Quote:

---

And the only basis for your argument that your particular church is either a critical or a really, really important part of salvation is because your church the scriptures says so.

---

FIFY

What do you mean? There is only one Church, one bride of Christ, one body of Christ.

Unity is spoken of in a few different ways in the Scriptures, but it's always related to two things: Christ and the Church.

For example, teleoites, consummation to a cumulative end, is found in the bond of love, because we are members of one body (Col 3:14).

St Paul also uses henotes, the unity of oneness in Ephesians 4. But of course that whole chapter hammers home the concept of oneness. We are to preserve this unity of oneness in love -- one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism. But he also says that we attain to this unity by growing into Christ, but we do this as one body, "according to the proper working of each individual part...for the building up of itself in love."

What really ties this in, of course, is Christ Himself. As St Paul wrote, this unity is only found in Christ. And, Christ prayed for exactly that -- oneness. In John 17 He prays first for the disciples, and then He prays for all who will believe through the word of the disciples to be one, just as the Father and Christ are one. Why? So the world would believe. He continues His prayer that we are to be perfected in unity, literally perfected in one (v23, hes, one) that is, Him, so that the world will know Christ was sent from the Father, and that God loves us.

There is no room for multiplicity because we have only one Lord, we are joined to His one Body through one Baptism, and we grow in the one Faith, through love, to unity with Him, until we are one.

I'm not dodging the question at all.

You've perhaps put forward two unrelated suggestions. One, the concept that a multiplicity of churches can constitute the Church in an invisible, mystical way. Second, whether or not the Orthodox church is the Church described in the scriptures.

I am suggesting that your first premise is false. A multiplicity of faiths, baptisms, beliefs cannot be one Church. There is a reason that the Church is called Catholic, which is Greek for universal. There is only one Church, and it is made up of those who have the one faith, regardless of time or place. Note that there is a local-universal continuum...wherever the bishop is, there is the fullness of the Church.

For the second claim, how could the scriptures answer about church schisms that hadn't happened yet? When the scriptures were written, there was one church, plus encroaching heresies. Shortly after, in the writings of the apostolic and ante-Nicene fathers we see these heresies come to life. But to trace the truth, you look for - antiquity, consensus, universality, and of course, consent with scriptures. The Orthodox Church has this, which is why I believe it is the Church.

Check your capitalization.

I think your Catholic should be little C

and I think your the should be capital The as The Ohio State Church

Technically what people call the Eastern Orthodox Church is really the Orthodox Catholic Church, just like Rome is the Roman Catholic Church. The Orthodox Catholic Church is made up of several autocephalous (self-ruled) churches, much like the Roman Catholic Church is. The Roman church used to be one of these autocephalous churches.

fun killer

JJMt said:

---

Protestants believe in the catholic church, too, of course, but catholic with a small "c". It's part of the Apostles Creed, which virtually all Protestants affirm.

But bottom line, you don't think members of the RCC are Christian, but you believe that EO are because, essentially, the EO says that. And everyone else who studies the scriptures and the early fathers, earnestly and honestly seeking the Holy Spirit's guidance, but comes to a different conclusion than you is not only wrong, but not a Christian, even though they believe in Christ and practice their faith to the best of their abilities, as aided by the Holy Spirit?

---

Protestants are faced with one of two claims. They either believe their particular sect to be the universal church, to the exclusion of the others, or they become nominalists and believe that there is no single universal church but all churches have some truth, and God will sort it out -- basically, the invisible church means there doesn't need to be a universal church at all. If they worry about it at all, which I think most don't.

I never made any judgment on anyone as whether or not they are a Christian. I also don't make any judgment about the salvation of anyone (heterodox or otherwise). It's not my business, my business is to "work out my own salvation with fear and trembling". What is my business, and it is the business of all Christians, is to defend the faith, to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which I was taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter". Why? "That we may be able both to encourage with sound teaching and to convict those contradicting it."

I do believe, though, that people who are outside of the faith are not in the fullness of truth - to their detriment! I can't tell you how much more sense Holy Scripture makes even on an intellectual level when read through the lens of Orthodoxy. And, how different life is lived when trying to attain to orthopraxis.

People may practice their faith to the best of their ability, but there is no scriptural support for doing so. We aren't called to discern the truth for ourselves, alone, based on the scriptures. "How can we understand if no one guides us"? We are told in the Scriptures repeatedly to seek unity in Christ, and to do that by submitting in Christian humility to our priests and bishops. Not, for example, to deny the episcopate or the priesthood.

There is simply no historical or scriptural witness for the church of the modern evangelical in the US. It is very much the christian-influenced folk religion of our country. It is uniquely and chiefly American, right down to the emphasis on personal ability/responsibility and independence. But its not apostolic. I'm not trying to pick on anyone, but drawing from my own experience. My church said fasting was fine, but no one did it (at least not in any sort of systematic way). We said to have quiet time, but it was up to us to figure out how, what to read, how to pray. We practiced baptism, but only as a symbol. We took the Lord's Supper, but again, only as a memorial and it had no grace - we didn't even believe in this. We didn't practice confession. Church was an emotional and intellectual experience, because the "theology" of most evangelical sects doesn't even recognize the existence of anything else! It suffers from a vague soteriology, an under-developed Christology... in short, a lack of correct belief, a lack of orthodoxy. Is it any wonder then that there is a lack of correct practice, of orthopraxis? Belief produces praxis produces belief, just like faith produces works produces faith. Faith without works is dead is the same thing as saying belief without praxis is dead.

I like Hilary of Poitiers. My pastor does a devotion each morning with his commentary, an excerpt from a church father and a BIble verse. It may be a little easier to consume. He also has a book called A Year with the Church Fathers.

This was today's
http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?m=1101459756774&ca=b26e9a58-f414-4dd4-9065-b531fcd0b476

Note, I'm not RCC or EO...I'm LCMS Lutheran.

That's what happens when you decide on a username at 16

I read the ante-nicene fathers first. I found a free kindle download and just started there. The Didache, St Clement of Rome, St Ignatius of Antioch, and so on. St Irenaeus against heresies in incredibly interesting, as are St Justin's confessions and dialogue with trypho. Then read Athenagoras' plea. St Athanasius' On the Incarnation is indispensable. I wouldn't read the polemics before I read other stuff, just because they were written to rebuke mostly.

But the lens is what matters. I realized that my lens changed, and then everything read differently. Even today when I go back, things read differently - even more clear, because I understand now more than I did then.

JJMt said:

---

For the RCC and EO folks reading and contributing to this thread, you guys have a point that one of the necessary results of the Protestant perspective, especially the evangelical perspective, is that each person is his or her own authority on interpreting the Bible. But doesn't that lead to the following questions:

1. What's wrong with that?

2. Doesn't an organized Church sometimes get it wrong? And isn't a huge, bureaucratic organization like the RCC (and possible the EO?) much more difficult to correct when it does get it wrong?

3. Doesn't an overwhelming emphasis on orthodoxy and huge, bureaucratic churches also lead to a spiritual death on the parts of the masses who live in countries dominated by such churches? Hasn't history shown that to be true, that is, in most RCC and EO countries Christianity is only a thin veneer on most people who are, in reality, Christians in name only? Isn't the evangelical church one of the few bright spots in Christendom in terms of spiritual vitality and growth? Can't that itself be a sign of God's blessing and the work of the Holy Spirit? (somebody earlier stated that many evangelicals are leaving for the RCC and Orthodoxy, whereas numerically the opposite is true. RCCs, at least, are leaving the RCC for evangelical churches by the thousands.)

4. On a practical, real world level, is there really that much difference? Many of the RCC members I know approach RCC doctrine as sort of a smorgasbord. They take what they want and reject what they don't. How is that different from the evil that you see in evangelical Protestantism?

---

1. For starters, it's not scriptural. 2 Peter 1:20 says that no prophecy of Scripture is subject to a personal interpretation. He says it to emphasize that the validity of his words to his flock come from his personal experience with Christ and the Holy Spirit. In short, the guardianship of the meaning and interpretation of scripture belongs to the Church, specifically in the office of the episcopate. St Paul tells St Timothy (who was a bishop) that he needs to be diligent so that he can rightly handle the word of the truth. The apostles rendered a judgment on the keeping of the law among the gentiles in a council. We have a manuscript here.

Even on a practical level, we've tried this experiment. We had the guardianship of ecclesial and conciliar interpretation (church and council) for some 1000 years. Then, we had ecclesial and personal in the west (the pope) for another 400. Then somewhat ecclesial, except the ecclesial structure was severely curtailed (confessional protestants). Then personal. The record is clear -- it produces a fractured, divided, schismatic group of people who can't even agree on the Eucharist, what was once considered to be the most basic and unifying aspect of the practice of our faith. It just doesn't work. Christians are supposed to submit in humility.

2. No, the Church won't err. The High Priest of the Church, our Chief Shepherd among our shepherds (1 Peter 5:1-5, that is, the bishop of our bishops) guides the church today, as its living and active head. He is our only Teacher, Comforter, Ruler. It is through Him, and with Him, that the Church remains spotless and ultimately infallible. Do people err? Absolutely. Have large chunks of the church fallen into error? Yes. Do political rulers interfere? Yes. But our hope remains.

3. The record of the eastern church in recent times (the past centuries, actually) is a church under fire by Islam, Communism, war, and struggle. In that time she has produced martyrs and saints equal to the challenge. The Roman church has labored under and against post-enlightenment agnosticism, while the eastern church struggled with state-imposed atheism and Islamic persecution. I think you'd be surprised at the piety in countries where being a Christian meant being put on a list. I also think the general religious malaise in Europe is rapidly spreading to post-modern America, which is becoming rapidly more secular and less religious. Popularity shouldn't be mistaken for truth. An easy faith, with no struggle, no cross, no expectation, and a lot of good feels will be a church full on Sundays, but without saints or martyrs to show for it.

4. All organizations you get out what you put in. No one can force anyone to drink once they've been lead to the water. But, it's about the tools you put in front of people. Orthodoxy is a bottomless well that you literally can't get to the bottom of. Even if we presume that Protestantism has been producing equal quality spiritual learning and work, there's only four centuries there to dive through versus twenty. The richness of the theology, the absolute challenge that is there... it can't be matched. There are so many amazing and wonderful tools available to the believer who chooses to struggle in orthopraxis that simple aren't there for, say, an American evangelical.

Polemics are anything that are title "against so and so" or generally a lecture. St Irenaeus wrote Against Heresies, but it's so interesting and good I think you should read it. The stuff called "On the ...." is generally more about instruction, and less about correcting a heresy.

The Orthodox Church is a great book written by Bishop Kallistos (Ware). He's a convert, but a bishop and monk now. The book was written in the seventies I believe, and is a very fair-handed look at church history, though it is from within. I read it a long time before I became convinced of Orthodoxy, and I think it'll be interesting at any rate whether you walk away from it intrigued or not.

When I had my first moment... in hindsight this was probably when I converted...was when I was reading a book called "Themes in Orthodox Patristic Psychology" by Archbishop Chrysostomos. It was kind of like a tune I'd known my whole life. Like when you have a song in your head you can't place, but then you hear it, you know? I know it sounds super cheesy, I'm sorry, but I don't know any other way to say it. But it was like everything true I'd ever been taught in church was suddenly more focused, more real...They were right, everything I'd learned in my church about humility and love was true, but here it was actually, totally true. Greek is cool because it's flexible, they have a word for this...aletheia. The real deal as opposed to illusion. I think that was the first time I really "got" the whole "Consensus of the Fathers" thing.

This is an excellent book on Eastern Spirituality as well, extremely thorough.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Protestants are faced with one of two claims. They either believe their particular sect to be the universal church, to the exclusion of the others, or they become nominalists and believe that there is no single universal church but all churches have some truth, and God will sort it out -- basically, the invisible church means there doesn't need to be a universal church at all. If they worry about it at all, which I think most don't.

---

Protestants believe the invisible church IS the universal church being that God's grace is not limited to a man-made institution.

The difference being that the RCC and EOC claim their institution is the universal church AND that God's graces exist outside of it while the Protestants don't make the same claim about sole authority.

JJMt said:

---

Thanks.

To reply to your response to question 1, Peter was clearly speaking about interpretation of prophecy, not interpretation of Scripture. Paul also lays out specific rules for the exercise of the spiritual gifts, including prophecy.

To your answer to #2, the leader of the RCC has often clearly been in error, even gross error. And the RCC itself was often in gross error. Orthodoxy did not save the church from error, and it took hundreds of years and dozens of lives for the RCC to change.

And the history of Europe when it was under the monopolistic domination of the RCC was not a pretty picture. Widespread spiritual growth was not the norm, even among the priests (especially among the priests?). The results of a controlling authoritarian religious structure did not have positive results.

But I will readily agree that the RCC has a much richer tradition, especially an intellectual tradition, than does Protestantism. Many Protestants recognize this. A prof at Wheaton, I think, named Nall has written on that. Of course, as you note, the RCC has a 1600 year head start, and hopefully the Protestants will catch up. At the present, though, there is only a small (but growing) segment of Protestantism with intellectual interests.

Have your heard of or read books by Tom Howard? He is an evangelical who converted first to the Anglican Church and then to Roman Catholicism (and has a very famous sister named Elisabeth Elliot who has remained an evangelical, as best as I know). Nevertheless, he still has very warm and glowing things to say about the Evangelical church. The decision on which practice to follow may not be binary. That is, the EO may be exactly where God has called you, but perhaps it may be a mistake to critically judge those for whom God may not have made the same calling.

---

As I wrote in the post, if you read what St Peter wrote, he is saying it in context of justifying his authority to remind them, to be their overseer. He says no prophecy of Scripture, not general prophecy. And this is clear because he continues that there will be false prophets. What makes them false? Because they have a false and personal interpretation of scripture. St Paul's rules for church discipline aren't in the same context.

Yes, the High Priest of the Church is Christ. Kind of my point. I wasn't talking about a pope (the Orthodox church has no equivalent) but Christ Himself. Sorry, I thought that was obvious. I think the medieval Roman church is partially because of a corruption of worldly political interests combined with the error of papal supremacy. There is no historical analog in the east.

I think the Roman tradition of intellectualism is actually a mark against them in some ways. Their theology under the Scholastic movement became highly intellectualized, to the point that they consider the chief aim of the life of the Christian to be the beatific vision of God, that His essence will someday be contemplated by our purified intellect. This is not the same teaching as the Orthodox Church holds, which is that God's essence will always be beyond our comprehension, He is utterly transcendent. The wealth of the Church is a spiritual repository, not to nourish the mind but the soul.

I haven't read Tom Howard. But, I'm not critically judging people. I can't believe that the Spirit would call people to be outside of the fullness of truth. That being said, I won't ever doubt His ability to use people for His glory wherever they are. We should all seek unity in love. Unity can only come from Christ.

tehmackdaddy said:

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

Protestants are faced with one of two claims. They either believe their particular sect to be the universal church, to the exclusion of the others, or they become nominalists and believe that there is no single universal church but all churches have some truth, and God will sort it out -- basically, the invisible church means there doesn't need to be a universal church at all. If they worry about it at all, which I think most don't.

---

Protestants believe the invisible church IS the universal church being that God's grace is not limited to a man-made institution.

The difference being that the RCC and EOC claim their institution is the universal church AND that God's graces exist outside of it while the Protestants don't make the same claim about sole authority.

---

If you'll review my post about church unity you'll see that the concept of a multi-faith invisible church -- a "big tent" approach -- is not supported by Holy Scripture. There is one faith, one baptism, one Church, one Body.

God's grace isn't limited by anything. He does what He will. The difference is as the repository of truth, worshiping in Spirit and in Truth is a guaranteed path to salvation. We have a great promises in our faith as St Peter said, including our holy mysteries which are filled with God's grace. It's like trying to swim across the ocean. The Church is the Ark.

That's a very post hoc approach to Peter's message. Why would he say prophecy of Scripture? Because he is contrasting with prophecy not in Scripture. Pagans had prophecy as well. Some of it involved the personal interpretation of signs, whether tea leaves, the stars, entrails, etc. Peter is saying that Scriptural prophecy comes from God, not some pagan seer's imagination. The whole context is the assuredness of the promise based on the veracity of the source.

St Peter's epistle's first two chapters outline can be traced:

- do all these things good things
- I will be diligent to remind you until I die
- I didn't learn this second hand but by seeing firsthand
- so my interpretation of scriptural prophecy (re: Christ and what I teach) was confirmed by my own eyes and by God
- but know that no scripture can be interpreted personally because it comes from God
- but false prophets will come (not like me)
- people will follow and it'll be really bad

I agree he's warning against bad prophets, but also against bad interpretations of scripture. Otherwise why mention a prohibition on personal scriptural prophecy interpretations?

Anyway, no need to get too hung up. I can jump to St Paul - "Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers?" No. "For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit." Not everyone is blessed to interpret scripture for themselves, or be teachers, or take it upon themselves to found churches.

this thread has strayed quite far from the original issue of why the reformers decided the Mass/Divine Liturgy whatever you want to call it needed to be changed after 1500.

no one has yet to give a real answer to that. i understand the reformation and what they were attempting to do. i just don't see a real answer as to why the worship service needed changing.

Quote:

---

Otherwise why mention a prohibition on personal scriptural prophecy interpretations?

---

That's a good question because Peter mentions no such prohibition. He only points out that the interpretation is not really from man, but from God.

Then, beginning in Chapter 2 is where each church is pointing at the others saying, "see!"

I'm not sure what you mean. It says that prophecies in Scripture are not of personal / one's own / private interpretation. He says that interpretations of scripture are not idias, they are not private or personal property - they don't belong to a person, because they came from God in the first place.

Ah -- when reading, I see there may be a reason for a disconnect here - this is a fantastic example of the NIV translating in a very misleading way. Here you can see a ton of parallel translations - only the NLT and NIV subject the interpretation to the one doing the prophecy.


Another thing I think is a little bit interesting here is the chapter / verse breakups. When this is read as the scripture reading (Monday before the Sunday of the Prodigal Son) it's read from 1:20-2:9. The original epistles, of course had no chapters and verse. I think it makes a lot more sense to look at v20 as the introduction to what was later broken into chapter two than the end of chapter 1. The flow is (instruction toward good things : eye witness + prophecy as a guard : warning against bad things). The contrast between safe and unsafe teachings are demonstrated by personal experience of God, and prophecies of Scripture.

I always think it's kind of funny that St Peter's epistles said St Paul's letters were hard to understand, but I think St Peter's epistles have numerous passages that are extremely difficult to grasp completely.

For what its worth, I don't think chapter 2 applies to protestants in general. I think it can certainly apply to unscrupulous preachers who use people and the word of God for personal gain.

At any rate, like I said, there are other passages that make it clear to us that not everyone is an authority of scriptural interpretation.

1 Cor 12:8-9, 28-29
Eph 4:11
James 3:1

We see that to be a bishop (episcopos, overseer) or deacon is something to be aspired to, not universally attained, in 1 Timothy 3. In Titus 1 we see that these people are also subject to review, because ultimately they are appointed. They don't ordain themselves, people aren't given to being in positions of authority because they want to.

Furlock Bones said:

---

this thread has strayed quite far from the original issue of why the reformers decided the Mass/Divine Liturgy whatever you want to call it needed to be changed after 1500.

no one has yet to give a real answer to that. i understand the reformation and what they were attempting to do. i just don't see a real answer as to why the worship service needed changing.

---

Perhaps there isn't a simple answer