Sola Scriptura from and Orthodox perspective

YeshuaFan

Well-known member
And where do we find "the witness of the earth Church"?
In SCRIPTURE.



Nope.
Sola Scriptura doesn't teach that the Bible is the "only source of truth".
It teaches that it is the only ultimate infallible authority of truth.



Then what did the early church omit from the Bible?
Strange that Jesus and His Apostles saw the word of God fully sufficient!
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Strange that Jesus and His Apostles saw the word of God fully sufficient!

So did the ECF's, ironically....
Although they didn't usually use the term "sufficient", their teachings were more along the lines of, "We're not going to teach ANYTHING unless we can show it from SCRIPTURE".
 

YeshuaFan

Well-known member
So did the ECF's, ironically....
Although they didn't usually use the term "sufficient", their teachings were more along the lines of, "We're not going to teach ANYTHING unless we can show it from SCRIPTURE".
Their problem was they ignored the truth of scripturesd at times to bring back in destructive doctrines!
 

Hark

Well-known member
Are these the NT books? It's not like the different Churches Paul established had various copies of his letters, especially in what we have now. More than likely, the books saint Paul refers to are the Old Testament Scriptures.

Of course letters and epistles are being written but none of these verses indicate that Scripture alone is sufficient. You used 2 Timothy 3:16 as a proof text, and the Scriptures which St. Paul refers to are the OT Scriptures. Again, St. Paul himself and the NT writers, when referring to the Scriptures, they mean the OT. So if this verse proves the Bible alone, it proves OT alone.

And as we have discussed earlier, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." The Traditions taught by the Apostles come not only in the written form, but also in what was passed down orally. This oral Tradition is still being taught to the faithful today in the Divine Liturgy, the Creed, the Councils.
And
Yes, good points.

Here is another example where a literal reading from the New Testament would imply that only a portion of the Old Testament is required for scriptures. It comes from the story of the rich man and Lazarus:

Luke 16:27-33

Should Christians delete the entire New Testament and large portion of the Old Testament to leave only the Law and Prophets?
Both of you brothers need to address the issue of how anyone can verify church traditions as if it was taught to the churches in the N.T.?

If it was taught to N.T. churches then those traditions can be found in the N.T. , right?

Otherwise, you wind up with church traditions not taught as such in the N.T. and if you say church traditions can stand lone, what is to keep false church traditions or someone making things up to be added as church traditions along with scripture? Mormons & Jehovah's Witnesses & even the Catholic Church for which you claim they had split from Orthodox?

Now if you say when church traditions goes against scripture, that is how we can prove false church traditions by the scripture,

Now when you reprove errant church traditions by the scripture, then where does that leave all church traditions at? They have to be proven with Him by the scripture also.

Now we know false teachings can be derived from scripture out of context, and so we are to agree that scripture cannot go against scripture in order to prove the truth in His words aligning with each other in scripture and thus reprove the misapplication of scripture.

So no matter how you slice it, church traditions has to pass the validation by the scripture that they are of the truth from the scripture.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. 14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

The Word of God makes Jesus Christ & the scripture as synonymous with each other for why scripture has the final authority because Jesus is the final authority since He is the Head over every and each believer & each assembly of believers.. That is why we are to prove everything by His words from the scripture, both O.T. & N.T.. with His wisdom as He is the Good Shepherd & friend to each of us. Believe Him today to do it for you.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 22 Abstain from all appearance of evil. 23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 24 Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it. 25 Brethren, pray for us.

We should be raying for one another that Jesus Christ will intervene and minister to us through His words as kept in the KJV in proving every church traditions.
 

YeshuaFan

Well-known member
And

Both of you brothers need to address the issue of how anyone can verify church traditions as if it was taught to the churches in the N.T.?

If it was taught to N.T. churches then those traditions can be found in the N.T. , right?

Otherwise, you wind up with church traditions not taught as such in the N.T. and if you say church traditions can stand lone, what is to keep false church traditions or someone making things up to be added as church traditions along with scripture? Mormons & Jehovah's Witnesses & even the Catholic Church for which you claim they had split from Orthodox?

Now if you say when church traditions goes against scripture, that is how we can prove false church traditions by the scripture,

Now when you reprove errant church traditions by the scripture, then where does that leave all church traditions at? They have to be proven with Him by the scripture also.

Now we know false teachings can be derived from scripture out of context, and so we are to agree that scripture cannot go against scripture in order to prove the truth in His words aligning with each other in scripture and thus reprove the misapplication of scripture.

So no matter how you slice it, church traditions has to pass the validation by the scripture that they are of the truth from the scripture.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. 14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

The Word of God makes Jesus Christ & the scripture as synonymous with each other for why scripture has the final authority because Jesus is the final authority since He is the Head over every and each believer & each assembly of believers.. That is why we are to prove everything by His words from the scripture, both O.T. & N.T.. with His wisdom as He is the Good Shepherd & friend to each of us. Believe Him today to do it for you.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 22 Abstain from all appearance of evil. 23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 24 Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it. 25 Brethren, pray for us.

We should be raying for one another that Jesus Christ will intervene and minister to us through His words as kept in the KJV in proving every church traditions.
When any church tradition is afforded same authority as scriptures, that is manmade doctrine, as Jesus railed against Pharisees were doing!
 

ziapueblo

Active member
Both of you brothers need to address the issue of how anyone can verify church traditions as if it was taught to the churches in the N.T.?
What did worship look like in the NT Church? Does St. Paul or any of the NT writers explicitly lay out what Christian worship looks like?

. . . and if you say church traditions can stand lone, what is to keep false church traditions or someone making things up to be added as church traditions along with scripture?
In the Orthodox perspective, Tradition consists of Scripture, the Liturgical life of the Church (Eucharist, hymns sung, homily by the presbyter/deacon), the Creed and Councils of the Church. As far as for "someone making things up to be added as church traditions along with scripture," this is what the Ecumenical Councils are for. To combat heresy that went against the Tradition (Scripture and the listed above).

Mormons & Jehovah's Witnesses & even the Catholic Church for which you claim they had split from Orthodox?
I would as Baptists, Southern Baptists, Pentecostals, Methodist, Anglicans, Lutherans, the various denominations that use parts of Calvinist theology.

Now if you say when church traditions goes against scripture . . .
It can not go against Tradition since Scripture is part of Tradition.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. 14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.
The phrase His sight (v.13) tells us this reference is not the written word, Holy Scripture, but the Word of God Himself, our Lord Jesus Christ. Nothing is able to escape the discernment of Christ, the Word of God.
 

Hark

Well-known member
What did worship look like in the NT Church? Does St. Paul or any of the NT writers explicitly lay out what Christian worship looks like?
Well, when it comes for providing for missionary saints that visit and for their provision in the field, each church was instructed to set aside a portion afterwards from the bounty collected as God has raised up cheerful givers. John 16:1-2

1 Corinthians 16:1Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. 2 Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.

This supports also that church services was held on Sunday, the first day of the week. There were other ordinaces for churches to follow.

1 Corinthians 11:1Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

Men are to pray or preach with their heads uncovered but the women, the opposite in verses 3-16.

In verses 17-34, Paul was addressing the contentions that when they assemble, .some were using the provisions for communion to eat and drink, to satisfy their hunger & thirst rather than doing communion in remembrance of Him, leaving others without provision to hold communion with.

That said, it reveals that there was no special ceremony in presenting the bread & wine in turning them into the actual body & blood of Jesus Christ at communion. If it wasn't present then, then all that special emphasis on communion now has to be circumspect & to be reproved.

Especially when emphasis is on the priest to be celibate to perform this transubstantiation. and yet if married, they can only do communion; as far as Catholic teaching goes; for which I call you all to question for this reason per instruction for fulfilling the role of an elder or bishop.

1 Timothy 3:1This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

So believers should discern with Him that there are scripture reproving the Mass, the Eucharist, and transubstantiation for what it is as not of Him.
In the Orthodox perspective, Tradition consists of Scripture, the Liturgical life of the Church (Eucharist, hymns sung, homily by the presbyter/deacon), the Creed and Councils of the Church. As far as for "someone making things up to be added as church traditions along with scripture," this is what the Ecumenical Councils are for. To combat heresy that went against the Tradition (Scripture and the listed above).
Orthodox need to do a reformation to remove things that caused Catholic Church to split off.
I would as Baptists, Southern Baptists, Pentecostals, Methodist, Anglicans, Lutherans, the various denominations that use parts of Calvinist theology.
That is good because no church is immune to false teachings creeping in, especially when they use the modified Nicene creed of 381 A.D. to broaden the way in the worship place to worship the Holy Spirit with the Father & the Son when no scripture taught that at all. What scripture did say was how to come to the Father for anything in fellowship, prayer, & worship & that is by coming to the Son in worship per John 14:6 and the only way to honor the Father is to honor the Son because when we are not honoring the Son, we are not honoring the Father and that is the standard of judgment raised by Jesus Christ in John 5:22-23. A lot of churches are ignoring the warnings by Jesus for adhering to that creed in Matthew 7:13-27 & the solution to avoid that apostasy that can happen is to narrow the way back to the Son to avoid being left behind per Luke 13:24-30.
It can not go against Tradition since Scripture is part of Tradition.
No matter what church's tradition it is, be it Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, we are to be submissive to the Word of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, in according to His words as the scripture we have today in the KJV.
The phrase His sight (v.13) tells us this reference is not the written word, Holy Scripture, but the Word of God Himself, our Lord Jesus Christ. Nothing is able to escape the discernment of Christ, the Word of God.
Do equate His sight with His words, because that is how HE will judge and that is how we are to reprove with His help..
 

ziapueblo

Active member
That said, it reveals that there was no special ceremony in presenting the bread & wine in turning them into the actual body & blood of Jesus Christ at communion. If it wasn't present then, then all that special emphasis on communion now has to be circumspect & to be reproved.
Saint Paul founded the Church in Corinth. The Corinthians heard his preaching and what he taught. This letter is addressing what saint Paul saw as incorrect views in the Church of Corinth.

Paul does address the reality of Christ in the Eucharist. In 1 Corinthians 10:16-21, saint Paul is making it clear that when we partake of the Eucharist we partake of the Body and Blood of Christ, verse 16, "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?"
 

ziapueblo

Active member
@Hark

Continuing with the above post. (I think I remember a post where you said you were a KJV guy so that is the Scripture version I am citing)

In 1 Corinthians 11:27-30, saint Paul uses language that shows his belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. In verse 27, look at, quite literally, the homicidal language on the instructions for receiving the Eucharist, "Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." The Greek text, enochos estai tou somatos kai tou haimatos tou kyriou, which translates, "will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." I say "homicidal language" because this phrase, "guilty of blood" is a figure of speech in both the Old Testament Scriptures and New Testament Scriptures which indicate murder. For example, Ezekiel 35:6 (when God pronounces judgment on the inhabitants of Mount Seir), Numbers 35:27 (used for those who are not guilty of murder) and Matthew 27:24 (Pontius Pilate declares himself “innocent” of Jesus’ blood, trying to show his innocence. We often hear this language to this day, "I'm not guilty of that persons blood."

To say the "guilt of blood", a victim must be present. If one fires a weapon and a picture of another person, they are not guilty of this persons blood. All they did was defy a symbol of that person. However, if a person actually shoots another, they would be guilty of that persons blood. Saint Paul writes that we are guilty of Jesus’ blood if we partake of the Eucharist in an unworthy fashion. The only way to make sense of this belief is that saint Paul believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Saint Paul also teaches about eternal and temporal consequences on this subject. First, when it comes to eternal consequences, saint Paul writes in verse 29, "For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself." Saint Paul uses the Greek word krima to mean condemnation. Examples, 1 Timothy 5:12, "Having damnation (krima), because they have cast off their first faith," and Romans 13:2, "Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation (krima)."

Regarding temporal consequences, saint Paul writes in verse 30, "For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep." Why would saint Paul teach that sickness, death, and damnation result from an unworthy reception of the Eucharist if it were merely a symbol? Such consequences are unintelligible if the Eucharist is a mere symbol.
 

Hark

Well-known member
Saint Paul founded the Church in Corinth. The Corinthians heard his preaching and what he taught. This letter is addressing what saint Paul saw as incorrect views in the Church of Corinth.
Paul corrected by the scripture, did he not?

How many church traditions aka ordinances instructed by Paul that the Orthodox are not keeping today? Example; not having head covered when praying or ministering?
Paul does address the reality of Christ in the Eucharist. In 1 Corinthians 10:16-21, saint Paul is making it clear that when we partake of the Eucharist we partake of the Body and Blood of Christ, verse 16, "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?"
I believe you are mistaken. Paul is reminding believers for what the bread & wine was for and that is to partake in communion in remembrance of Him; not for eating and drinking to satisfy their hunger & thirst at church.

Now think about the process that the Orthodox does in getting the bread & wine ready for communion. When does that transubstantiation process start & end for when they bring it out to be received by members? Or is it done at the service, by holding it up and then passing it around? If you can substantiate when exactly the transubstantiation tales place, then how could Paul relate the bread & the wine as being the actual body & blood of Jesus Christ when it was out there accessible for early members to feast on? See what I mean?

For it to be accessible to eat & drink, then it was still only bread & wine, right? No Transubstantiation has occurred when handled by a bishop to be consecrated and the passed out. Therefore Paul was pointing out what the bread & wine was for; to represent His body & blood symbolically for the communion service of remembering Him by.

Feel free as to explain when that transubstantiation process start & finish for the believers to receive it for what you say the bread & wine is for.

Then explain how those believers got a hold of it when it was not being held nor being handed out by the bishops and yet Paul reminded them for what the bread & wine was for.

There is no reprimand as if they desecrated the "holy sacraments". There was no measure given to prevent that from happening again by keeping it from the public, other than to rebuke them for eating & drinking at church for what their homes were for in eating & drinking.
 

Hark

Well-known member
@Hark

Continuing with the above post. (I think I remember a post where you said you were a KJV guy so that is the Scripture version I am citing)
I rely only on the KJV for the meat of His words, but I am not believing every ideology coming out as KJVO; just to be clear.
In 1 Corinthians 11:27-30, saint Paul uses language that shows his belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. In verse 27, look at, quite literally, the homicidal language on the instructions for receiving the Eucharist, "Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." The Greek text, enochos estai tou somatos kai tou haimatos tou kyriou, which translates, "will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." I say "homicidal language" because this phrase, "guilty of blood" is a figure of speech in both the Old Testament Scriptures and New Testament Scriptures which indicate murder. For example, Ezekiel 35:6 (when God pronounces judgment on the inhabitants of Mount Seir), Numbers 35:27 (used for those who are not guilty of murder) and Matthew 27:24 (Pontius Pilate declares himself “innocent” of Jesus’ blood, trying to show his innocence. We often hear this language to this day, "I'm not guilty of that persons blood."

To say the "guilt of blood", a victim must be present. If one fires a weapon and a picture of another person, they are not guilty of this persons blood. All they did was defy a symbol of that person. However, if a person actually shoots another, they would be guilty of that persons blood. Saint Paul writes that we are guilty of Jesus’ blood if we partake of the Eucharist in an unworthy fashion. The only way to make sense of this belief is that saint Paul believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Saint Paul also teaches about eternal and temporal consequences on this subject. First, when it comes to eternal consequences, saint Paul writes in verse 29, "For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself." Saint Paul uses the Greek word krima to mean condemnation. Examples, 1 Timothy 5:12, "Having damnation (krima), because they have cast off their first faith," and Romans 13:2, "Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation (krima)."

Regarding temporal consequences, saint Paul writes in verse 30, "For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep." Why would saint Paul teach that sickness, death, and damnation result from an unworthy reception of the Eucharist if it were merely a symbol? Such consequences are unintelligible if the Eucharist is a mere symbol.
Thank you for sharing but I disagree. When I follow the verses to your verse 27, I read this first as this offense of not eating at home but at church, thus leaving others without the means to partake the Lord's Supper.

1 Corinthians 11:20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. 21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. 22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? what shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. 23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

If it was the offense you are applying verse 27 to mean, the other offense would be moot as well as the rebuke

But if we follow your reference to the end, the initial offense is repeated with the solution to eat at home as the reproof, because the bread & the wine is the Lord's supper to be done in remembrance of Him & what He has accomplished at His death. It is not for what is being accomplished when we take communion as you seem to be applying verse 27 to mean per verse 26 above.

So verse 28 is reciting the offense of just eating the bread & wine to satisfy their hunger & thirst not discerning the symbols that the bread & wine is for at communion to remember Him by.

27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. 30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. 31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. 33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. 34 And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.

So if the offense was as you apply verse 27 to mean, the solution would hardly be mentioned about eating at home. The reason for that solution is for having the bread & wine at communion for every one at the assembly to do in remembrance of Him.

They knew what it was for, but they did it anyway. It was not considered as the Orthodox and the Catholics and other Protestant churches & you apply it to mean, because there is no need for the Presence to be in the bread & wine to receive again and again and again, when He is in us always since salvation. There is no receiving Him again in communion for why doing it in remembrance of Him is knowing He is in us too..
 

ziapueblo

Active member
How many church traditions aka ordinances instructed by Paul that the Orthodox are not keeping today? Example; not having head covered when praying or ministering?
Would you say these are matters of doctrine or discipline?

Some priests, during certain portions of the Divine Liturgy, wear the Kalimavkion (cool looking hat that Orthodox priests have :ROFLMAO:) at one time during incensation, but this isn't always the case, and if they choose to, it is only for a very small portion of the entire Liturgy.

Do women cover their heads in your Church? Clearly Scripture is clear on this, 1 Corinthians 11. A woman ought to wear a vail, which many women were I go to Church do, but again, is this doctrine or discipline?

How do women dress in your Church? In their Sunday bests? According to Scripture, women should not, "Let not yours be the outward adorning with braiding of hair, decoration of gold, and wearing of robes . . ." Or do they dress modestly? 1 Timothy 2:9, "also that women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly attire . . ."

Is this discipline or doctrine? How do we know the difference?

I believe you are mistaken. Paul is reminding believers for what the bread & wine was for and that is to partake in communion in remembrance of Him; not for eating and drinking to satisfy their hunger & thirst at church.
I would of course respectfully disagree.

When does that transubstantiation process start & end for when they bring it out to be received by members?
First off, the Orthodox do not use the word transubstantiation, although, there was a time when Russian Orthodox were influenced the the jesuits, so in some of their writing you may see the word transubstantiation. To answer your question, the Orthodox Church is not at all scholastic like the Western Church. The Roman Catholic Church has defined when the bread and wine becomes the Body and Blood while the Orthodox have not. We believe than when Jesus said to eat His flesh and drink His blood, that is exactly what he meant. Those who stuck with Christ after John 6 were rewarded at the Mystical Supper (Lord's Supper, Last Supper) when He gave them the bread and wine and said to them "this is my body" and "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood." This is what we believe. It is what the early Christians believed.

Therefore Paul was pointing out what the bread & wine was for; to represent His body & blood symbolically for the communion service of remembering Him by.
That is the tradition of your Christian Church body and I respect that.
 

Hark

Well-known member
Would you say these are matters of doctrine or discipline?

Some priests, during certain portions of the Divine Liturgy, wear the Kalimavkion (cool looking hat that Orthodox priests have :ROFLMAO:) at one time during incensation, but this isn't always the case, and if they choose to, it is only for a very small portion of the entire Liturgy.

Do women cover their heads in your Church? Clearly Scripture is clear on this, 1 Corinthians 11. A woman ought to wear a vail, which many women were I go to Church do, but again, is this doctrine or discipline?

How do women dress in your Church? In their Sunday bests? According to Scripture, women should not, "Let not yours be the outward adorning with braiding of hair, decoration of gold, and wearing of robes . . ." Or do they dress modestly? 1 Timothy 2:9, "also that women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly attire . . ."

Is this discipline or doctrine? How do we know the difference?
How do you apply the word ordinances as Paul gives to all the churches?
I would of course respectfully disagree.

Okay. Hopefully the Lord will reveal otherwise that His Presence cannot be in the bread & the wine to be received again because He is already in us. To make a concession on that part in disregard for his warning, is to allow believers to believe they can receive the HolySpirit again apart from salvation after a sensational sign in the flesh.

2 Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

First off, the Orthodox do not use the word transubstantiation, although, there was a time when Russian Orthodox were influenced the the jesuits, so in some of their writing you may see the word transubstantiation. To answer your question, the Orthodox Church is not at all scholastic like the Western Church. The Roman Catholic Church has defined when the bread and wine becomes the Body and Blood while the Orthodox have not. We believe than when Jesus said to eat His flesh and drink His blood, that is exactly what he meant. Those who stuck with Christ after John 6 were rewarded at the Mystical Supper (Lord's Supper, Last Supper) when He gave them the bread and wine and said to them "this is my body" and "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood." This is what we believe.
Okay. Thank you for sharing your belief.
It is what the early Christians believed.
I doubt that so I disagree with that assessment
That is the tradition of your Christian Church body and I respect that.
I am not a member of my Presbyterian church any more. They even started communion service with "We come into His Presence today" which is not true when He is in us and is with us always. Either we say what we man to reflect our faith or we are serving something else in His name rather than Him. That is not the reason I had left but I see that as an iniquity as Jesus warned here.

Luke 13:24 Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. 25 When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are: 26 Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets. 27 But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. 28 There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out. 29 And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God. 30 And, behold, there are last which shall be first, and there are first which shall be last.

Jesus is the only way to come to God the Father by; not communion.
 

BJ Bear

Well-known member
We cannot recognize the Bible as the only authority and here is why. Because the bible has to be interpreted.
That is a fundamentally backwards statement because the theme of Scripture is the revelation of Christ which not coincidentally interprets the reader or hearer.

The faith once delivered to the saints is simple. It is all the story telling of sinful men that leads people down the bunny trail of error.
 

ziapueblo

Active member
Okay. Hopefully the Lord will reveal otherwise that His Presence cannot be in the bread & the wine to be received again because He is already in us.
I could say the same, that the Real Presence would be revealed to you.
I doubt that so I disagree with that assessment
Saint Ignatius of Antioch, writing in the early 2nd century wrote this, in his letter to the Romans, "I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ . . . and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible (chapter 7)."

And his letter to the Smyrnaeans, "Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (chapter 7)."

Saint Justin Martyr, in his First Apology in 151 AD writes, "For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus (chapter 66)." It is actually a wonderfully written letter.

Saint Irenaeus, in his letter Agains Heresies, 189 AD writes, "If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood (Book IV chapter 18)?"

And, "He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him (also Book V, chapter 2)?"

I could go on and on but do not wish to bore you and list quote after quote after quote.

Jesus is the only way to come to God the Father by; not communion.
Yes, and He, Christ, is present in the Eucharist. Just as God gave the Israelites mana in the desert for their journey and nourishment, Christ gives us His Body and Blood for nourishment on our journey here on Earth.
 

Mike McK

Well-known member
Why do we believe in God, the most Holy Trinity, the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ? Because of a verse written in Scripture? Orthodox Christians believe these things because of the witness of the early Church. What was the witness of the early Church? Of course, first and foremost, their martyrdom. Christians who died for Jesus, the anointed one, in the most horrific ways possible. Second, the apostolic Tradition of the Church. What is apostolic Tradition? St. Irenaeus, an early Bishop born in Smyrna cira 130 A.D., wrote in his famous work Against Heresies, "As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same." It is what is handed down, paradosis in Greek, meaning a handing down or over, a tradition. Tradition comes in two forms as seen in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions (paradosis) which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."

I have been curious about forum members views on Sola Scriptura. From my understanding, Sola Scriptura is that the Bible and the Bible alone are all a Christian needs in order to find doctrine, teaching, etc. No other sources than Scripture. This idea comes from Martin Luther. He wrote, ". . . A simple layman armed with Scripture is to be believed above a pope or a council without it.…Neither the Church nor the pope can establish articles of faith. These must come from Scripture. For the sake of Scripture we should reject pope and councils . . ." Of course I understand Martin Luther is writing in protest of the Catholic Church, for he mentions the Pope of Rome, yet, the words, "a simple layman armed with Scripture is to be believed above a pope or a council." Luther also writes, "I will confidently confess what appears to me to be true, whether it has been asserted by a Catholic or a heretic, whether it has been approved or reproved by a council." It seems to me that he is saying "I am so sure that I have discovered true Christianity in my reading of Scripture that nothing will shake my opinion."

Am I wrong to think this? If sos, what is Sola Scriptura and what is it that I do not understand about it? What does it mean? I open and honestly as an Orthodox Christian ask this question.

We Orthodox, of course, do not believe that the Bible and the Bible alone is sufficient. Orthodox believe that we must have a lens in which to interpret the Sacred Text and that lens is our Liturgical worship, the councils of the Church and writings of the early Fathers of the Church.

It is not my intent to convince others or even to say that the Orthodox Church absolutely right (this is of course what I believe) and everyone else is wrong. This is just the Orthodox perspective.

Thanks,
This is a very common misconception about the nature of the Biblical praxis of sola scriptura. And it is a praxis, not a doctrine, by the way, so you're free to believe it or not.

Despite what the word "sola" may imply, sola scriptura, as has been historically understood within Christianity, refers to the supremacy of scripture, not the exclusivity of scripture.

In other words, scripture is not our only authority, but it is the highest authority to which all the other authorities must defer.
 

ziapueblo

Active member
This is a very common misconception about the nature of the Biblical praxis of sola scriptura. And it is a praxis, not a doctrine, by the way, so you're free to believe it or not.

Despite what the word "sola" may imply, sola scriptura, as has been historically understood within Christianity, refers to the supremacy of scripture, not the exclusivity of scripture.

In other words, scripture is not our only authority, but it is the highest authority to which all the other authorities must defer.
Thank you for your comment.
 

ziapueblo

Active member
. . . elevating their traditions and the teachings of those before them to a level equal in authority to the Scriptures . . .
Are they not on equal footing? "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
 
Top