Eastern Orthodoxy is not Talmud Pharisaism (Mishnaism).

[Scotth1960]

You have the wrong view of Matthew 16:18. You don't know what Christs church is. You are using circular reasoning that makes NO SENSE. Your church HAS made mistakes and yet Matthew 16:18 still remains true. You are using the same sleight of hand that your church uses to assume the authority that only Jesus Christ has.

[/b]

I say trust the bible and not mens tradition. I say trust in Jesus Christ and not in religion. I've been saying this all along. By my logic you would have to reject much of your traditions because they are un-biblical.

Dear Grandpa! Not at all. My traditions are not un-biblical. I believe John 15:26, which says the "proceedeth from the Father" alone.
It is the traditions of the Protestants which are un-biblical, because they all believe the un-biblical tradition of "Sola Scriptura", which amounts, in the end, to "Sola Me". Every Protestant believes in himself as the one who determines "what the Bible says", and "what the Bible means."
It's all a personal, private, subjective, individualistic experience of reading the Bible, literally, "for oneself." For oneself as an an individual alone with God. No necessity of any ministers of God, when taken to its logical conclusion. Of course, in practice the Protestants are really not this individualistic; they do, all or most of them, consult their own pastors, preachers, ministers, to minister to them as individuals. But it's optional, not necessary. God save us all. In Erie Scott Harrington



You err each time you equate your church with the infallibility of God's Word.

Do you know why St. Peter was forgiven? It was because he didn't think he was infallible!! He repented and begged for forgiveness!!

Dear Grandpa,
Isn't a person who repents and begs for forgiveness infallibly forgiven by Christ? As long as a person continues in faith, he has confidence with God, that God will continue to have mercy on him. While 100 percent certainty of salvation is not given to any person, a sinner who repents and believes in Christ, receives the sacraments, and has good works, can be confident of Christ's mercy upon him (Titus 3:5).
PS I don't err. I don't equate my church with the infallibility of God's Word. God's Word equates the Church Christ founded with the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15).
You deny the infallibility of 1 Tim. 3:15, which proves the Church is infallible because the NT says so!
So, it's not me who is denying the meaning of Scripture. You use the Bible to try and exclude the Church; I say the Church is said to be the basis of God's Truth according to 1 Tim. 3:15.
God bless you. In Erie Scott H.

 

[Grandpa]

It's all a personal, private, subjective, individualistic experience of reading the Bible, literally, "for oneself." For oneself as an an individual alone with God. No necessity of any ministers of God, when taken to its logical conclusion. Of course, in practice the Protestants are really not this individualistic; they do, all or most of them, consult their own pastors, preachers, ministers, to minister to them as individuals. But it's optional, not necessary. God save us all. In Erie Scott Harrington

I don't see what any of this has to do with praying to dead guys, but I'll play your silly game a little while longer. What is wrong with reading the bible for yourself? Isn't this what your bishops and popes do?

1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

Do you think the Holy Spirit will not teach me as well as He teaches the pope?

PS I don't err. I don't equate my church with the infallibility of God's Word. God's Word equates the Church Christ founded with the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15).
You deny the infallibility of 1 Tim. 3:15, which proves the Church is infallible because the NT says so!

Nowhere in the bible does it say that one must belong to the church with apostolic procession. Nowhere in the bible does it say you shall know them by their funny hats. Nowhere in the bible does it say that tradition of men is more important than the word of God. Jesus says I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, none come to the Father but by me. Jesus is the one I trust in.

 

[SantoSubito]

I noticed your signature and thought I would drop a line
If we follow the bishop as Jesus followed God wouldn't we be following a false God as we are following the bishop not Jesus himself?
If we followed the priesthood as the apostles and showed reverence to the deacons as I would the Word of God doesn't that make me put a man before myself to God as intercessor and why is this necesssary if I have the Word of God in writing?

In the last part of your signature it would seem that Ignatious of antioch is attempting to usurp the place of our Lord Jesus Christ when stating"Wherever the bishop appears let the people be there, just as wherever Jesus Christ is so is the Catholic church"
Ignatious was no saint nor was he an apostle this is why the reformation happened exactly because of unsound doctrine being brought forth perpetualy by men seeking to maintain power of an institution through edicts of false doctrine. Jesus's intent was that of a spiritual church on earth and yes we need teachers priests, preachers But the Word is Paramount and when we pay attention to the Words of God as given in the OT and the NT and Jesus and his apostles ONLY that we get the Truth of the Word all others are false doctrines and only ill can come of them this includes all and any texts written after John the apostle wrote Revelations. For there have been no true prophecies since His
The last four verses of the KJV bible are and I quote


18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
20He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. 21The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

The point Ignatius is driving at (who is actually a Saint by the way), is that the Bishops are the shepherds of the Church. Therefore we should follow the Bishops as we follow Christ, for they are our shepherds.

 

[SantoSubito]

Dear Brother
What makes you think the bishop doesn't need and intercessor even he has to pray for himself just as you have to pray for yourself I.E. individualism
Give a man a fish he eats for a day Teach man to fish he eats for life.
Why depend on the Word for a day when You can depend on it for life?
The logical extension of Protestantism is not self at all this is where you err.
It is the self taking the scripture (the true scripture) verbatum as it was given over 1900 years ago
not allowing thy self to be corrupted with the victuals and traditions concieved by men since that time.
As for misinterpretation of the bible and denominational fracture this only occurs when men invaribly seek to gain some authority or acknowledgement (power and glory) from those that they serve while in their earthly realm or after.
This is why sola scriptura is paramount and if your heart is in the right place as a teacher of the faith of Christ then the truth of the Word is as important as your faith in it. This is not to say ignore your teachers but learn the word for yourself, ask questions if need be debate meanings if need be but always, always refer back to the scriptures for edification rather than relying on traditions, victuals or the sayso of a teacher as the prime authority.
So far as our Quaker brethren are concerned and their confederates mennonites, hutterites generally speaking they refer to scripture more than most I know. My sister in law is of the Mennonnites so I'm not talking out of my hat here.
Anyways dear brother perhaps you will give these words some thought and may your heart be touched as to see those things you need to see.

Selah

Modern Protestantism in general has a individualist streak, American Protestantism in particular. Honestly Protestantism frustrates a lot of people precisely because they can not agree on what is and is not required for salvation among other things. Thats why we see a lot of Evangelicals becoming Catholic, Catholicism has a stableness that isn't found in Protestant circles. Weirdly another thing most Evangelicals are drawn to is the fact that Catholicism is bold enough to claim that they are the True Church and that they contain the fullness of the Truth, which is something most Protestant denominations wouldn't think of claiming.

 

[Muskokaman]

The point Ignatius is driving at (who is actually a Saint by the way), is that the Bishops are the shepherds of the Church. Therefore we should follow the Bishops as we follow Christ, for they are our shepherds.
__________________

Well what do you do when Bishops and Popes write in edicts that only serve themselves and not the entire flock as it were? I understand about the heirarchy of the Catholic Church to some degree and also understand how the preservation of power may have been very intoxicating for Ignatious to make an edict like this. It has similarities to the papal infallibility laws of 1870 AD. Furthermore both these edicts if viewed from a distance would seem to serve only to strengthen the positions of the heirarchy rather than putting the emphasis on the safety of the sheep!

Selah

 

[SantoSubito]

Well what do you do when Bishops and Popes write in edicts that only serve themselves and not the entire flock as it were? I understand about the heirarchy of the Catholic Church to some degree and also understand how the preservation of power may have been very intoxicating for Ignatious to make an edict like this. It has similarities to the papal infallibility laws of 1870 AD. Furthermore both these edicts if viewed from a distance would seem to serve only to strengthen the positions of the heirarchy rather than putting the emphasis on the safety of the sheep!

Selah

I don't see them as self-serving, Bishops and even Popes are not above criticism. But we can't have them being deposed by a vote of the congregations either. If you ask me the "edicts" as you call them help the flock and do not weaken it.

But I don't understand why Protestants wouldn't preserve the episcopal form of church governance. It makes pooling resources easier, and it more closely mimics the Acts system since all the money is pooled and given out to the churches that need it most in the diocese. It's also much more effective at maintaining orthodoxy than the congregational system that most protestant churches have adopted is. Basically I think it boils down to the fact that Christianity is not a democracy.

 

[Muskokaman]

Modern Protestantism in general has a individualist streak, American Protestantism in particular. Honestly Protestantism frustrates a lot of people precisely because they can not agree on what is and is not required for salvation among other things. Thats why we see a lot of Evangelicals becoming Catholic, Catholicism has a stableness that isn't found in Protestant circles. Weirdly another thing most Evangelicals are drawn to is the fact that Catholicism is bold enough to claim that they are the True Church and that they contain the fullness of the Truth, which is something most Protestant denominations wouldn't think of claiming.

Evangelicals and Charismatics Catholicism and Orthodoxism often propound false doctrine in many ways whether it be for social reforms of the day or practicing traditional dogma which is not rooted in sound doctrine or political favouritism of the day. These are FALSE PROPHETS

VERBUM SOLUM is the WORD ALONE this is the essence of truth itself and it's only found by........................................................................................................................................
SOLA SCRIPTURA which is the foolproof way of knowing your on the right path. The church fathers in the middle ages agreed on the doctrines which were of TRUE ORIGIN... as in ONLY THE BOOKS OF THE APOSTOLIC PERIOD OR BEFORE I.E Revelations is the last book of the holy bible all creeds and edicts made there after do not serve to the purpose of the greater glory to God but as "Wolves among the sheep not sparing the flock" is how the apostle Paul put it. Or as tares among the wheat for another reference so the only answer by any straightway of reason or logic of infallibility if you will is.....................................................................................................................................
SOLUS CHRISTUS which means exactly what it says in CHRIST ALONE........in Christ alone shall we recieve our salvation and he is our ONLY intercessor to God. The scriptures are full of references to this.
This is achieved by..............................................................................................................
SOLAM FIDEM which means exactly that through FAITH ALONE shall you recieve your salvation when you believe in CHRIST ALONE as your only intercessor to GOD for he is the great redeemer

Selah

 

[Muskokaman]

I don't see them as self-serving, Bishops and even Popes are not above criticism. But we can't have them being deposed by a vote of the congregations either. If you ask me the "edicts" as you call them help the flock and do not weaken it.

But I don't understand why Protestants wouldn't preserve the episcopal form of church governance. It makes pooling resources easier, and it more closely mimics the Acts system since all the money is pooled and given out to the churches that need it most in the diocese. It's also much more effective at maintaining orthodoxy than the congregational system that most protestant churches have adopted is. Basically I think it boils down to the fact that Christianity is not a democracy.

Heres a couple reasons for example
1 The Borgias Would you call them a good example of the papacy?
2 edicts creeds etc. are mans word NOT GODS WORD
3 The system of governance is the problem more is going to the system than to the common man for whom it was intended to begin with.
4 The acts system would work well if men weren't susceptible to greed and other forms of entanglement I.E pooling resources from a thousand churches is a lot more tempting to misuse than from the resources of 7 as in the book of acts (big money big temptation) remove stumbling block here
5 Deposition of the teachers is not the answer. Reformation back to the original teachings of the scriptures and those alone is. Sheperds still need to be with the flock to assist them with hard to understand verses, spiritual healing, moral guidance etc.

The greatest threat to the Catholic and Orthodox churches in the last 2000 years was the translation of the latin vulgate and greek texts to German then to English in the 16th and 17 centuries which empowered the common man to be able to read and understand the scriptures himself. This must not be underestimated in it's implications before that you had little option other than to be part of the clergy if you wished to study the scriptures which in turn you learned the dogma and traditions as their is much emphasis placed on this rather than on the scripture alone.

Selah

 

[Strangelove]

The point Ignatius is driving at (who is actually a Saint by the way)

Stop.

how do you know he's a saint?

 

[Scotth1960]

I don't see what any of this has to do with praying to dead guys, but I'll play your silly game a little while longer. What is wrong with reading the bible for yourself? Isn't this what your bishops and popes do?

1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

Do you think the Holy Spirit will not teach me as well as He teaches the pope?




Nowhere in the bible does it say that one must belong to the church with apostolic procession. Nowhere in the bible does it say you shall know them by their funny hats. Nowhere in the bible does it say that tradition of men is more important than the word of God. Jesus says I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, none come to the Father but by me. Jesus is the one I trust in.

It is not wrong to read the Bible oneself. What is wrong is thinking we will automatically understand everything perfectly and correctly. Perhaps other men understand it better than we do, and we should rely on men whose understanding is better than our own.

 

[Scotth1960]

Stop.

how do you know he's a saint?

On what basis do you determine that someone is not a saint? Can't every man know that every man has sinned? But who can say who has overcome sin? God can. And God speaks through the Church (1 Tim. 3:15). So the Church determines who are saints. Because God promised the Holy Spirit (John 16:13) to guarantee the Church will survive (Matt. 16:18).

 

[Strangelove]

On what basis do you determine that someone is not a saint?

I dont need to determine that someone is not a saint. I only need to prove that you or any other man or institution CANNOT determine that someone IS a saint.

Can't every man know that every man has sinned? But who can say who has overcome sin? God can.

I think your saying only God knows who is a saint.

Agreed. Whats next?

God speaks through the Church (1 Tim. 3:15).

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Where does this verse say that 'God speaks through the church'?

And why do you think the 'church' here means specifically the EO sect??

So the Church determines who are saints.

The CHURCH dont proclaim any to be saints. Only cults do that.

STOP risking ABOMINATION Scott.

 

[SantoSubito]

Heres a couple reasons for example
1 The Borgias Would you call them a good example of the papacy?

I never said there wouldn't be bad Popes, but that does not invalidate the Papacy (otherwise any church office would have been invalidated a thousand times over.)

2 edicts creeds etc. are mans word NOT GODS WORD

Are you familiar with how the Apostolic Churches work? Scripture and Tradition are both equally divine revelation. That being said there are some very specific criteria under which a Papal edict would become binding.

3 The system of governance is the problem more is going to the system than to the common man for whom it was intended to begin with.

Not really, the vast majority of the funds is poured into various charitable organizations that the RCC operates and the rest is used for church maintenance and other expenses.

4 The acts system would work well if men weren't susceptible to greed and other forms of entanglement I.E pooling resources from a thousand churches is a lot more tempting to misuse than from the resources of 7 as in the book of acts (big money big temptation) remove stumbling block here

Thats why we operate on a diocese level, instead of all the money from the thousands of Catholic Churches all over the world going into one pot it's all the money from one diocese going into one pot and being distributed in that diocese.

5 Deposition of the teachers is not the answer. Reformation back to the original teachings of the scriptures and those alone is. Sheperds still need to be with the flock to assist them with hard to understand verses, spiritual healing, moral guidance etc.

Obviously I and many others would contest the claim that the Reformation went back to the original teachings.

The greatest threat to the Catholic and Orthodox churches in the last 2000 years was the translation of the latin vulgate and greek texts to German then to English in the 16th and 17 centuries which empowered the common man to be able to read and understand the scriptures himself. This must not be underestimated in it's implications before that you had little option other than to be part of the clergy if you wished to study the scriptures which in turn you learned the dogma and traditions as their is much emphasis placed on this rather than on the scripture alone.

Not really true, the Greek Orthodox could always read Greek and the whole reason the RCC commissioned the Vulgate was so that people could read the Scriptures. In fact it was pretty useless to translate anything into the vernacular because everyone that could read and write could only read and write Latin. And for them there were public Bibles that were kept in Cathedrals for them to use whensoever they felt like it. On top of all that most of the vernacular languages didn't even have a writing system up until the 14th century.

 

[Grandpa]

It is not wrong to read the Bible oneself. What is wrong is thinking we will automatically understand everything perfectly and correctly. Perhaps other men understand it better than we do, and we should rely on men whose understanding is better than our own.

Like AW Tozer and CS Lewis. But it is not good to rely on men over what the word of the bible says. We can only rely on men as the bible agrees with what they say. And we definitely shouldn't rely on men whose opinions are against the bible, even if they have a title after or before their name.

 

[SantoSubito]

Like AW Tozer and CS Lewis. But it is not good to rely on men over what the word of the bible says. We can only rely on men as the bible agrees with what they say. And we definitely shouldn't rely on men whose opinions are against the bible, even if they have a title after or before their name.

They do agree with the bible as we interpret it. It all boils down to which interpretation you want to follow.

 

[Grandpa]

They do agree with the bible as we interpret it. It all boils down to which interpretation you want to follow.

Are you talking about AW Tozer and CS Lewis or guys whose opinions are against the bible but have the title bishop or pope?

 

[SantoSubito]

Are you talking about AW Tozer and CS Lewis or guys whose opinions are against the bible but have the title bishop or pope?

I thought you were referring to those that bear titles like Saint or Doctor of the Church. So no I wasn't referring to Tozer or Lewis.

 

[Muskokaman]

I never said there wouldn't be bad Popes, but that does not invalidate the Papacy (otherwise any church office would have been invalidated a thousand times over.)


Are you familiar with how the Apostolic Churches work? Scripture and Tradition are both equally divine revelation. That being said there are some very specific criteria under which a Papal edict would become binding.


Not really, the vast majority of the funds is poured into various charitable organizations that the RCC operates and the rest is used for church maintenance and other expenses.



Thats why we operate on a diocese level, instead of all the money from the thousands of Catholic Churches all over the world going into one pot it's all the money from one diocese going into one pot and being distributed in that diocese.




Obviously I and many others would contest the claim that the Reformation went back to the original teachings.



Not really true, the Greek Orthodox could always read Greek and the whole reason the RCC commissioned the Vulgate was so that people could read the Scriptures. In fact it was pretty useless to translate anything into the vernacular because everyone that could read and write could only read and write Latin. And for them there were public Bibles that were kept in Cathedrals for them to use whensoever they felt like it. On top of all that most of the vernacular languages didn't even have a writing system up until the 14th century.

Alot of twisting and turning of phrases to suit the doctrine you profess nothing more if you can't rely on your pope to be exalted (you can't) then why have him Latin wasn't the common language anywhere other than the church after 985 ad Germanic Anglo Frisian Celtic Albanian Armenian and Greek languages were all most of europe spoke in 1000 ad with the exception of Italy alone. Latin remained in the church and legal documents of the day from most european countries strictly because the Catholic church of the day had a fairly good stranglehold on The european ruling class. The common man in middle europe spoke either Germanic or Anglo frisian while eastern europe spoke either Roman Greek, Armenian or Albanian.
If so much of the funds went to the common man why so many Expensive Gothic Cathedrals?
Each Diocese pays it's reparation to The Vatican so in the end The Vatican winds up with the cash anyway (big Government for you) I already explained about the false doctrine in the form of creeds and edicts, papal infallibility etc. so................ no point in that again.
Problem with the commissioning of the vulgate were all the errors especially when bishops notes of explanations became part of the text (problem here)
Anyway as you are either Catholic or eastern orthodox there probably isn't going to be any comisseration between us as we both come from slightly different schools of thought.

Selah

 

[SantoSubito]

Alot of twisting and turning of phrases to suit the doctrine you profess nothing more if you can't rely on your pope to be exalted (you can't) then why have him Latin wasn't the common language anywhere other than the church after 985 ad Germanic Anglo Frisian Celtic Albanian Armenian and Greek languages were all most of europe spoke in 1000 ad with the exception of Italy alone.

The Vulgate was translated in the late 4th century when Latin was still the common language. The Vulgate remained useful because Latin remained the Lingua Franca in Europe until French overtook it in 18th Century. Like I said earlier no one learned how to read the vernacular languages of Europe. If you learned to read and write in Europe before about the 15th Century you learned how to read and write Latin.

Not only that but various priests and bishops would often translate parts of the Vulgate into the vernacular for homilies and the like.

Latin remained in the church and legal documents of the day from most european countries strictly because the Catholic church of the day had a fairly good stranglehold on The european ruling class.

Actually Latin remained because it was the Lingua Franca. When dignitaries met they spoke Latin, when monarchs sent messages to each other they wrote in Latin. If you go to the Vatican today they will likely communicate in Latin, since no matter where the Priest is from he will know Latin.

If so much of the funds went to the common man why so many Expensive Gothic Cathedrals?

The Gothic Cathedrals of Europe were actually built and paid for by the Monarch in which the Cathedral resides.

Each Diocese pays it's reparation to The Vatican so in the end The Vatican winds up with the cash anyway (big Government for you)

And the Vatican uses it just like the rest of dioceses does, to maintain churches and for various charities.
[/QUOTE]

 

[Scotth1960]

Modern Protestantism in general has a individualist streak, American Protestantism in particular. Honestly Protestantism frustrates a lot of people precisely because they can not agree on what is and is not required for salvation among other things. Thats why we see a lot of Evangelicals becoming Catholic, Catholicism has a stableness that isn't found in Protestant circles. Weirdly another thing most Evangelicals are drawn to is the fact that Catholicism is bold enough to claim that they are the True Church and that they contain the fullness of the Truth, which is something most Protestant denominations wouldn't think of claiming.

Dear SantoSubito, Catholicism claims they are the True Church, but Catholicism since 1014 AD falsifies and nullifies St. John 15:26 by adding the words "and (from) the Son" to the words of our holy LORD Jesus Christ, when Christ said only "who proceeds from the Father", the popes of Rome insist on adding "and the Son", which comes from Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD), and from the third council of Toledo, Spain, 589 AD, at the insistence of King Reccared. Catholicism shows its recklessness in the person of King Charlemagne, who is a Roman Catholic Saint, when Charlemagne insisted that the Orthodox Church had deleted the word "Filioque" from the original Nicene Creed!
The Orthodox Church is the True Church and She alone contains the fullness of the Truth, which is proved by Her support of St. John 15:26, Her insistence on serving both kinds (both Body and Blood), bread and wine both, leavened bread, and all the other traditions (2 Thess. 2:15) She keeps, which Rome breaks. And Rome breaks the commandment of God by making the popes of Rome into gods, at least since 1870 AD and Vatican I.
God save us. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington