholics shared the same tradition. Prior to the invention of the printing press, there were few bibles, and people were wholly dependent on the Church for God's Truth. The Church had abused that responsibility and were being called out for it.

Luther never claimed to have, or to be the source of Truth, but instead abrogated that authority to God's word found in the Holy Scriptures, where it belongs. He believed this to be necessary because the visible church structure at that time, which include Roman Catholics, and the EOC, had all proven to be unreliable as a source of Truth.

There is a useful place for tradition as a theological source. However, history has shown that tradition, whether it be Roman Catholic, EOC, or Luther, cannot be totally relied upon.

Holy Scriptures, however, can be totally relied on, and should thus be the primary source of theological truth.

It is probably a good rule of thumb that as one gets closer to the beginnings of the church, i.e. in the first 300-400 years after Pentecost, the more reliable tradition becomes because there has been less time for manmade corruption to distort it's meaning.

I actually agree with you that Luther and Calvin, among others, have distorted the Truth. In this, they are no better or worse than the organized church.

Our disagreement is over where do we go to find an authority or standard to use when formulating doctrine? In this I agree with Luther, the bible is the final standard and authority, and everything else must be measured by it.

Dear superdave: I am not obsessed with Martin Luther. I am passionate for the truth about any important subject. Following the Bible, I believe the Church is the final standard and authority, and everything else must be measured by Her, the Church that Christ founded (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15).
Protestants believe they themselves are the Church and the private standard of truth, and not the Church that Christ founded. Good that you agree with me that Luther and Calvin among others have distorted the Truth. Luther said "It is so because I, Herr Doctor Martin Luther, say it is so." Not the words of a man who knows and loves the Truth.
The EOC has proven to be reliable as the Source of the Truth, the Pillar and Ground of the Truth.
John 15:26 proves this fact.
God save us. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington
PS Luther did claim to speak for all Christians. He said faith alone is so because "I, HERR doctor Martin Luther, say it is so!".

 

[OldOrthodoxChristian]

yea,,yea,,,that's like saying that,,,,,,,,,"one day,,,there gonna stick a rfid in us",,,,,,,,all that stuff was "suppose to happen but never did",,,,,,,,,,,but you do got a "pin number in your forehead" and if you don't use it you cant "buy sell or eat",,,,,,,,,,,,you all want the bible to say what you want,,,,,but god is the one that's right,,,,,, you got a number in your forehead and you are the only one that "has wisdom of it",,,,,,,,,,,,and you cant so much as pay your light bill without it,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,and its was given to you by the beast ,that is ,,,,,,,,,"it gives you permission to use it",,,,,,,,,,,,,,"you got a green card",,,,,,,,,,,,its your ss card,,,,,,,,,you get to work you get to buy you get to sell,,,,,,,,,,,,,"you little booger" you got your name and you get to use their name,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,your trying to figure if your wife's cheating and she has children with another man.,,,,,whats the r.f.i.d. gonna do?????????replace the system were you get to work because you have a s.s.card,,,,,,and you have a debit card,,,,,,,,and if you don't have money in the bank you get to "sign the name of the beast"???????,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"will that be cash credit or debit????",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,its January,,,,,,,,,taxes are due,,,,,did you get a return/ well set up an "account",,,and pick a "pin number in your forehead that only you have the wisdom of",,,,,,,,,,yea, yea, "you calculate it",,,,,,pay you "property taxes",,,or they will "seize it",,,,drivers license about to expire?,,,,,,,,,well you got to have a debit card to get it,you know the number in you forehead,,,,,,,,,,want a hunting license?,,,give me your number,,,,,,,want gas?,,,,,,,,enter in your number,,,want to pay you isp account???? set it up at the bank to take it out each month,,,,"i don't have you number in your forehead you have to give it to me",,,,,,"your the only one with the wisdom of it",,,are you retired?,,,,,,,,,,,give me the number in your forehead and ill send the s.s.check to your "account",,,,,,,,,,dont want it anymore??????????????"cut it up",,,,,,,,,,,don't touch it,,,,,,,go out in your yard and plant a garden,,,,,,,,,,get the hybrid seeds from wall mart,,,,oh yea they wont reproduce,,,,,,,,,you'll have to buy them each time you plant them and that means you'll have to keep using your account number in your forehead to buy new seed,,,,,,,,,,but then your back yard ain"t big enough to feed your family any how,,,,,,,,,,,"well what a fine mess your in",,,,,,,,,,"got water",,,,,,,,well pay your h2o bill,,,,,,,,you know enter your number,,,,,,,,,or else,,,,,,,,,,,,yea all the other water is polluted isn't it.,,,,,,,,,,well,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,only one way out of it,,,,,,,,,,,,,lol,,,,,,,,,,,,,few men know it,,,,,,,,,,,,,"oh Babylon now what do i do?",,,,,,,,,i could go on and on but you think about it ,,,,,,,,,,you go right up to the atm's and get some money out ,,"its in your forhead",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"it's in your forhead",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"your number is in your forehead",,,,,,,,,,,,,,"your the only one who has wisdom of it,,,,,,,,,it's in your forehead",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"it's in your forehead",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Weird delusion. God save you from paranoia. God save us all from our mental illnesses and our sins.

 

[iamsoandso]

but if you have a number is it a delusion or a a mark,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,you just don't like it because,,,,,,,,,,"you like the mark and you like playing the game" thats why you just give ambiguous remarks,,,,,,,,,,, proof is far from you,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

[iamsoandso]

well the time zones are now again in the way and i must go to sleep,,,,,,,,,,,,but i will return,,,,,,,,,,,,the lord willing,on the morrow,,,,,,,,and my point is you already have the "mark" ,,,,,,,,,,i dont think you want it ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,i dont "think you see it",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

[SantoSubito]

Let me just point out that most Protestants are not fundamentalist, as OldOrthodoxChristian have presented us. In other words, we do not believe that Truth is available only from the Scriptures and General Revelation. I believe that there is a place for tradition, but that it must be subservient to Scripture. And I also think that reason plays an important role.

So let me ask one question. Do you believe Tradition plays a role in determining doctrine?

Correct me if I am wrong, but Roman Catholics confessionally would consider the Scriptures and Tradition to be of equal importance in determining Truth. This is so because they believe that Tradition is necessary to interpret Scripture. But in practice, because Tradition is more relevent to current issues, it usually takes on more importance than Scripture. This is what I take issue with, because tradition has been shown to be in error in the past.

Well Scripture is considered part of that "Tradition". But I have never encountered any teaching from Tradition "capital T" that is in error.

 

[superdave5221]

So let me ask one question. Do you believe Tradition plays a role in determining doctrine?

Tradition plays a role in interpreting doctrine from the Scriptures. Those who grew up as a baptist may have a different interpretation of a passage of scripture than a Methodist, for example. But this is where a balance is needed. All of us come from different backgrounds and experiences, and traditions. When all of us come together, and examine Scripture, using the gifts that we have been given collectively, then we can get pretty close to the Truth, IF WE ARE OPEN TO THE TRUTH. But in this sense, tradition is negative, for people are so in love with their traditions, that they do not recognize the truth when they see it.

Consider the following:

Acts 17: 10 As soon as it was night, the brothers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea. On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue. 11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. 12 Many of the Jews believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men

What does it mean that the Bereans were of a more noble character? To me, it means that they were willing to put aside their own pride, and traditions, and accept God's Truth, even if it meant admitting that they were wrong. And where did they look to discover if this was God's Truth? They went to the written Scriptures, which is the only objective source of God's Truth, for their traditions and personal experiences are subjective, and thus perhaps misleading.


Well Scripture is considered part of that "Tradition". But I have never encountered any teaching from Tradition "capital T" that is in error.

What about the tradition that said that someone could buy their way out of purgatory with indulgences?

 

[OldOrthodoxChristian]

What about the tradition that said that someone could buy their way out of purgatory with indulgences?

The EOC follows the Tradition(s) of the Holy Apostles of Christ. Roman Catholicism follows the false

teachings of the pope of Rome which have forsaken the Faith of Saint Peter and Saint John that

the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone (JOHN 15:26), and teach the nonexistent place

of purgatory and the SIN of SALVATION BY PAYING MONEY (indulgences) TO THE POPE OF ROME (in

defiance of the Bible in the Book of Isaiah).

Protestantism also follows false traditions not taught by the Bible and the 12 Apostles of Jesus Christ.

 

[dscherck]

What about the tradition that said that someone could buy their way out of purgatory with indulgences?

There never was such a tradition.

 

[SantoSubito]

What about the tradition that said that someone could buy their way out of purgatory with indulgences?

That was never a tradition. It was an abuse of the practice of granting an indulgence for a voluntary donation to the poor or a religious order. In the Reformation period this was abused by some people and they instead sold the indulgence instead of awarding it for giving to the poor.

 

[Romansonetwentytwo]

I actually just read another post on here about the beliefs and non beliefs on the EOC and thought it had a lot in common with Catholic doctrine.