I myself always looked with interest at the Eastern Orthoodox Church, since becoming acquainted with the claims of an "original true Church" through the literature of the Church of Christ years ago, and then finding similar claims by the Worldwide Church of God (Armstrongism), Jehovah's Witnesses, and even some Baptists use it. I always found the claims of those groups being preserved through such small sects as the Waldensians, Catharii, and Anabaptists to be farfetched, as those groups were vastly different from these modern groups. I quickly realized that the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches had more of a stake to that claim, since they were the historical "Church" stemming from the original Churches planted by the Apostles. And I further figured out that the EOC has an even greater claim than the RCC, because the latter was actually one single patriarchate of the original five of the Church, which broke off because it was continuing to add new doctrines the other four patriarchates did not accept.
Still, I do not believe that the EOC of the 11th century and after was the same as the first century Church either, as is assumed by EOC advocates. However, some have now begun to become aggressive in claiming to be hthe true Church, and condeming Protestantism and "sola Scriptura", "with its thousands of splinter groups", instead of "just following the [oral, apostolic] traditions of the Church". Many of those groups that claim to be the original Church had a point in pointing out that the Church rapidly began changing after the death of the apostles. You can even see the warnings of apostasy in the writings of the apostles themselves. Most of these regared the influence of Gnosticism and other forms of pagan practice, and the infiltration of domineering leaders who would persecute the true followers. Then you could see some of the gnostic influence in the writings of the early fathers, and other "apocryphal" writings, including various "gospels, acts, epistles, and apocalypses".
And it is not just these sects who claim this, but it has been heavily documented by historians:
Jesse Lyman Hurlbut The Story of the Christian Church p.41:We would like to read of the later work of such helpers of St. Paul as Timothy, Apollos, and Titus., but all these...drop out of record at his death. For 50 years after St. Paul's life a curtain hangs over the church through which we strive vainly to look; and when at last it arises, about AD 120, with the writings of the earliest church fathers, we find a church in many aspects different from that in the days of Peter and Paul...
William J. McGothlin The Course Of Christian History:
But Christianity itself had been in [the] process of transformation as it progressed and at the close of the period was in many respects quite different from the apostolic Christianity -
Samuel G. Green A Handbook of Christian History:
The 30 years which followed the close of the New Testament Canon and the destruction of Jerusalem are in truth, the most obscure in the history of the Church. When we emerge in the second century, we are, to a great extent, in a changed world
William Fitzgerald Lectures on Ecclesiastical History:
over this period of transition, which immediately succeeds upon the era properly called apostolic, great obscurity hangs... -
Philip Schaff History of the Christian Church:
The remaining 30 years of the first century are involved in mysterious darkness, illuminated only by the writings of John. This is a period of church history about which we know least and would like to know most.
But in the debates with the EOC advocates, I see all of this is dismissed, based on the assumption that the early fathers preserved perfectly the "apostolic tradition", and if it doesn't look scriptural, it's because it was an oral teaching that was for some reason omitted from scripture, and those fathers should know better than us thousands of years later anyway. This basically exalts them above us as inerrant, and does not even take into question whether we are even interpreting them right. I see this as very dangerous, because basically now; I have to just take their word for it, and even if you say "no, not my word, just look at history, and how the one Church always taught the same thing", the history is interpreted in light of the infallible, supposedly Spirit-guided "tradition" as well. So basically, it is still take your (the Church's) word for it. They will then even throw up "well, you believe a Bible written by men" echoing a common argument used by nonbelievers.
One EOC article, "Sola Scriptura: In the Vanity of Their Minds" by Fr. John Whiteford, available at http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/tca_solascriptura.aspx" or http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/sola_scriptura_john_whiteford.htm" highlights the issue; and here are answers some of its objections:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the second place, if Paul meant to exclude tradition as not also being profitable, then we should wonder why Paul uses non-biblical oral tradition in this very same chapter. The names Jannes and Jambres are not found in the Old Testament, yet in II Timothy 3:8 Paul refers to them as opposing Moses. Paul is drawing upon the oral tradition that the names of the two most prominent Egyptian Magicians in the Exodus account (Ch. 7-8) were "Jannes" and "Jambres."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe God gave them the names through inspiration. In any case, the names do not contradict anything found in scripture, nor do they add anything significant to them. Even if it was a tradition, the argument is not that anything oral is never true.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And this is by no means the only time that a non-biblical source is used in the New Testament — the best known instance is in the Epistle of St. Jude, which quotes from the Book of Enoch (Jude 14,15 cf. Enoch 1:9).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once again, God, by inspiration, knows when to use these sources. We cannot just go and try to validate any teaching that has come up in the Church with them.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Church defended itself against heretical teachings by appealing to the apostolic origins of Holy Tradition (proven by Apostolic Succession, i.e. the fact that the bishops and teachers of the Church can historically demonstrate their direct descendence from the Apostles)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This does not guarantee perfect transmission of the teachings. People do put their own spins on what was handed down to them, and unless you are claiming the postapostolic fathers were just as inspired as the apostles, they were fallible, and could get things wrong.
Part of the problem with the early post-apostolic Church is the fact that they did not yet have all the scriptures, and had to go only by the OT, and oral tradition, and this left them in a very shaky position. So the postapostolic fathers got the basic essentials of Christ right and passed them down, but then many began putting their own spins on things, putting things in their own ways, and using metaphors and allegories to illustrate the point (like Ignatius' statement on the Eucharist). Those after them, then built their own on top of that. By the time the NT was published, it's basic message about Christ was widespread, but all of these other interpretations of it had been added. The later Church would then just read these things into those scriptures, assuming they actually were what was referred to as "the apostles' tradition". It's an easy mistake to be made, over centuries. Even doctrines like the Trinity were not as developed as they were in the Creeds, but rather developed by weighing the universal truths with the various claims different people were making. Even many of the bishops in the council were still not sure of the Athanasian formula that they were being asked to sign.
Case in point, again:
We see it go from Ignatius' "they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ" which still leaves it open to be a metaphor (Where a "simile" is "a comparison using 'like' or 'as'"; a metaphor calls it like it is the thing it is being compared to). Then, expanding upon this, a half century later, Justin's "not as common bread and common drink do we receive these, but...the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word...is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.". That too can still be metaphorical, but now he adds to it "blessed by the prayer of His word". He mentions a "transmutation", but that appears to be referring to the "nourishment" or our own bodies (suggesting as I always point out, that this was not cracker crumbs, or wafers especially made for the "service". He also otherwise pictures the bread as a "remembrance").
Then, in the next century, we begin to get more expounding of some "change" in the food TO "the flesh and blood". (Tertullian's example of Christ changing the bread and wine to His body still needs to answer the question of how it could literally be Christ when Christ was still physically there before them).
I'm sorry, but all of this looks like a doctrinal development to me. (rather than some complete doctrine passed down wholesale, only more [previously secret, oral only] details were being revealed about it). Just as I have always described it; early fathers begin putting their own spin on things, and then others after them continue to build on that, putting their own spin on top of that. So yes, it was all passed down from the apostles, but we see it was being changed along the way. The only response to this is "But Christ would guide them into all truth", but He said this to the apostles, and they were guided into all truth, which they wrote down in their Gospels, epistles, Acts and Revelation. But that was not promised for the later leaders or any organization they would form around themselves.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and by appealing to the universality of the Orthodox Faith (i.e. that the Orthodox faith is that same faith that Orthodox Christians have always accepted throughout its history and throughout the world). The Church defended itself against spurious and heretical books by establishing an authoritative list of sacred books that were received throughout the Church as being divinely inspired and of genuine Old Testament or apostolic origin.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If this was the case, then there are many other books which agree with the so-called "orthodox faith", and even add those "traditions" in question, such as real presence and the perpetual virginity of Mary, the vestments, etc. These should have been added, then.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One thing that is beyond serious dispute is that by the time the Church settled the Canon of Scripture it was in its faith and worship essentially indistinguishable from the Church of later periods — this is an historical certainty.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's not true, as the church was constantly changing, with its offices gaining increasing power, among the changes. (all of this would then be read back into the scriptures and fathers, as "apostolic tradition").
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Epistles were written primarily to answer specific problems that arose in various Churches; thus, things that were assumed and understood by all, and not considered problems were not generally touched upon in any detail. Doctrinal issues that were addressed were generally disputed or misunderstood doctrines, matters of worship were only dealt with when there were related problems (e.g. I Corinthians 11-14). Apocalyptic writings (such as Revelation) were written to show Gods ultimate triumph in history.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And all of the doctrines such as bread and wine changed into real flesh and blood by a prayer (even though it doesn't look like it), Mary/saint veneration, icons etc. were never issues? Amazing how these things were so neatly omitted, or agreed upon universally. What about using "father" as a religious title, in direct contradiction to the teaching of the Lord? Not only would the apostles do it anyway, but it would not be questioned, and end up kept out of the written record, and only revealed later in church history? How about graven images, in direct contradiction to the Ten Commandments? And the flimsy argument that the Incarnation of God in Christ now somehow revokes that command? Surely, they would raise questions, as they still do. OR, maybe these things were just ASSUMED by a wholesale "if its apart of tradition, then by faith I believe it was practiced then, because tradition can't be wrong".
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let us first note that none of these literary types present in the New Testament have worship as a primary subject, or were meant to give details about how to worship in Church. In the Old Testament there are detailed (though by no means exhaustive) treatments of the worship of the people of Israel (e.g. Leviticus, Psalms) — in the New Testament there are only meager hints of the worship of the Early Christians. Why is this? Certainly not because they had no order in their services — liturgical historians have established the fact that the early Christians continued to worship in a manner firmly based upon the patterns of Jewish worship which it inherited from the Apostles. However, even the few references in the New Testament that touch upon the worship of the early Church show that, far from being a wild group of free-spirited "Charismatics," the Christians in the New Testament worshiped liturgically as did their fathers before them: they observed hours of prayer (Acts 3:1); they worshiped in the Temple (Acts 2:46, 3:1, 21:26); and they worshiped in Synagogues (Acts 18:4).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And some also still met on the Sabbath, and kept other laws the later Church and its "tradition" would later reject and even condemn, ostracize and persecute. Yet you try to use this stuff to authenticate traditions far foreign to the OT or NT. Besides, after the Temple would be destroyed, a lot of that would end, especially as Christians became more estranged from Judaism. This is proven by the fact that in the letter of Pliny to Trajan, asking the emperor how he should handle this "sect", as he calls them, he reports on his investigations by saying that they gather, they sing hymns, they pray, and they share in a meal. This is the best historical evidence we have on what the early Church worship was like, and it was clearly simple, and nothing like the later Church that had amassed riches and power and pomp associated with the "high" liturgy. If they had continued to employ elaborate, temple-style worship like the Jews, that would have definitely been significant enough to be mentioned in the letter.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As already stated, the New Testament gives little detail about how to worship — but this is certainly no small matter. Furthermore, the same Church that handed down to us the Holy Scriptures, and preserved them, was the very same Church from which we have received our patterns of worship. If we mistrust this Churchs faithfulness in preserving Apostolic worship, then we must also mistrust her fidelity in preserving the Scriptures.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe there was so little details on worship, because worship was not some big grand mystic ritual, but was instead "in spirit and in truth" contrasting both the OT, and the later Church which selectively copied the OT while adding completely new practices. (Again, the Letter of Pliny is a big evidence of this).
The scriptures were from the Apostles, and the "patterns of worship" were from later, and reflected in later writings left out of the canon. This shows God working through them in spite of themselves!
And if it was no small matter, and God was so detailed in the OT (whether "exhaustive" or not), why would virtually ALL of these details be left out?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the purpose of the many Protestant study Bibles, if all that is needed is the Bible itself? Why do they hand out tracts and other material? Why do they even teach or preach at all —why not just read the Bible to people? The answer is though they usually will not admit it, Protestants instinctively know that the Bible cannot be understood alone. And in fact every Protestant sect has its own body of traditions, though again they generally will not call them what they are. It is not an accident that Jehovahs Witnesses all believe the same things, and Southern Baptists generally believe the same things, but Jehovahs Witnesses and Southern Baptists emphatically do not believe the same things. Jehovahs Witnesses and Southern Baptists do not each individually come up with their own ideas from an independent study of the Bible; rather, those in each group are all taught to believe in a certain way — from a common tradition. So then the question is not really whether we will just believe the Bible or whether we will also use tradition — the real question is which tradition will we use to interpret the Bible? Which tradition can be trusted, the Apostolic Tradition of the Orthodox Church, or the muddled, and modern, traditions of Protestantism that have no roots beyond the advent of the Protestant Reformation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This argument is that since the Church is bigger and older than most modern sects, it claims "universality" and direct succession, respectively. But this still begs the question of how they even interpret the early fathers they link to the Apostles.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But how can we know that the Church has preserved the Apostolic Tradition in its purity? The short answer is that God has preserved it in the Church because He has promised to do so. Christ said that He would build His Church and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it (Matthew 16:18). Christ Himself is the head of the Church (Ephesians 4:16), and the Church is His Body (Ephesians 1:22-23). If the Church lost the pure Apostolic Tradition, then the Truth would have to cease being the Truth — for the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth (I Timothy 3:15). The common Protestant conception of Church history, that the Church fell into apostasy from the time of Constantine until the Reformation certainly makes these and many other Scriptures meaningless. If the Church ceased to be, for even one day, then the gates of Hell prevailed against it on that day. If this were the case, when Christ described the growth of the Church in His parable of the mustard seed (Matthew 13:31-32), He should have spoken of a plant that started to grow but was squashed, and in its place a new seed sprouted later on — but instead He used the imagery of a mustard seed that begins small but steadily grows into the largest of garden plants.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noone is saying that the church ceased to be. But the problem is, is that this argument is looking on the Church as a visible ORGANIZATION with its offices turned into power bases; but the Body Christ said would not fail is not defined as a human organization, but is a spiritual fellowship of those who have placed their faith in Christ. In fact, this whole string of arguments, including "all the thousands of Protestant Sects" is all looking at visible organizations. The faith of some of them is in line with Biblical Gospel, some are not, and are unanimously rejected by the body of "biblically orthodox" believers, moreso than the overhyped minor disagreements they have among themselves. Some, have maintained the basic gospel, but added other teachings to it, some of which are not as important as they may argue. But just following one single organization is not the solution to this. This is just an attempt to gain control over everyone, and is not the mission the true Church has been entrusted with.
The kingdom has spread, but centuries of trying to centralize control of it through an organization (that has often gotten mixed up with the kingdoms of the world and their politics) has done more to stifle its growth, and is what in fact has helped more than anything else lead to all of this fracturing into schisms. Nobody trusts anybody's interpretation, because power was so abused for all those centuries.
When Christ said the gates of Hell would not prevail, He was not talking about an organization. In fact, I believe that was one of the very instruments of Hell used to try to destroy the Church and turn it into just another vehicle of men's sinful desire of control (Rev.17). I even heard a new saying recently, "God creates, Satan says 'make an institution (or "formula" or something like that) of it'". (Actually, that verse is describing the gates of Hell as on the defensive from the Church, not on the offensive against the Church, for the record, so this is not saying there would always be a doctrinally perfect visible Church organization).
Unless you deny that the church ever fell into any error, it is obvious that it was quite possible for the church to not follow the Spirit into all truth, and maintain this apostolic faith (see Jude 3,4, 3 John 9, 10)
Pillar and ground of the truth can be looked at two different ways, neither of which supports any such absolute authority of the Church. The Church is "OF the Living God, who is "the pillar and ground of the truth". Just like what who "this Rock" is, (the statement of truth Peter had just affirmed; not Peter himself); such titles only refer to God and His Word.
The two readings in question are: [Church] of God[Ground and pillar of the truth],
or Church of [God][Ground and pillar of truth]. It is the latter, because JESUS (God the Son) is the only one said to be "The Way, the Truth and the Life", as well as "the Rock". Saying either is the Church is to diminish Christ and exalt men into an all powerful position of ABSOLUTE authority. It's like they themselves become divine, which many cults have taught. I know you like to appeal to Matt.18:18 to support that, but the later leaders are still not the same as the original apostles. The original apostles are those who saw the risen Christ (including Paul, later on). There were a set number of 12, and when one died, they replaced him. Yet after this first generation, the 12 was no longer maintained. If God was passing down apostolic authority like that, then He could have divinely kept the office of the 12 going. But it was allowed to cease. Thats shows that the later leaders were not intended to be placed in the same category with the same authority as the original apostles. The original disciples are the one exception to "fallible men" being trustworthy. Everyone after that is to be judged by the apostles' teachings preserved to us through written text (the only solid guide we have), not through their own authority assumed to have passed it down orally, perfectly.
To grant you the benefit of the doubt, and allow for the Church to be the Pillar, "ground" and "pillar", both mean "support". The word for "ground" can figuratively mean "basis". Still, the Church's position as BEARER (not SOURCE) of the truth is dependent on it remaining faithful to the written word, which as I showed, is the final authority, even over "the spirit", which according to Isaiah is to be judged by "the Law and the Testimony".
Then, on another page:
--------------------------------------------------------
In short, accusations of "begging the question" will fall on deaf ears. The Church—as it has been historically expressed and understood in the Nicene Creed—is an object of faith. In this sense, belief in the Church is no different than belief in God. The Church as an infallible "pillar and ground of the Truth" cannot be proven empirically. We are simply to believe in it.
---------------------------------------------------------
But the problem is you cannot even prove it scripturally. You use the scripture, reading this interpretation into it, to establish the authority of the Church, and the whole premise of all the other practices not found in scripture being justified, just because the Church practices them, is built upon that. This is a circular argument. Christ has never given any man the authority to define truth just because they said so, or they always believed that way. This tautology is illustrated in the fact that it is a creed that is used to support this "church as an object of faith like God" idea. That does not carry the same weight as scripture —unless you presuppose that the Church, as an "object of faith", is just as authoritative! God had said not to worship anything else but Him. "My glory will I not give to another"(Isaiah 42:8). The New Testament and the apostles' teaching does not rescind these commands.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPROACH # 2
The Holy Spirit provides the correct understanding.
When presented with the numerous groups that arose under the banner of the Reformation that could not agree on their interpretations of the Scriptures, no doubt the second solution to the problem was the assertion that the Holy Spirit would guide the pious Protestant to interpret the Scriptures rightly. Of course everyone who disagreed with you could not possibly be guided by the same Spirit. The result was that each Protestant group de-Christianized all those that differed from them. Now if this approach were a valid one, that would only leave history with one group of Protestants that had rightly interpreted the Scriptures. But which of the thousands of denominations could it be? Of course the answer depends on which Protestant you are speaking to. One thing we can be sure of — he or she probably thinks his or her group is it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is EXACTLY what you based the answer to "how can we know that the Church has preserved the Apostolic Tradition in its purity?" on above. Yes, everyone says this same thing, the Spirit guides us into all truth, and as you said, they still come up with different interpretations. Yours is but one more, and you just use a different and unique criteria for your claim to be the true one than they: "We are the oldest" [of currently visible groups, that is!] and your only advantage thus is "seniority". But that too is fallible. However, the Spirit has guided people into basic truths, and if they add stuff onto that, that is their own addition, but it does not mean you have to follow what some priest in long robes says as if God spoke it directly to you, and regardless of what can be read in scripture.
And still, even supposed leadings from the Spirit are supposed to be judged by the Written Word (Isaiah 8:19, 20), but that is impossible to do if you take presupposed traditions as their own authority in judging both what the word and Spirit say!
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So how did they know the Gospel, the life and teachings of Christ, how to worship, what to believe about the nature of Christ, etc? They had only the Oral Tradition handed down from the Apostles. Sure, many in the early Church heard these things directly from the Apostles themselves, but many more did not, especially with the passing of the First Century and the Apostles with it. Later generations had access to the writings of the Apostles through the New Testament, but the early Church depended on Oral Tradition almost entirely for its knowledge of the Christian faith.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its source is Christ, it was delivered personally by Him to the Apostles through all that He said and did, which if it all were all written down, "the world itself could not contain the books that should be written" (John 21:25). The Apostles delivered this knowldge to the entire Church, and the Church, being the repository of this treasure thus became "the pillar and ground of the Truth" (I Timothy 3:15).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But not only is the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura not taught in the Scriptures — it is in fact specifically contradicted by the Scriptures (which we have already discussed) that teach that Holy Tradition is also binding to Christians (II Thessalonians 2:15; I Corinthians 11:2).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And there is no reason to conclude that these were anything other than what we see elsewhere preserved in scripture. This is proven by the fact that one of them is mentioned right here in one of the texts(2 Thess. 3:6): "keep away from any brother who is living in idleness". "living in idleness" is what is contrasted with "the traditions". And other scriptures speak against this as well. No separate body of teaching there! No later "Catholic" doctrines or practices! All "Tradition" means is that it is a principle the apostles hold, and many people who did not get an epistle had only heard about it orally. It is NOT an entire separate body of teaching and practice! This argument is truly ironic, in that it uses scripture just enough to override itself, and supplant itself with a body of "tradition" totally foreign to it, rather than as being aligned with it. So it is this notion of "tradition" that is contradicted by the true apostolic tradition!
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus as long as we refrain from worshiping the false gods of Individualism, Modernity, and Academic Vainglory, and as long as we recognize the assumptions at work and use those things that truly shed historical or linguistic light upon the Scriptures, then we will understand the Tradition more perfectly. But to the degree that Protestant scholarship speculates beyond the canonical texts, and projects foreign ideas upon the Scriptures — to the degree that they disagree with the Holy Tradition, the "always and everywhere" faith of the Church, they are wrong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And that is exactly what is being done here in the name of "tradition". In fact, it is the tradition that is being speculated on more than the actual historical evidence allows.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question Protestants will ask at this point is who is to say that the Orthodox Tradition is the correct tradition, or that there even is a correct tradition? First, Protestants need to study the history of the Church. They will find that there is only one Church. This has always been the faith of the Church from its beginning. The Nicene Creed makes this point clearly, "I believe in... one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church." This statement, which almost every
Protestant denomination still claims to accept as true, was never interpreted to refer to some fuzzy, pluralistic invisible "church" that cannot agree on anything doctrinally. The councils that canonized the Creed (as well as the Scriptures) also anathematized those who were outside the Church, whether they were heretics, such as the Montanists, or schismatics like the Donatists. They did not say, "well we cant agree with the Montanists doctrinally but they are just as much a part of the Church as we are." Rather they were excluded from the communion of the Church until they returned to the Church and were received into the Church through Holy Baptism and Chrismation (in the case of heretics) or simply Chrismation (in the case of schismatics) [Second Ecumenical Council, Canon VII]. To even join in prayer with those outside the Church was, and still is, forbidden [Canons of the Holy Apostles, canons XLV, XLVI]. Unlike Protestants, who make heros of those who break away from another group and start their own, in the early Church this was considered among the most damnable sins. As St. Ignatius of Antioch [a disciple of the Apostle John] warned, "Make no mistake brethren, no one who follows another into a schism will inherit the Kingdom of God, no one who follows heretical doctrines is on the side of the passion" [to the Philadelphians 5:3].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously, one of three statements is true: either (1) there is no correct Tradition and the gates of hell did prevail against the Church, and thus both the Gospels and the Nicene Creed are in error; or (2) the true Faith is to be found in Papism, with its ever-growing and changing dogmas defined by the infallible "vicar of Christ;" or (3) the Orthodox Church is the one Church founded by Christ and has faithfully preserved the Apostolic Tradition. So the choice for Protestants is clear: relativism, Romanism, or Orthodoxy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a straw man. A fourth option is to stop looking at Christ's spiritual body in terms of corporations or state backed Church governments, then it won't seem so "fuzzy" and "in disagreement". But here is the perfect illustration of the incredible danger posed by appealing to "tradition". The Jews also appeal to "oral tradition". But theirs leads them to reject Christ altogether! You dismiss that thus:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The word here translated "traditions" is the Greek word paradosis — which, though translated differently in some Protestant versions, is the same word that the Greek Orthodox use when speaking of Tradition, and few competent Bible scholars would dispute this meaning. The word itself literally means "what is transmitted." It is the same word used when referring negatively to the false teachings of the Pharisees (Mark 7:3, 5, 8), and also when referring to authoritative Christian teaching (I Corinthians 11:2, Second Thessalonians 2:15). So what makes the tradition of the Pharisees false and that of the Church true? The source! Christ made clear what was the source of the traditions of the Pharisees when He called them "the traditions of men" (Mark 7:8). Saint Paul on the other hand, in reference to Christian Tradition states, "I praise you brethren, that you remember me in all things and hold fast to the traditions [paradoseis] just as I delivered [paredoka, a verbal form of paradosis] them to you" (First Corinthians 11:2), but where did he get these traditions in the first place? "I received from the Lord that which I delivered [paredoka] to you" (first Corinthians 11:23). This is what the Orthodox Church refers to when it speaks of the Apostolic Tradition — "the Faith once delivered [paradotheise] unto the saints" (Jude 3). Its source is Christ, it was delivered personally by Him to the Apostles through all that He said and did, which if it all were all written down, "the world itself could not contain the books that should be written" (John 21:25). The Apostles delivered this knowldge to the entire Church, and the Church, being the repository of this treasure thus became "the pillar and ground of the Truth" (I Timothy 3:15).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all, this is equivocating between John's description of all of Christ's works (particularly, miracles), with rituals and doctrines of the later Church. Nowhere does it say that the "apostolic Church" had so many different rites that the world could not contain all the books, or that the works that would be written in the hypothetical books were oral instructions for elaborate rites and other concepts that He would pass down to the Church! It's this sort of slipshod eisegesis that proves why man is not to be trusted in passing something down. Again, he can't even take plain black and white text without reading into it something that is not there!
Second, before the Church, the Jewish system was the "pillar and ground of truth", and Jesus even acknowledged them as such (Matt.23:2; Yet they still fell into error). While most Jews do not say much about Jesus, the Lubavitchers (and their Gentile partners, the Noahites) DO go against Jesus, using these same exact arguments, even criticizing Christianity for "only using the Bible, and not the oral tradition!" The "mosaic oral tradition" would come even before Christ, and if it is really authoritative, and the rabbis (the Jews' own "Church fathers") have it right, and Jesus contradicts it, then He is false, and then there is nothing we can say! The traditon CAME FIRST. It is as authoritative as the written Word. (And there are OT passages similarly prooftexted to support this! This can be read about at judaism.html)
The apostles and those they preached to such as the Bereans in Acts used the scripture only, not the traditions. If God is so into oral tradition, then the Mosaic tradition should have been valid as well. So if we show to them out of the OT how prophecy and the whole sacrifice system points to Jesus Christ, "no, the tradition interprets otherwise. All those references you think are about Christ are really about Israel (which seems to be their answer for many of them!) God didn't write down everything He wanted us to know, so just using the book, you are missing something. Do you think Jesus and his band of followers knew more than those who passed down the traditions before them? How arrogant to set aside centuries of tradition with these novel ideas!" Once again, you basically have to take their word for it.
Yet, we are told regarding the "apostolic tradition" and the scriptures, "you can’t take one without the other…This ain’t Burger King…'have it your way'". With all the complaining I am seeing about how sola scriptura "removes any objective measure", we see this "oral tradition" method does it 10 times worse. Just the "seniority" of the tradition proves whatever these men say, whether it is scriptural or not, and hence, we are worshipping a false christ. The entire "apostolic tradition" is rendered competely false altogether. The Mosaic one came first, and it says something entirely different. Worse yet, picking up on this logic are groups like the Church of Christ and Primitive Baptists, who have various peculiar practices they try to extract from the principle of "unwritten rules", but in an opposite fashion from your tradition. (If something is not mentioned; it is not authorized, and therefore "banned", and the history of the early Church is often used to substantiate this). So as much as you say about Sola Scriptura, even your "oral tradition" method itself ends up causing more schism, not less. Men STILL "have it their way", and impose it on others, on top of it. Because of the very fact that you are removing ANY solid visible proof for doctrine and practice, and putting it all in the hands of men and their invisible CLAIMS of "tradition". Anybody can say ANYthing, find some scant historical proof text for it, now and you give heretics yet another, even greater weapon to use to lead men astray.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Protestants should think this arrogant or naive, let them first consider the arrogance and naivete of those scholars who think that they are qualified to override (and more usually, totally ignore) two thousand years of Christian teaching. Does the acquisition of a Ph.D. give one greater insight into the mysteries of God than the total wisdom of millions upon millions of faithful believers and the Fathers and Mothers of the Church who faithfully served God, who endured horrible tortures and martyrdom, mockings, and imprisonments, for the faith? Is Christianity learned in the comfort of ones study, or as one carries his cross to be killed on it? The arrogance lies in those who, without even taking the time to learn what the Holy Tradition really is, decide that they know better, that only now has someone come along who has rightly understood what the Scriptures really mean.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This does not prove truth. In fact, the same Church persecuted those whom they accused of "heresy". Especially after it gained power from the state. Those advocating "persecuted small groups" are the holders of the truth use this. Are they right, then? And again, let's reword this, to fit the even EARLIER "tradition":
"If Christians should think this arrogant or naive, let them first consider the arrogance and naivete of those scholars (or "apostles") who think that they are qualified to override (and more usually, totally ignore) two thousand years of Jewish teaching. Does the acquisition of an "apostolate" give one greater insight into the mysteries of God than the total wisdom of millions upon millions of faithful believers and the Fathers and Mothers of Israel who faithfully served God, who endured horrible tortures and martyrdom, mockings, and imprisonments, for the faith? The arrogance lies in those who, without even taking the time to learn what the Holy Tradition really is, decide that they know better, that only now has someone come along who has rightly understood what the Scriptures really mean."
The folly of using this argument should be obvious!
quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As far as the structure of Church authority, it was Orthodox bishops together in various councils who settled the question of the Canon — and so it is to this day in the Orthodox Church when any question of doctrine or discipline has to be settled.
[The model for this is supposed to be the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 in which the apostles said: "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." (Acts 15:28).]
And this begs another question. I have read that the EOC is "the Church of the 7 councils", and the Roman Church, as well as some of the Protestants also claim to go by these councils. But I notice we see the first Church council, in Jerusalem, right in the New Testament book of Acts; presided over by actual first generation apostles; you know; the ones who saw Jesus alive, dead, and risen again! This council was used to help set an important standard for Church practice in a very important and controversial issue: gentiles and the Law of Moses.
Why is this important foundational council not considered the first of the "Universal/Catholic/Ecumenical councils" -- but rather Nicea; the one nearly three centuries later, convened by the pagan Emperor who saw the cross as a sign to "conquer" in (i.e. that marked the emperor's promotion of the Church to worldly power?) --why is that considered the first? And the other six after it all having the same worldly state power behind them, granted with that first one?
If the later Seven had been considered as the succession beginning with the Jerusalem council, you would have a better argument for being the true successors. But the fact that you start with Nicea seems to be an admission that "the Church" as the organization we know of today, rather then being a true successor to the Apostles, is really identified as the state run power base of the fourth century and later that we have come to know. Whether Roman or Eastern, it was all the same, and often used that state power to persecute. This to me is the biggest proof against apostolic sucession. The only recourse is to try to authenticate itself by reading its traditions back into the Scriptures through the fathers. But even that does not have enough support.
Conclusion on article
For the EOC to be coming out so aggressively like this now, it actually joins in the very thing it criticizes: One more voice in the midst of "all the thousands of sects claiming to be the truth". This adds nothing constructive to the dilemma, and only furthers the confusion. The page read pretty much like a fundamentalist diatribe, or a Jehovah's Witness, or Church of Christ, or Sabbatarian treatise on how everyone else is in error. I'm sorry, but this body has to simply take its place amongst all of the other groups, (whom it is behaving exactly like); as fallible men who must answer to God, who has left one solid body of teaching from the inspired apostles, and that is the written Word. If all the disagreeing groups couldn't even get that right, how much better do you think men could handle oral teachings? Or if the Holy Spirit guided them, then anyone else can claim the same thing. The only thing you have over any of them is being "older". And that only identifies your group with the errors of the "Dark ages". All of the jargon putting down the Enlightenment, rationalism, reason, individuality, modernity, etc. is the same as every other group who tries to manipulate mental control over people (and therefore must stifle reason and independent thought), from the fundamentalists, to the Calvinists, who use this to push their Augustinian concept of predestination, to the cults. This is no different. It's all the same tactics, and apart of "every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men and cunning craftiness by which they lie in wait to deceive". (Eph.4:14). The only difference is that we have traded trust in the Pope (or lesser "Father", and/or king) for self. Yet many Orthodox debaters appeal to that very "modernistic" relative line of thinking when asking "whose interpretation of the Bible is right, yours? Any of the thousands of other denomninations?", much like an atheist using that argument to try to prove all of them are wrong.
Everyone looks down on "self", but either way, it is still MAN. We must stop exalting these leaders and their government as if they are perfect, and above mankind. As much as you (as an EOC) disclaim the Pope, that's precisely how his office got the way it is. The "self" way turns out to be less dangerous, because we tried the magisterium way before that, and as much as Churchianity advocates put down the modern age, what was that age of the Church called? Not the age of light, but the "Dark" Ages! So the drawback of individualism is the splintering of the visible organization into various groups. But it never was about an visible government or corporation anyway, even if the disciples were ordained as a "teaching body" (that still does not carry the worldly, political power your later "magisteria" had!)
I apologize if I sound cross, but let's face it, "In the Vanity of Their Minds" is an inflammatory title. This was taken from Eph.4:17 which was referring to UNSAVED Gentiles: people totally without Christ. "vanity" there meant "inutility" or "depravity". That is a heavy charge to make against all other believers in Christ, just because they are not enrolled in your institution. (and the Orthodox I debated with would not go as far as to call all Protestants unsaved). And with all the other groups leveling similar charges against contemporary evangelicalism-- old-line fundamentalists, Calvinists, sabbathkeepers, also cultic groups who do not believe in the cardinal doctrines agreed on by all; I just feel we do not need another group all of a sudden rising up and saying "You all are wrong, only we are right".
Below are over 100 other Orthodox claims and objections with answers; largely expanding on the above issues:
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
SECRET BODY OF TEACHING
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christians are commanded by Paul to keep the Apostolic tradition whether oral or written. (1 Cor. 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15, 3:6) No where in Scripture does it say that we're only to keep the oral tradition until the canon is "closed". (In fact, the "canon" is not even mentioned in Scripture.) That's a 16th century Protestant assumption and doctrinal novelty. The fathers taught otherwise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Canon was established in around the fourth century; not by Protestants. If there was to be an ever expanding body of revelation; then why did the Catholic Church even speak of a "canon"?
Once again, the Bereans were commended for searching the scriptures; not just following what their "traditions" just because they said so. The traditions are subject to the written revelation. Else; anyone can come and say anything. I even look at the cross-reference in 1 Cor.11:2; and while they were not inspired; still they give an idea of what these "traditions" (KJV "ordinances"; Gk.lit. "transmission") were--things you could find elsewhere in scripture! The reference points to 1 Cor.7:17: "But as God has distributed to every man; as the Lord has called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches". Here is one of your "ordinances", "transmissions", or "traditions". Nothing about "the bread and wine actually turn into the literal flesh of Christ". When the "ordinance" was from Paul himself, and not the Lord; he admitted it. (v.12).
So proper "apostolic tradition" is no license to add anything we want to the faith.
It's funny that you turn to the scriptures to try to prove your doctrines. If it's oral tradition; then there should be no need to find them in the scriptures. If it's scriptural; there would be no need to appeal to tradition. But once again; this shows that tradition is a last minute attempt to fill in the holes these doctrines encounter in either a scripture or tradition argument.
This is being used as a license to make any unbiblical doctrine authoritative without scriptural support. The Jews do the same thing with the Law of Moses, which is why they have all sorts of unbiblical restrictions (e.g. no meat and milk together, etc. That is not what the Law had commanded). There are no secret teachings that were for some reason left out of the written Word. Whatever was handed down by word would be the same teachings as what was written. Paul's teachings were both written and spoken. (Just like I can write this now, and say the same thing to someone in person) Both would be passed around. Why assume what was spoken only was something different, (and for all purposes contradictory to) what was written? The story of Christ was also such a "tradition" that was first handed down, and then eventually written down, and may even be what he was referring to.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But this assumes that the apostles committed every single detail to writings. However Paul indicates otherwise (2 Thess 2:15). The early Christians believed otherwise as well. No where in the NT does it say that there was going to be a book or series of books that was to function as a systematic Christian catechism or a complete manual on every nuance of Christian worship. Instead Paul says to keep the traditions, rather given orally or by his epistle (and certainly his two epistles to the Thessalonians were not all-emcompassing instruction manuals on practising the Christian faith).
Instead, most of his epistles were written to already established and worshipping communities (or individuals) and were written mainly to answer specific concerns of the respective communities.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But in the various letters we see pretty much the same issues and teachings, or at least principles over and over. Comments may have varied according to the audience and situation, but with all of the examples of others used, we would see pretty much everything that was considered authoritative. So there would be no doctrines or deeper interpretations of Mary or Communion or leadership, or anything else the later church would claim came from an oral tradition, that were left out of the written Word. If they were there, why would they not have been included in the letters? They would in effect be kept "secret" (esoteric), and that is not the way the apostles were trying to spread the truth, but was rather always the tactic of the false teachers. As I said, a person can receive any teaching by either spoken word, or by written word (or both), and they would be the same teachings. However one received them, they were authoritative. Not some teachings were written, and others were oral only. That there is no proof for.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That's why despite the disparity in the availiblity of the Scriptures in various parts of the world, (and despite variations due to local custom) there was a uniform practice and belief through out "Christendom"--from Spain, to Africa, to Italy, to Greece, to Asia Minor, to Egypt, to Syria, and Persia. All (except the heretics) worshipped and glorified Christ and the Holy Spirit with the Father; all believed (except the Docetists and Arians and variations thereof) that Christ was both Divine and human; all believed He died on the Cross and rose again for us; all acknowledged one baptism for the remission of sins, and all believed that they were truly having Communion with the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist; all believed that one had to endure to the end to be finally saved; and all believed Christ was coming again to judge the quick and the dead. This was the Apostolic and catholic Tradition which was handed down and was the authoritative way of interpreting Scriptures as opposed to that of the Heretics who would appeal to the same Scriptures to "support" their false doctrines.
The letters were not meant to be all inclusive. Although teachings in the letters were overlapping (and consistent with each other), some letters contained information and instructions others did not. These were not worship manuals. The Church was worshipping Christ and celebrating Communion for about 18-20 years before even the first NT letter was written. Presumably, these local congregations knew apostolic doctrine and practice from the oral teaching. As there arose the need--usually in response to sin or errors, or for encouragement--the letters were written to some of the various local congregations and to some individuals. As these were written for specific purposes, there was no need to include every nuance of Christian doctrine or praxis in every letter. If the contents of these epistles varied (but were noncontradictory) from letter to letter, and were not in themselves exhaustive of all oral teaching individually, how can one assume that all apostolic teaching was included collectively in the Canon, especially when the NT itself wasn't finalized until the early 5th century and several of the final books were widely disputed?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, the letters may not have been "all inclusive", but just about every issue the Church would face was covered; at least in principle. What else do you think was left out? This would leave it open for anyone to come and claim some practice was "oral apostolic tradition". As it was, some of these "traditions" were based on things that WERE written, such as baptism and communion, and even Mary as our "mother"(John 19:27) but "the unlearned" (2 Pet. 2) misunderstood and twisted it. If it were true that there were oral traditions never written that substantially differed from what was, then how much more would they distort these things. How could you even tell who were the "heretics", then?
You suggest the universality of a teaching over a broad area was evidence of the "catholic" teaching, but that could also be a false teaching that took hold early, before the Church spread. False teachers were coming in right as the apostles wrote, and the biggest heresy of the time were the gnostic family of doctrines, which among other things, overspiritualized divine truths, and read secret meanings into everything. So when we see interpretations of baptism, communion, salvation and Mary that are essentially pagan and contradict the simplicity of the Gospel develop outside the apostles teaching, then we know that they did begin to take hold, as they had warned. (i.e. we make the same mistake as the carnal Jews who were offended at the metaphor or "eating Christ's flesh/blood", thinking it is literal, and not realizing it is spiritual; and likewise, we misunderstand baptism by the spirit into the body, with water immersion as an outward sign, and instead make the immersion itself as the whole means of salvation; the Bible says we are not saved by works, because we still have an imperfect nature and can't live up to God's perfect standard; but that means nothing, because this other passage contradicts it, and we fail to see how they harmonize, but instead defend works-righteousness because the "catholic" tradition said so; and then many go on and raise up "co-redeemers", whether we call it that or not, just because Christ told his disciples to take care of Mary as a mother)
All of this is why this "oral tradition" concept is wrong. And remember, the Jews claim the same thing regarding Moses, and their reading of scripture through this "tradition" leads them to reject Christ.
When you understand what the essentials of the Gospel are, then once again, what else could be "left out"? Perhaps a given situation. Like there are no direct statments saying "Jesus is God", or "You can now eat unclean meats". Thus heretics can try to argue against these things with the scriptures, and claim we cannot find a clear example of our position. But principles and indirect statments elsewhere that are written support it. (e.g. The Word was God...the Word was manifest in the flesh [Jesus], etc). So yes, perhaps there was some instance where apostles did make those more explicit statements that were never written. But they can still be backed up with the rest of scripture, rather than reading scripture in light of them/reading them into scripture, as is necessary with many of these "catholic" doctrines.
Just in doing a quick search of "scripture" in the concordance; I can see how great an emphasis is placed on it as our authority, more than tradition. Tradition, as authoritative, is just something that is well known, and goes along with the scriptures. It can also be contrary to the scriptures as well (Mark 7:7-9). It is just a "transmission" (paradosis) from generation to generation. It carries no authority in its own apart from the Written word, which is God's main vehicle of communication to us.
So remember, you may be reading them in light of the later interpretation, just like scripture. Even Ignatius' "...who confess not the Eucharist to be the body and blood" may not necessarily have been what the later Church took it to mean. Remember, there are spiritual metaphors. The difference between Ignatius and us is something like one of a simile and and metaphor. A simile is a comparison using "like" or "as". So our saying it is "symbolic" is more like the latter. Bt a metaphor simply calls something what it is being likened to. But that doesn't mean it really is that thing. But unspiritual people would come into the Chrch, misunderstand these things, which are "spiritually discerned", as both Paul said in that case, and Jesus had said regarding the blind Jewish leaders who could not get his parables. They would then teach these things as the truth, and then also begin reading scripture in light of them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's hard to ignore the consensus of early Christian belief when such existed, and doing so belies the notion of the adequacy of Scripture alone, especially when the intepretation of Scripture in question is out of phase with what the Church always taught. On the other hand, we can have confidence in early tradition to help complement (especially guide our Scriptural interptretation) Scripture since the same Holy Spirit that inspired Scripture and guided the Church to finalize the Canon, is the same Spirit who would guide the Church into all of Truth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once again, this is supplementing, not complimenting. The Spirit would guide people into understanding questionable things, and properly understanding the metaphors in question. Not tell people things that are foreign to scripture, and then simply because "the Church" says it, it is true. Remember, even "spirit" must be judged by scripture, because "many false prophets (carrying false spirits) have gone out into the world" (Isaiah 8:19, 20, 1 John 4:1); thereby subjecting our perception of "the Spirit" to the written Word. The Spirit would agree with the Word that it inspired; not supplement it, or change its meaning.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No where does he put a time limit on how long they are to keep the traditions he passed on orally; ie he didn't say: "Keep the oral traditions only until the rest of my writings (and those of the other apostles--once you determine which are real and which are spurious) circulate your way."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The traditions would then become apart of the scripture, so it would never be an issue of "how long" they are to be kept! There is no reason to surmise that these "Traditions" would be anything more than the teachings, or at least principles we see preserved in the texts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And it was because of these ambiguity, the lack of specificity, that the Apostles had to make a decision to be followed by the church. The Christians would just have to take the Apostles word for it here--that it seemed good to them and the Holy Spirit--since there were no proof texts they could verify their decision from in the OT. If they weren't convinced that the Apostles were ministers of the New Covenant then, based on what assumptions the different Christians may brought to the Scriptures, they could have believed that they were in line with or contradicting the Scriptures. In fact, many believed the latter and this particular movement in its extreme form became the Ebionites.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But the people "just having to take the apostles' word about it" was not the point. When they searched the scriptures to test what they taught, it obviously went together in a reasonable way. There were no practices that were completely foreign to the scripture; else, they would have questioned the spostles from the scriptures, or concluded "well, it's not in the scriptures, but these apostles say it's so, so we just have to take their word for it regardless of what the written word says". Gentiles not apart of the OLD covenant not having to be circumcized and keep the other laws is something they could see existed in the scriptures, for instance. For gentiles not joining the nation were never expected by God to be circumcized. That was only for the people of THAT covenent. (Once again, they all knew they were not coming into that Old covenant).
So none of this is granting license for teachings to not need any scriptural support.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where does Paul say that his oral teachings and his written letters have the exact identical content? Remember the Epistles weren't complete church manuals but were written for specific audiences with specific situations in mind. They were often meant to be corrective and were certainly not meant to be exhaustive of all Christian teaching in the confines of one letter. If there were currently no abuses with a given practice in those communities, there was no need for Paul to address it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So there were controversies on every other doctrinal, practical and moral issue; but they were THAT unanimous on the high liturgy, and there were NO misunderstandings at all ANYWHERE on them, until the docetists and gnostics? (John warned of the gnostics' doctrines creeping in then, and they were issues we can see addressed)
So that means that the supernatural transformation of bread and wine into actual flesh and blood just always happened to be left out. As was the supernatural power of baptismal water, and all the stuff about Mary. Funny how all of these doctrines which are in question in this debate were always left out.
If anything, you'd think stuff like that would be confusing to people, and raise questions; which would then be addressed. IT seems with all the issues that come up in the NT; that is enough to tell us all that we need to know to keep the NT faith. Anything of importance naturally came up and became an issue, so to speculate on a whole set of unwritten doctrine and practice can only serve the purpose to bring in unsupported doctrines that could not be substantiated by any other means.
Once again; we can claim anything, and who can prove it? By what the second century fathers said? We first propose that this doctrine was taught by the NT because the second century claimed it was apostolic tradition. But how do we prove that this was actually aprt of that tradition? Because the second century fathers said so! So we see that it IS a cyclical argument!
Anyway, we should not speculate too much on these "other teachings", and assume they included "more detail" that was left out. God has preserved for us the most important details of the basic faith, and we can try to appeal to "apostolic tradition", and question whether that would "end" with a written canon, and then go on to link it to "patristic consensus"; but on the flipside, we can ask whoever said that the tradition was for those, beyond the period of time when the writings were not widely published? You can ask one question like that, and we can ask another, and it is all speculation. You are asking us to have faith, basically in what these "fathers" said. Setting aside whether we are even interpreting them completely right, they were still not pure in apostolic teaching. Antisemitism is another area where they took scriptural teachings and stretched them into unscriptural extremes. There were a lot of criticisms of the Jews int he NT, but the fathers took it beyond that, to where the tables were turned, and they were now looked at as the "dogs" (like they looked at gentiles in the NT).
And false groups may try to use the claim that opposition was buried, but that does not mean that there could not have been some opposition buried. None of us were there back then. We can only know by what was preserved for us. There are three sources preserved for us: Canonized scripture, patristic tradition, and spurious works. The first agreeably true. The latter agreeably false, as it sometimes blatantly contradicts the first. The second one based on interpretations of the first, that may or may not be true, and we cannot know for sure. Only the first is without question to us. So instead of asking us to have faith in these men and their traditions (interpretations) and their "mysteries"; why not just go back to the God-breathed source that we all agree is from God, and have faith that God preserved all of His necessary truths in them? You couldn't go wrong that way. even if people continue to twist it to multiple interpretations (which they could do even more with an "oral tradition" anyway).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Far from returning to a Scriptural description of the sacraments, Zwingli erred in attempting to interpret the Latin 'sacramentum', which in itself originally meant a military oath or pedge of allegiance and was therefore a poor translation of the Greek µusterion , as being merely symbolic, based on its original Latin sense rather than the above original Greek word; in so doing, he broke with the continuity of the Church's understanding of the term which stretched back to the ECFs and Apostles (Ignatius and John in particular).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Musterion" means simply "secret". In its 27 uses, it is never used for "some teaching we can't comprehend" (the closest to that would be the "mystery" of "God...manifest in the flesh" (1 Tim.3:16), but even that is more about the revelation of Christ, than the metaphysical question of Him being human and divine), but instead, in most cases, the "secret" was in the process of being revealed, or already revealed (and remaining hidden from those blinded).
So Zwingli's understanding was closer to the true meaning of the word, and thus the Apostles who used the word. It was a later church with an agenda of control that changed the meaning of the word, so that no one could challenge their teachings.
We're all men, all have gone astray, and we need to stop expending so much energy trying to best other men with these argumentational devices (Eph.4:14), and then we may be humble enough to see what the truth is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Measure up to Scriptures as interpreted by whom? The Judaizers? The Gnostics? The Marcionites? The Sabellians? The Arians? (And which Scriptures? The OT only? Marcion's canon? The Gospel of Thomas? of Philip? of Mary?) Remember, the Scriptures don't come with their own table of contents and the first complete listing of our 27 book NT wasn't until 367 AD. Every list before that left out some books and/or added others that eventually were excluded.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And the fact that the books were not completely agreed upon until then explodes your theory. If everything was passed down orally, they they would have been told directly by the apostles which books were correct. That they had to figure it out based on a "tradition" shows they did not have this direct oral link to the apostles. It was God who directed them in that instance, because there are other books containing Catholic-orthodox doctrine and practice that were left out. If it was tradition alone, a lot more of that stuff would have been included.
That is evidence the teachings MAY be right. And they actually are subjected to people's modern interpretations of their teaching. You read your whole liturgy into them as well as the Bible, when it was gradually developing throuhg the fathers. That is why that way is not trustworthy.
Anybody who received Christ was apart of the true spiritual body. That was all that was needed. All of the other stuff is just what men add on to try to be better that others. It's not the scripture' fault, as was insinuated by saying that Arianism is the result of using scripture alone.
----------------------------- And of course God guided the Church (after 350 years) to finally "fix" the New Testament canon--the same Church that God guided to defend the truth of the Trinity and the Deity and full Humanity of Christ; the same Church which you suppose apostasized shortly after the apostles died and practiced all those things you disagree with.
There is no hint of "written word" in this passage (John 16). And Paul in 2 Tim 2:2 expects Timothy to pass on what he HEARD down at the very least two more generations. (No hint of an expiration date in the Church's ability to maintain oral tradition here).
You assume that the apostles were conscious of the fact they were compiling a 27 book NT canon (again, an anachronism). But nowhere do the Christ or the Apostles indicate that in Scripture, nor do we hold that this unwritten-but-agreed-upon NT canon table-of-contents was uniformly handed down. In fact, as writings circulated they were deemed authentic based on their apostolicity--if they were actually written by an apostle or close associate AND the teachings lined up with the oral tradition handed down in the church. The concept of a NT scriptural canon grew organically and gradually, primarily to exclude writings of others which spuriously claimed apostolic authorship and those, though basically consistent with orthodoxy, which couldn't be demonstrated to date back to the apostles.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This basically is arguing that the writings were not divinely comissioned at all; and it was all about oral teaching, and God just happened to give us the canon later as a sort of afterthought, but the oral teaching is the final authority.
This makes one wonder why they even wrote at all, then. Everybody just pass it down, and God will preserve the oral word (wonder why there would be heretics at all, then)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The writings were indeed divinely inspired (I never said otherwise). However, "divinely inspired writings" doesn't automatically equal "sola Scriptura". That would be an anachronistic assumption. The bible is itself silent about a forthcoming NT canon, and historically the concept of the NT canon took time to develop, and it took close to 400 years for the NT canon to be universally recognized. Those are just simple facts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But the written Bible, whether a "canon" was mentioned in it or not, is still a SOLID transmission of what they taught, not "oral teachings", which no one can prove came from the apostles, except the argument "well, they consistently interpreted Scriptures on the key doctrines of God, Christ, and salvation and find a consistency across time and space". So then, just from that alone, plus their "seniority" in time, we are supposed to trust everything else they taught on liturgies, church organization and other teachings, even if we find no trace of it in the text. Sorry, but that is a fallacy. Getting a few things right doesn't mean you have everything right.
Once again, any oral teaching would be rendered unnecessary once the writings were widespread (whether a "canon" was mentioned by them or not). Yes, they may have mentioned "word or epistle", but the "word" part was person to person. I don't see how you figure that was to co-exist side by side with writing forever. There may have been no "espiration date" mentioned, but it didn't need to be. You speak to one person; if you want the message to last, you write it down. Because you spoke it to one person and wrote it to others doesn't mean you expect people generations later to still receive the message both ways, (with different things being transmitted exclusively in either way).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The essential "stuff" was the same, but formally expressed in different ways. Again, the New Testament writings aren't a detailed Church manual nor a systematic cachetical blueprint by which the Church was built; rather, the Church had already existed several decades before these writings--written for various reasons and thus in different genres--began to be penned, let alone collected. The New Testament (and OT for that matter) were interpreted by the earliest Christians according to the "rule of faith" which is formally distinct, as it is a concise summary of the apostolic kerygma, yet materially consistent with the Scriptures. In other words, it was this "rule" (summary of the Apostolic Tradition) by which the Church fathers were able to declare the gnostics (and others) to be heretics, since they were trying to interpret the Scriptures apart from this rule, thus twisting the Scriptures to their own destruction.
So it's really not "circular". The relationship is indeed reciprical, but it's not circular because both the "rule of faith" and the NT Scriptures were known by the early Christians to have been derived from a common source--the Apostles. And it was in the Church that both the "rule of faith" and the Scriptures were given (or "handed over"). Therefore it is legitimate to say that Apostolic Tradition in large part is Scripture properly interpreted. And no non-"inscripturated" apostolic tradition or developing ecclesiastical practice can contradict the Scripture so properly interpreted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I still see no evidence that this rule was anything other than what we see throughout scripture. It may not be an exhuasitve manual, but still, some of these other "deeper" doctrines and practices would be mentioned in there sometimes? Many of them would certainly raise many questions by the churches the apostles taught, with much confusion as we see addressed in there. There is still no reason presented why only this class of teachings and practices that we question were left out. Some clearly were not materially consistent with the scriptures, such as venerating images, and leaders calling themselves "Father". That is "scripture properly interpreted?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The historic Church disagrees. These do not contradict the relevent Scriptures properly understood (ie when these Scriptures aren't made to support conclusions not warranted by their immediate contexts). Besides there is "biblical basis" for both of these practices even if indirect (i.e. not coming in the form of "thou shalt/may do 'X'...)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JND Kelley Early Christian Doctrines (which is often appealed to as a good source regarding the "rule of faith") regarding Irenaeus:
The difficulty was, of course, that heretics were liable to read a different meaning out of scripture than the Church; but Irenaeus was satisfied, that, provided the Bible was taken as a whole, it's teaching was self evident. The heretics who misinterpreted it only did so, because, disregarding its underlying unity, they seized upon isolated passages and rearranged them to suit their own ideas. [i.e. their error was not simply reading the Bible at face value without the traditions, but deliberately twisting it!] Scripture must be interpreted in light of its original ground plan, viz the original revelation itself. For that reason, correct exegesis was the prerogative of the Church, where the apostolic tradition or doctrine which had been the key to scripture had been kept intact.
Did Irenaeus then subordinate the scriptures to unwritten tradition? This inference has been commonly drawn, but it issues from a somewhat misleading antithesis. Its plausibility depends on such considerations as (a) that in controversy with the Gnostics, traditions rather then scripture seemed to be his final court of appeal, and (b) that he apparentely relied on tradition to establish the true exegesis of scripture. But a careful analysis of his Adversus Haereses reveals that while the Gnostics appeal to their secret tradition forced him to stress the superiority of the Church's public tradition, his real defense of orthodoxy was founded on scripture. Indeed, tradition in his view was confirmed by scripture, which was the 'foundation and pillar of our faith. Secondly, Irenaeus admittedly suggested that a firm grasp of 'the canon of truth' received at baptism would prevent a man from distorting the sense of scripture. But this 'canon', so far from being something distinct from scripture, was simply a condensation of the message contained in it. The whole point of his teaching was, in fact, that Scripture and the Church's unwritten tradition are identical in content, both being vehicles of the revelation. (p.39)
He then moves on to Tertullian, who he says is basically the same as Irenaeus. It was in the following century with Clement and Origen (both of Alexandria, a source of much corruption in doctrine) that this began changing into some "secret tradition...including semi-Gnostic speculations [or] ...an esoteric theology based on the Bible...reseved for the intellectual elite of the Church"
Tradition vs Sola Scriptura, interpretation, core of essentials
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For those Jews who refused to receive the Apostolic, Christocentric interpretation of the OT, the OT remained (and remains) a closed book. Just look at modern day Jewish apologists who try to argue from Scripture (the OT) that Jesus of Nazareth could not be the Messiah and had no right to "change or set aside the Law".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not at all. There has always been a reciprocal relationship between the oral interpretive tradition and the Scriptures themselves, starting with the Christ and the apostles who intrepreted the OT in light of the person in work of Jesus Christ as opposed to the rabbinical Jewish interpretation of the day. This continued with the fathers arguing from the apostolic traditional interpretation of Scriptures against heretics, especially the Arians in the 4th century who claimed to be using Scripture alone.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And what do the Jews use? Oral Tradition! (supposedly of Moses!). They too have some OT passage they use (like the NT ones cited to prove "apostolic" tradition) to prove that this was just as authoritative. And ironically; one of the thing they criticize Christianity for is using the Bible only, and not the oral traditions. (Beats me how they miss Catholicism's emphasis on tradition; when they accuse all of Christianity of many things only the Catholics teach and do).
Once again; who can know what is right? People can teach anything, and it can't be challenged! How can you say the Jews are wrong? You try to prove Christ from the OT scriptures; but since "patristic oral tradition" says something else; then christ is not really proven. And since theirs came before ours; that would make them right! So church traditions would be invalid from the getgo; because Christ would be false! Can't you see the dilemma this appeal to "tradition" creates? SO once again; no wonder the Church accelerated in splintering after the Church took this position. It made the problem of "scriptural interpretation" WORSE; not better!
Sola Scripture is being so much associated with Cults (most relatively small), and "one man and his Bible". Could this possibly be worse than one large body (which in the past ruled practically the whole world), and it's infallible authority? Then people experience that it is full of darkness; and then the doctrines even change! (Vatican II, etc). Basically, a giant cult, and one man with his Bible, catchisms, etc. over millions of people. Which one has more power, and therefore can do (And has done) more damage. This may be the RCC and not the EOC, but the RCC is based on the same arguments.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How were Bibles reproduced before the invention of the printing press in 1450?
How did the early Church evangelize and survive and prosper for over 350 years, without knowing for sure which books belong in the canon of Scripture?
Who had the authority to infallibly decide which books belonged in the N.T. canon and to make this decision binding on all Christians?
Also, SS is a man made doctrine. When was the earliest possible time that the New Testament, as we know it now, came into being? For Sola Scriptura to work at all, it had to be available to the people so they could practice it, is that not true? What New Testament Bible did someone living in 333 use? 222? 111?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They used oral tradition first; then wrote them down as the NT. The books were not written hundreds of year later as many assume; though it took that long for them to be widely circulated; and then canonized. the Church began adding its "catholic" doctrines after the books were written down; but when it came time to canonize; they still rejected many books that looked scriptural; were often done in the name of apostles (2Thess.2:2), and taught many of their "catholic" doctrines/practices! This shows to me a special instance of God moving and using them in spite of themselves to preserve His Word! But otherwise; the Church was well on its way into a slide into total apostasy. So any "infallible" or "inspired" statements of the Church after that must be judged by that written, preserved record. And most of then do not pass the test.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was none of this "let's all do our own thing and pretend we've got it right", "one man and his Bible" approach that characterises SS; ...there was consensus and it is that for which I yearn.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No; you just had a huge powerful organization which "did its own thing", and that to me was more dangerous! As far as "truth"; what difference does it make whether there was one man or one group? With one group; you just had an appearance of "unity", but this unity was not in truth, and it kept changing over time anyway.
Meanwhile; orthodox Christianity today does believe in a core of essential doctrines, despite the lesser doctrines and multitude of organizations built around them. So it is not quite "every man and his Bible do their own thing".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And how do you know that SS itself is not a man-made counterfeit? It's not in the Bible, which makes it a man-made doctrine. It was unknown by and large in Church history prior to the Reformation, so it's a fairly recent innovation. Adherence to it means you have to chuck out core Christian doctrines and decisions made by Church Councils, such as the Trinity, orthodox Christology and indeed the canon of the New Testament itself. Smells pretty counterfeit to me...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe, just like those doctrines; God inspired the realization of SS through men in spite of themselves; due to errors arising in the Church just like the ones that necessitated the forulation of the Trinity, Christology, and the Canon; which otherwise were not laid down in scriptures as precise formulas. Nobody is really questioning this means of determining truth as much as they are questioning certain specific doctrines that are claimed based on it. Even when using this means of arriving at truth; the Scriptures are the final authority, and what is arrived at must conform to a reasonable reading of them. The basis of the Trinity and Christology were scriptural arguments, after all. Those men did not just conjure them up out of nowhere (or some hidden "oral tradition") and say "this is truth because we say so". It's only some of the formulation they devised. But if the Arians had won; then you would be arguing the same for Arianism. But would that make it true? So we cannot just take any teaching men may have come up and read it into the Bible based on conciliar or any other human authority.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But the Arians did not win out, thanks to the providence of the Holy Spirit acting through the Church. That's the difference - sola Scriptura was not articulated by a Church Council but (initially at least) by one man: Luther. What right or authority did he have for this?
How do you define what is 'orthodox Christianity' and the 'core of essential doctrines' and who are you or I to do this?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just like what you said; by God's providence, the core of doctrines agreed on in evangelical protestantism or nondenominationalism. Each group or circle may add some of its own doctrines to the list of "essentials", and even insist on it fiercely; but on Christ and the basics of salvation; the teachings are pretty much the same.
If the Holy Spirit can act through "The Church" (in spite of itself); then He can work through one man (in spite of himself); and once again; the organization was no better than the one man. You look at Luther's rise as other than divine providence; but then so can one look at the defeat of Arianism. The whole battle was political; which is why that "Church" was almost carried away by it at first. Many bishops really did not like the Athanasian concept--even many who signed the Nicene Creed; but it did better fit scriptural revelation than Ariansm. But many were still torn; and thought Arianism was better. Then; the conquering Teutonic tribes became Arian. The Franks and Byzantines 'converted' the Arian tribes back to "orthodoxy" in the 6th century, and that was also a military force! But if it was God who stepped in and moved the Church this way; then it would also be possible, for God to use one man to highlight another truth when this "Church" organization would continue to degrade in other doctrinal areas, and God would no longer work through it. God is not bound to continue using this organization just because it stems from the early Church. It is rather bound by His Word, and used or not used according to its adherance to that Word.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What percentage of all "Christ-affirming" believers (Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, LDS, Oneness, JW, etc, etc) hold to the correct core of doctrines?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those who line up with the Scripture. Yes; they all claim to. But the JW's, for instance; have to change John 1:1 into something that does not line up with any other scripture to arrive at their conclusion. (Yes; grammar may allow an indefinite article; but the scriptures stating there is only ONE God does not!). The LDS add new 'scriptures' altogether. The Catholics and Orthodox use "tradition" and "Church authority". It is not that hard to establish a core of essentials; if people are not willing to twist, supplant, supplement; complement; etc. it to add their preconceived traditions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- of any private
New Testament Greek Definition:
2398 idios {id'-ee-os}
of uncertain affinity;; adj
AV - his own 48, their own 13, privately 8, apart 7, your own 6,
his 5, own 5, not tr 1, misc 20; 113
1) pertaining to one's self, one's own, belonging to one's self
From Strong's definition for the word translated "private" in 2 Peter 1:20:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The comparison is not "individual" versus "church organization"; but rather individual versus inspiiration of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit inspires individuals, and whether these individuals form a governing body or not; it must be guidance by the Spirit. It is possible for a big organization to each agree on an interpretation not guided by the Spirit; and then once again; you simply have a collectivization of individualistic "private interpretation"; but now forced on everyone else.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But that doesn't resolve the issue of who was fit to interpret; I'm not talking about ADDING to the revelation of Scripture - clearly that would be wrong - but about interpreting what is already there
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Problem is; the issue of "interpretation" often becomes "adding"; as a doctrine and practice will be added; and then when asked for scriptural backing; a proof text will be used. There is no place in scripture where any "supernatural change" of bread and wine into Jesus is taught. It is an ADDITION to scripture. But people will pull out a metaphoric text (comparison NOT using "like or "as"), and say "see; that proves it. It doesn't say it is 'like'; or 'represents'". But either view is hypothetically possible. So THEN this is when "tradition" is thrown up as the final authority; with "scripture alone" trashed. But then, this "tradition" is used to justify things that are not even mentioned in scripture; and even contradict it; like bowing to statues. So sorry; but this "who has the right to interpret" is just another clever way; to in fact; ADD to the scripture. Whoever you choose to "interpret" for you is just as human as the [much maligned] lone man with his Bible; and even "church writings" and traditions can be misinterpreted. So every man reading his Bible on his own is the best way. Infallible church authorities certainly have not prevented false doctrine and schism; even right under their own noses. AT LEAST that "lone man" can only control those who choose to follow or let themselves be persuaded by him. We are all free to pass him right by and find something else. Not so with infallible Church authority.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But all Christian denominations add rules; example of Baptists who don't drink, go to the cinema or allow women to wear trousers. Some Brethren don't have TV; when it is pointed out this is not in Scripture they reply "Yes but if you love the Lord you won't have a TV". All claim to base this on their interpretation of Scripture. The problem is this: we can't all be right. The question is: who is, and why? Up until 1054 (well, probably before that in reality) there was such a teaching authority; now there isn't. How are we to determine whose interpretation is correct today?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I just said; we can all pass those churches right by. We can pray that those already bound by their teaching are set free. But when you had the one body controlling practically the entire Western World; it was quite a different story.
Once again; all you have done is taken the same problem of men and their interpretation and abuse of authority; and expanded it into some all powerful single organization. To me; the smaller organizations or individuals who you can pass by are far less dangerous. They have the same points, and can go back to early church writings and show how they viewed secular entertainment. With the Campbellists and Primitive Baptists, there is such a debate on the the use of instruments in the NT, based purely on many of the same church fathers used to prove sacramentalism. This was to try to prove that their ban on instruments was in fact "original NT tradition"; and that it was the "corrupt RCC" that later brought in instruments and paved the way for "sensuality" in worship today. Yes, who can know what is truth? The best way is by looking into the scriptures free of all such theological, traditional, cultural, etc. bias. And it is very hard for any of us. THIS is the cause of all the schism; not abandoning one central church authority led by sinful men in favor of many. The one authority only repressed the problem; but didn't solve it. As soon as this authority reached a certain level of corruption; it all burst out into what we see today.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also the assumption that everyone agrees on the "essentials" is not necessarily shared by those outside your denomination. Others would include things in the "essentials" that you call "nonessential", and there is no way to know whose "essentials" are the right ones (no more or less) without begging the question in favor of your own minimal list based on your particular doctrinal stance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's why I basically limited the criterion to "Christ and His death, resurrection and salvation". If other men want to rise up and make these other issues (which I criticize in my writings as "one-upmanship, anyway), then that's on them. (that's what started the problem in the first place). There is nothing I can do about them. Once again, joining your group that also adds its own list of other "essentials" will not help the situation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet Jesus also acknowledge that they nullified the commands of God with their man-made (originating in themselves) tradition. So it would seem they weren't the faithful followers of OT "Judaism" that they made themselves out to be.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I'm not saying they were right. They are the ones who claimed to follow "oral tradition". They could show you ways in which all of God's "commandments" weren't always written (e.g. murder already wrong even though no written command was given to Cain or reecorded in the Torah, etc). From this, they would rebuff your claim that their tradition "originated in themselves" just like you try to do with us. So if they were right, and Jesus and His followers' teachings contradicted this "equally authoritative" form of God's word, then no amount of claims of truth or miracles they did would authenticate them. There would be no way to tell who had the truth except that "we said it, it was handed down to us, that settles it". I don't know why you can't see that what you're doing is the same exact thing as they! The "catholic" churches have shown themselves not to be the faithful followers of NT "Christianity" that they made themselves out to be, even though, they could trace themselves all the way back, just like the Pharisees could. That's what I mean in not looking at a visible organization. Even when founded by God, and initially endowed with His truth; they go astray. The whole point of Christ's Kingdom was that it would no longer be institution based like Israel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look at the OT, the revelation to the Jews is embodied in the Torah, and this came in two forms; the written and the oral handed down from the priests and rabbis that was never written down…see Malachi 2:7 and Isa. 59:21.
So just as the OT doesn’t record every bit of God’s revelation to the Jews, neither does the NT embody all of Christ’s revelation either. It does embody a great deal and the RCC will agree wholeheartedly that “ignorance of the scriptures is ignorance of Christ.” BUT the Evangelists and the disciples made clear that they weren’t writing down everything…see Lk 1:1-4, 10:16; Jn 16:12, 21:25 and Heb 13:22. Paul the Pharisee that he was would never conceive of Christianity as a mere book religion. Paul knew plenty of direct quotes from Jesus that didn’t get written down…see Acts 20:35.
The Gospels and the Epistles all assume that you’re familiar with Sacred Tradition or at least its main lines. The RCC as I understand it doesn’t hold any truth on the basis of Scripture without Tradition, but then The RCC doesn’t hold any truth on the basis of Tradition without Scripture either.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Precisely what I am pointing out! Again, the Jews use the same arguments, and it leads them to reject Christ! Their "mosaic oral tradition" would come even before Christ
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But on what basis does a sola scripturist define what is "orthodox"? Sola Scripturists such as Oneness Pentecostals would deny that the Trinity is an "orthodox" doctrine. How does one decide what is actually "orthodox"--does "orthodoxy" vary depending on the person or group defining it? If so, you can't really claim there is even a basic unity among evangelical Christians today without begging the question.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once again, you blame us for their aberration. A Church magesterium and its traditions has not prevented any of this. You just isolate youselves from them, like every other group does; hence all the schism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You see, folks weren't just given the 27 NT Bible (such an idea is of course an anachronism) and told to come up with their own take on God and the Trinity based on their own logical deduction. They were taught what to believe--just like all of us today were--in the Church and then shown how the Scriptures supported or testified to this teaching. However, the heretics would from the same Scriptures come up with their own 'take'--influenced by their own philosophical convictions rather than those from the devotional, liturgical, and catechetical life of the Church--and offer a different interpretation of the Scriptures which the orthodox would use to support their positions. This is also why under the banner of Sola Scriptura during the Reformation there was an upsurge in groups espousing Unitarianism. Since they couldn't fathom God being a "Trinity" and since they couldn't find that that particular word in the bible, they threw out that doctrine. (Which is perhaps the rationale in why some folks cringe at the word "consubstantial" and accuse Nicea of error)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The key words there: "their own 'take'--influenced by their own philosophical convictions" The scriptures said what they mean, and passages like John 1, for instance, are clear. It is only when one comes up with their own presupposition (e.g. if he's man, he can't be God; etc) that reinterpretation is forced. Whatever oral apostolic and worship teaching will naturally agree with the meaning of scripture.
What you're doing is suggesting is that the scriptures are actually AMBIGUOUS; potentially supporting EITHER interpretation, so its the "oral tradition" that must come in with its supposed additional details to settle the score. (Which makes the notion of "twisting" scripture moot. The "tradition" is what they twisted, using scripture, rather than the other way around, according to your view).
Just because people USED proof texts or sola scriptura and came up with wrong ideas doesn't mean we throw out the baby with the bathwater. The Church used tradition and still split right down the middle, and did all sorts of things during the Dark Ages.
So just because people may have taken one side of scripture, and missed another, or taken scriptures out of context (a BIG cause of error), and then those who come and DELIBERATELY twist them to draw disciples away, (such one modern group basically rewriting John 1:1), then you are saying NOBODY can understand it alone; the truth cannot be discerned from the Bible, but only by the Church, —and then every single thing this Church ever said or did ("corporately") in its history becomes validated as "apostolic tradition". That is basically taking advantage of what all the other wolves have done; like one wolf using the threat of another wolf to lure the sheep into his trap.
I call it wolf-like because it's like because people came and misread scriptures in various ways, you take advantage of that by saying "SEE; that means you cannot read the scriptures without our Church institution". I then am supposed to believe everything that institution has ever taught or done, even if it appears to be totally foreign to it. (State power, persecution of heretics, grand high liturgy etc). That is a wolf-like tactic. We are not responsible for what all the heretics of history have done with scripture, so that should not be used to try to obligate us to a particular institution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
one man's "philosophical conviction" and "logical meaning" may be another man's "forced interpretation". due to the philosophical lenses through which others view the text, what's clear to us may not be obvious to them. The point is, in the cases of the real presence (in the Eucharist) and synergism (in soteriology), we can point to the consensus of the Church--across time and space--as agreeing with our reading; just as we can in appealing to this consensus in supporting orthodox/biblical Trinitarianism and Christology.
No, not really "ambiguous", but lesser or greater degrees of "perspicuity"--particularly for those of us centuries removed from the thought patterns/culture in which the Scriptures were written. After all, even the Apostle Peter said there were some hard things in Paul's writings that were twisted by untaught and unstable men (like they did with other Scriptures).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, that is taking man's skewed perspectives, and then using that to relativize scriptural meaning. So then how much more will he do this with oral tradition? Perfect example is the whole claim of "consensus across space and time" in the first place. The early fathers do not lay out doctrines like the Eucharist the way the later Church did, yet quotes are taken from a handful of "fathers" in the second century and later; assumed to be fragments of this "unwritten oral tradition" that was not spelled out in the scripture because it was not an "exhaustive manual", and then project it back to the apostles. Those are AT BEST, evidences of your view; not conclusive proof. It still looks to me like part of the development of church doctrine and practice. This is why we believe sola scriptura is better.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But it goes beyond that. One's "god" truly desires ALL to be saved and has in fact died for ALL bearing the sins of ALL. The other's "god" wills only to save a certain FEW and died only for the FEW bearing the sins of the FEW. One's god is omnibenevolent; the other's isn't. Both can't be right.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, the rhetoric in that issue often devolves to something like that. That is the fault of the people involved. Basically, your solution would be to just pick whichever one you can find the most evidence for in the church fathers, call it the "apostolic tradition", and that would supposedly settle it. Men on the other side would still be unconvinced, and separate. Then, there would be schism. In contrast to where most of us, while disagreeing on it, will still accept each other as brethren.
EARLY FATHERS AND EUCHARIST; SLOW CHANGE; RESTORATION; CHURCH INVISIBLE or WORLDLY ORGANIZATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no significant devation from "clear NT teaching" in Ignatius, Clement, Irenaeus, and Justin for that matter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's debatable. Ignatius, for one, is the one who put a great emphasis on the bishop as the focus of Christians in the face of persecution. Catholics can use him to justify the papacy. I like the way the 7th Day Church of God leaders C.O.Dodd/A.N.Dugger in A History of the True Religion put it: "after the death of the Apostles Paul; Peter and John, history of the early Church is confined to the writings of the Church Fathers,so called, who penned their religious epistles perhaps in sincerity, but not under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit". This is precisely what I sensed when I bought The Lost Books of the Bible, and the Forgotten Books of Eden and read Ignatius and the others. Their epistles read like NT epistles; but they begin introducing some concepts that you don't see in the NT (but are projected backwards into it from them by Catholics). These concepts become the germs of later complete error; but like the proverbial frog in the pot of water, it creeps in unnoticed, and then gradually increases unnoticed, as little spins are put on it by each generation that still look like what was passed down to them by the previous generation.
Clement is basically good; except for using the pagan Fable of the Phoenix as an illustration of the resurrection; which it does not match at all (except to those who insist on some sort of "spirit" resurrection--like today's preterists). 2 Clement seems to go overboard in its allegory of "male and female". But then someone said that might not have been by Clement.
Sunday I never see as being officially changed from the sabbath in the NT either; but people take passing mentions of the first day of the week, and then assume a "resurrection celebration" from it. That then becomes reality, as is evidenced in Justin, Barnabas and others. Barnabas gives a good discourse on the spiritual meaning of the sabbath and dietary laws, but then gets into strange teaching such as some animals changing from male to female or conceiving through the mouth. Another position I have debated elsewhere you see from Justin is that the New Testament shunned musical instruments as being associated with "fleshy Israel". He should have said that that was the practice in his time; not speak for the NT where it is completely silent. The same goes for the mystical concepts of baptism, communion and Mary coming in at the time. These are then said to be, in effect, hidden NT teachings. But the NT is interpreted in light of them, rather than it really teaching them. Then the interpretations are said to be "oral apostolic tradition". We then cannot read anything in the Bible at face value, then. The Jews say the same thing about the Torah, and this justifies their rejection of Christ.
The mystical concepts of the sacraments; plus works salvation, and extrabiblical authority are more associated with "western medieval philosophy" than sola fide, sola scriptura, or our view of the sacraments. These things were common in pagan religion; and don't forget, this is what we are warned was creeping into the Church then. Sometimes; you have to get far outside (in time) from seeing scripture through the baggage of tradition to see it more clearly.
"sola fide"? does't Paul teach this clearly? You turn to another scripture like James that says not just faith; but one is warning those who understood that salvation was by faith of "turning grace into license" (as Jude puts it); while the other is pointing out to those still trying to be justified by the Law that they cannot be justified by their works; because Law is what Got us into the problem in the first place. All the postapostolic Church did was to rehash the OT Law; throwing out the Jewish aspect of it in favor of gentile; often pagan elements. (Sabbath to Sunday; Passover to Easter; animal sacrifice to transubstantiation ritual; baptism replaces circumcision and takes on salvific power in itself). That's all that distinguished it from the OT; but clearly that is not what the apostles were teaching. It is not merely switching cultures; but otherwise keeping all the trappings of the Law in gentile disguise.
Still; the truth is; those fathers did state things that the NT writers did not, or at least stated them in ways they did not. If the NT writers did not state it that way; then they probably didn't mean it that way.
All they did was change days and forms and terms. ("times and laws" as Dan.7 says) Otherwise; it was basically the same as the OT. The later Church practice didn't really fulfill the law and prophets; but just rehashed them with a gentile flavor. The OT was characterized by visible forms that were shadows of spiritual realities. The later Church just introduced more visible forms; with the only thing "spiritual" being a mystical element added to them. That is not a spiritual fulfillment.
Even the communion; I have seen suggested in a Bible history magazine may have been a common meal. It was instituted by Christ during a Passover seder, and thus the bread and wine were used as examples. There is evidence that this was only an example of Christians' "love feasts", which was reiterated by Paul. He describes in 1st Corinthians people being gluttonous, and this sounds like a meal (which includes "bread", meaning solid food, and a "cup" of something to drink), not small wafers or crackers and little vials of wine or grape juice.
While I'm not being dogmatic on this; still; it is fellowshipping together (which includes eating a meal by which we "partake of Christ". Not some new "sacrifice" with only the elements changed (bread and wine instead of a lamb or Christ). It is easy to see how this could be mistaken for a mystical ritual; though.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, and the church fathers fought against gnosticism using the Scriptures interpreted by the apostolic rule of faith. And, yes, this false teaching did make inroads and gain converts, but it didn't overwhelm the church and distort all of Christianity as you seem to imply.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There were small groups that went against the flow; and they were often powerless and silenced. For instance; the article I was be answering below concludes "Let us go to those who knew the Apostles, such as Saints Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp, if we have a question about the writings of the Apostles. Let us inquire of the Church, and not fall into self-deluded arrogance". So let's talk about one of these disciples of John; Polycarp and his disciple Polycrates, who fought to preserve the Quartodeciman practice of communion, (held on the Hebrew Passover, Nisan, the 14th, hence, "quartodecim") against the pagan, solar based "Easter Sunday" tradition being pushed by the bishops of Rome. It was the Easter tradition that prevailed in the "Church universal", and soon all traces of the older practice were completely gone; so right there, we see a difference between the "traditions handed down", and the emerging catholicism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Being closer in time, these early Christians were much more likely to know the real thing than a subset of the Reformers in the 16th century.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's the key: much more likely. That is quite different from guaranteed. It is only by projection (and assumption) that you can jump from one to the other, and treat it as such.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suppose all of these hypothetical small, powerless groups of proto-Zwinglians were silenced by those powerful wicked catholics (even well before they attained "worldly power" under Constantine) without leaving a trace of historic evidence that they even existed.
But no where in Scripture does it say the true Gospel would be lost completely only to re-emerge and be proclaimed "before the end". That is quasi-Mormonism. (Unless again you want to imagine that hypothetical communities of Baptists--or SDAists, or JWs, or CoCers, take your pick--remained undetected in their caves all this time)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The point is; they weren't "proto-Zwinglians"; as if that was a developed theology. Like the Trinity and others you cite; it becomes developed in reaction to error. With all the other issues in the Church; it took time for there to be a complete sweeping clean of all these teachings that had come to be long accepted.
The Gospel was the good news of salvation by Christ. This was maintained to some extent; but became buried beneath all of these other trappings. The fact that the Gospel still existed in the Bible was the reason that small groups could discover it and break away from the big church.
The difference here is that the true "spiritual presence" in Communion is in us, the spiritual Body of Christ; just like the true salvific power of baptism is immersion into the spiritual Boby of Christ. To put such a focus on the physical elements used, is to miss the true spiritual reality, and just create more idols, as idolatry came about because man could not deal with a spiritual God, and had to deal with things they could see and touch. Once again; this is not to put down the physical (as the opposite extreme in paganism--gnosticism, often did); but it must be put in its proper perspective. To give it power in itself is to make gods out of it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But it was never about what just one apostle may have said or did (or was claimed to have said or did). It is the agreement of the apostolic body as a whole. Some early leaders in the church thought circumcision was necessary, but the apostles and elders as a whole determined otherwise. Similarly the church thought it good to come to a universal agreement about when to annually celebrate Paschal. With time they reached such an agreement.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you assume because some early fathers said things people interpret as real presence and baptismal regeneration that ALL of the early Christians, and therefore all of the apostles agreed on these things. We see in the issue of quartodecimanism, that a majority believed in Sunday, but there were some, closely connected to the last surviving apostle who kept the Hebrew practice. (And actually, the link of Polycarp to John is much stronger than the link of Rome and other places to Peter and Paul, because that was only a claim, or basically a legend, after those apostles hed been dead for decades already.)
So you admit that was just some thing only one apostle did, and not an "apostolic tradition", and that it was the later Church that determined what the "true" practice was, in contradiction to what at least one apostle did. But once again, if the small body of evidence for quartodecimanism had been lost or even overlooked, you would be saying that Easter Sunday was another one of those "universal" practices "agreed by the apostolic body as a whole". But this should should show you how practices did change, no matter how close to the apostles they were.
-------------------------------------------- Here we see a picture of Christ who just prior to this hands Peter the keys to the kingdom. Christ is establishing an eternal kingdom, His Church. And like the culture the Jews are used to this model kingdom is like that they are used to and Christ is using words in a context that is familiar to their heritage…this is called cultural literacy. Kingdoms have Kings and this eternal kingdom has a King, Christ Jesus, and all kingdoms have stewards and Christ has just established Peter as the kingdoms first Royal Steward by bestowing upon him the keys. We see a model of this in Isaiah 22 and from here we see that this stewardship is successive and is authoritative.
We tend to take Christ literally at His word. Let’s take another look at Matthew 16:18 I say to thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
----------------------------------------
And that's where you're wrong. You're forgetting:
John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight... (as the Church did for its "kingdoms", and conquering more).
Matt. 20:25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, All of you know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
20:26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
20:27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:
(Luke's version: 22:26 But all of you shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that does serve.
22:27 For whether is greater, he that sits at food, or he that serves? is not he that sits at food? but I am
among you as he that serves.
And don't now try to say "oh, but they really are servants". "servanthood" is not a title one is elected to after "moving UP" through an organization, like in the world's businesses and governments. You just admitted it: They are kings! That was never promised by Jesus to the apostles, but kingship and priesthood in God's millennial and/or eternal kingdom (after this world) is promised to ALL Christians, not just a "clergy" class. And the first (in this world) would be last.
-----------------------------------------------
We also reread that Christ states that the gates of Hell will never prevail against it. In order for Hell not to prevail against the Church, the Church has to be infallible in her teaching of faith and morals, regardless of whether or not a particular Pope was corrupted or a Priest fails…
-----------------------------------------------------
But we see instead, the whole institution changed into a copy of the world's kingdoms. So apparently, that scripture's truth does not rest in an organization; particularly not that organization!
-------------------------------------------------- Here we see that Christ ensures His Apostles that the Holy Spirit will abide with them forever…Forever…not until the Apostles die and we then hope for the best, but FOREVER! The Holy Spirit will teach them all things. And that will last FOREVER!
Here is John 14:16-26 I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Comforter, the Spirit of Truth, that He may abide with you for ever. The Comforter, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My name, will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.
Guess what Christ is still good on His Word!
---------------------------------------------------------
That too is promised to all true Christians. Of course, this includes the apostles, but again, there was not class division between "clergy" and "laity". All were supposed to grow and do more for the Kingdom. You system encouraged the masses to remain immature, sit back and let the "professionals" do all the work, and eventually become worldly, but it was all about dominance of the masses anyway.
-------------------------------------------------- Here we read that ALL power is given unto Christ and that Christ commands His Apostles to go to ALL nations and teach them all things that Christ has commanded them, in addition to baptizing. Look, we read once again that Christ will be with his leaders of His Church all days, even until the end of the world! Christ will abide with His Church until the end of the world, not just until His Apostles die and hope for the best…but FOREVER.
Here is Matthew 28:20 All power is given to Me in heaven and on earth. Going, therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and lo! I am with you all days, even unto the end of the world
----------------------------------------------------------
Again; that command is given to all of us. The fact that all are not in one single organization shows that an organization is not what Christ was promising us.
---------------------------------------------------------- Since my interpretation of theology disagrees with the Early Church, then by my admission, Christ’s promise of being with the Church until the end of the world simply isn’t accurate. Unless we think that our particular sect is the New Testament Church, and if so, then we have a mountain to climb to convince us, in addition we have other Protestant Sects that have laid the claim of New Testament Church as well. Good luck…
For one, Christ in John prayed that His Church would be one, as He and the Father are one. And the thousands of competing Protestant sects are hardly honoring Christ’s prayer now are they? The problem with Protestantism is that if you were to gather a Baptist, Methodist, Church of Christ and a Lutheran in a room and asked them a simple question in regard to water baptism and salvation and have them to come to a consensus, no one person could collectively answer the question. So no one sect will agree with the other and we’re stuck as individuals that have the wanting desire to serve Christ wandering from sect to sect searching for the Truth.
Only in Protestantism…who’s right and who’s wrong…who has the final authority? Me the Bible and the Lord and my interpretation…Hardly…
----------------------------------------------------------------
And that's what you still don't understand. You think we're advocating some organization, in competition with yours. But I'm telling you, it's not about organizations. Men can go and create all the organizations they want; that just shows their confusion, or pride, or desire for dominance, or whatever. Don't come to me staking the promise of Christ on that, just to show that only yours is the "true" one. There is no organization (all of which either incorporated in a worldly state, or basically organized as soveriegn states themselves) that is perfect. Just like with the real presence issues; it's about the PEOPLE, not the THINGS! If you don't understand that, then you misunderstand the Gospel just as much as those Jews in John.
And also, even that one organization itself split, right down the middle. Did God stop leading them into truth then? So much is made of protestantism, but it was actually Catholicism that started that ball rolling. There were other schism even before that, over some of the same issues. Again, by tour own "catholic" history, there is not complete unity. So again, it is not about organizations. Organizations are human enterprises, and like everything else humans do, they fail. Don't tie Christ in with sinful man and his devices, because that is how you make Him a liar; not what we're saying.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In regards to Ignatius, scholars agree that he believed in the Real Presence in the Eucharist. In his letter to the Smyrneans he's emphatic: "They [the Docetists] abstain from the Eucharist and prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our savior Jesus Christ, Who suffered for our sins, whom the Father raised up by His goodness." To suggest he is speaking metaphorically is to read your Zwinglian view back into the first (or very early second) century and is to disagree with the consensus of scholarship. Lest there be any doubt, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus both wrote about a half century later how the bread and wine, when consecrated, were changed into the Body and Blood of Christ. (I could go on..)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus spoke in parabolic language, including in regard to his body and blood. The Jews did not understand, and he explains that they were blind. So they took it literally and got offended. Such spiritual realities are "spiritually discerned" (1 Cor.2:14). Without spiritual discernment, they become "foolishness"; and one can either reject it for that reason, or "accept" it, but then turn it into real foolishness. If this happened to them, then it is not hard to believe that it could happen to the later church leaders, especially as many brought pagan philosophy in with them. And it is not hard to believe that Ignatius likewise meant it parabolically. But then you mention fathers a half century later. But notice that little word "changed". Jesus never said that, neither did any biblical writer, nor even Ignatius. But that word "changed" changes everything. Now it IS definitely being made into some mystic transubstantiation. (Even if the East claims to disagree with that). Before it wasn't. I can accept a "spiritual presence" in the sense that "whererever two or three are gathered in His name, [He is] there", spiritually, and it did seem to center on the supper. This I believe would be how "spiritual presense" would have been understood. But now it is definitely being turned into something else we do not see anywhere in scripture. So we see how a metaphor can turn into a literal transmutation as people pass it down, and then add little words or other ways of trying to express it. This is why tradition alone is unstable.
God can restore, through the Spirit proper interpretation, after men in the Church fall away from the truth (which was prophesied). God can open people's minds after a period of blindness. You would claim God never allowed this darkness, and was always guiding the interpretation, but as I said, even your "catholic" tradition was constantly changing. Let's not forget that! How could all the changes be right too? So the Church added more and more corrupt doctrines, and THAT is when all these groups began breaking off, as people here complain. First the Waldensians, and some others, then later the Anabaptists and Reformation. So after all of this stuff is added, then where do you cut it off at? The third century? The second? No, people will want to go all the way back to the NT, and even the second century cannot be used to view the NT through, because it was already beginning to change.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, given that the Church was conservative, and usually only further defined doctrine and dogma in response to heresy, it is indeed incredible that no one condemned the belief of the Real Presense during the first millenium of the Church.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because as I showed, it was so subtle, it was hard to notice; and considering that the written NT was taking time to circulate, many were reliant on these "oral traditions", and many of them by that time were already corrupted, and still changing, and by the time the Bible was available, it was assumed that the traditions did come from it, so it then had to be read in light of them, rather than them being judged by it. Once again, this is why tradition is unstable. A "burden of proof" is always placed on us, but you offer no proof that these things actually were practiced in the NT. You can only use what second century fathers said, but that is not proof. That us backward (retrospective) projection. Look at the differences between the Church now and a century ago.
And these fathers may have led the fight against "heresy", but that does not mean their doctrine was pure. A JW would fight against many of those doctrines, but that does not mean they are right about everything else. There was subtle error, which crept in, and there was more blatant error, which they did challenge.
And you're assuming that that "consensus" was correct. There might statistically be a "good chance" they were, but we're talking about the Word of God, and what you're doing is basically throwing out reading it on your own, but instead, "whatever the early Church said" (and this still intepreted by later readers).
No, nobody thought in terms of "metaphorically". People understood these things spiritually, but over time, the Church became more carnal minded and made idols out of the physical tokensthemselves. So now, the bread and wine literally "turn into" the human flesh of Christ; the waterused in baptism is what saves, itself; and the leaders of the Church become infallible authorities. Such focus on physical itemsas the ends in themselves for spiritualrealities is totally contrary to the message of what Jesus and the rest of the Bible stood for. So this is how we know they were understood metephorically. No, nobody used the word. It wasn't necessary until after over a millenium of virtual idolatry and works-salvation for people to coin the word. But it wasn't needed in the beginning. The burden would be more on you to show a scripture that says this is to be understood "literally"; or that the elements "turned into" the flesh. That way, God-breathed Scripture interprets Scripture, and we are not dependent on fallible men.
Once again, it so slowly crept in, and was not completely understood, so who would oppose it? We're talking over 100 years of development, and things like that do creep in. When I entered the Air Force, there was some class apart of the induction on how word of mouth gradually changes. They told one person something, and told him to pass it down. By the time it got all the way around, it was totally different. Each person changes it a bit; puts it in their own words; edits, tries to clarify what they think it means. And this is in a few minutes! Now over a century, with several generations, people can say "The bread and wine are the flesh and blood". They pass it down. People decades later who don't understand the spiritual reality then take it literally. But then when they bought or made the bread and wine, it was no different from any other. So to explain it, they have to propose that it must have changed. Now we have this mystical transformation that Christ did not even hint at. Then it develops into a whole doctrine, and ritual. It was all so slow, and gradual, that no one would oppose it.
And there is documentation on the drastic change from the last apostles to the early fathers, in a period over which a "curtain" of "obscurity" hangs, as they put it; in which we have little writing. (see beginning of page). There may have been outcries then, but as 3 John says, the false teachers were getting the upper hand and expelling the true Christians and the writings of this period were lost.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But this error would not infect and otherthrow the entire church. These heretics (gnostics/judaizers/etc) did indeed arise but the were countered by the orthodox fathers and were quickly condemned as heretical.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And some weren't. Like copying the world's kingdoms, persecutions, etc.
John's last epistles gives us an idea of what started happening later on. "I wrote unto the church: but Diotrophes, who loves to have the preeminence among them, receives us not. Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he does, babbling against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither does he himself receive the brethren, and forbids them that would, and casts them out of the church". The gnostics "drew away disciples after themselves". This new crop of false leaders, however, tried to take over from within. And even the gnostics' doctrines did gain some influence. You seem to believe it is impossible for someone to oppose something he has already been influenced by in some subtle ways. We see this all over again today, as Christians today may oppose pop-entertainment, pop-psychology, etc. while trying to Christianize some of the gimmicks and concepts they copy from the world, and while some may have a noble intention, they do cross the line often.
If the canon was based ONLY on an "apostolic tradition", then some of those spurious books, which more clearly detail the later "catholic" doctrines and practices would have been included - basically, whatever agreed with the traditions! The early Fathers, would have been considered the heirs to the apostles, and included. I'm sure there are many who wanted these things in there, and this is proof that the Holy Spirit enacted some restraint on them. That is not the same as the Holy Spirit perpetually engraining doctrinal errorlessness on the Church, so whatever the institution teaches must be the truth whether it is scriptural or not, oh, and as for which of all the competing bodies is the one, we'll just choose the oldest to be safe.
I often wish the Spirit had done that, but that was apparently not how God wanted to work in this dispensation. So He gives us the written Word, and lets men and institutions go and do as they please with it, twist it, add to it, ignore it completely, etc. but with the promise of a day of answering after this life. (Rom.14:10, 2 Cor.5:10)
But for the meantime, He did restrain men from adding the wrong books into the final Bible, and with Revelation as the natural seal of the scripture.
I cannot answer for all these others who disagree with me. Once again, it is not about an organization with perfect adherance to a list of doctrines. (In contrast to you accusing us of "reducing it to a book"). As long as they believe in salvation through Christ alone; I have to accept them as being apart of the Church universal.
And another point on that, is that if He was handing them bread and wine, and saying "this is my body; eat", yet He was still there in the flesh, then right there, he is not saying it was his actual flesh, unless He had two fleshes. These are the types of ways we can know what the right interpretation is, regardless of what anyone 100 or 1500 years later says.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, it was the apostle, belonging to an group external to that of Diotrophes, who was bringing down authority and truth upon him. No doubt Diotrophes was content to be left alone, just like you.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And the Church of Christ, sabbathkeepers, old line IFB fundies, JW's, etc can all say the same thing, and so could Diotrophes, to the congregation he was entering and taking over. This further identifies you as thinking like them. None of you are the Apostles. Actually, John was advocating "truth" more than any "authority", (other than God's, not his own), and it's more along the "authority" lines, rather than "truth" for both Diotrophes and your argument.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure, God can restore. The question is did He have to do so? Did everyone in the Church fall away from the apostolic doctrine of the Eucharist after the apostles died? Or did the Church itself completely go into apostasy teaching what was contrary to the true gospel of Christ only to be later restored by God? The Mormons would say "yes" particularly to the latter question.
Do you honestly think that it's preferable to read a 16th century (Zwinglian) interpretation back into Scripture than to consider that early 2nd century authors were in perhaps a better position to know what was the correct interpretation, some of whom being personally taught by the Apostles (Ignatius and Polycarp, for example)?
Again this is something you have not proved without begging the question that your interpretation of Scripture is the standard by which you determine truth verses error.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of us are not following Zwingli. I and many others read the Bible on our own, and we do not see these wild interpretations in there. Now you can say "oh, that's private interpretation", But then if we must follow a "catholic" institution; then which? The RCC? The EOC?, The High Protestant bodies? Oh, while we're at it, the JW's, Church of Christ, and many Baptist groups claim to be the original Church too. Basically, you must choose a church, and read the Bible through only its eyes, then.
The Church is the people (two or three gathered in His name); not an institution of men. So the visible organized "Church" may have gone astray, but there were always believers who placed simple faith in Christ. Even if they did believe some of these errors, still, they were the true body in spite of that (NOT because of it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christ also promised that He would send the Holy Spirit Who would guide the Church into all truth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And this is how the truth could be restored centuries later. What you are not considering is that for all those centuries, there was a vast veil of darkness over the visible organization (not that there was not body of believers, keep in mind). Most leaders did not have the Spirit, and didn't listen to His convicting, but rather continued exalting their own authority, as they added more and more corruptions. So these people would not be guided into all truth, because they rejected the truth in favor of their own traditions and position.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "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, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).
"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" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).
Ignatius of Antioch:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just as the New Testament uses metaphors; so can these still be metaphors. the fact that he states that "his blood is love incorruptible" would go along with the teaching as some have stressed, that We must feed upon Him, receive Him into the heart, so that His life becomes our life. His love, His grace, must be assimilated.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now let us see if the Lord has been at any pains to give us a foreshadowing of the waters of Baptism and of the cross. Regarding the former, we have the evidence of Scripture that Israel would refuse to accept the washing which confers the remission of sins and would set up a substitution of their own instead [Jer 22:13; Isa 16:1-2; 33:16-18; Psalm 1:3-6]. Observe there how he describes both the water and the cross in the same figure. His meaning is, "Blessed are those who go down into the water with their hopes set on the cross." Here he is saying that after we have stepped down into the water, burdened with sin and defilement, we come up out of it bearing fruit, with reverence in our hearts and the hope of Jesus in our souls. (11:1-10)
THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS (c. A.D. 140)
"I have heard, sir," said I, "from some teachers, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins." He said to me, "You have heard rightly, for so it is." (The Shepherd 4:3:1-2)
They had need [the Shepherd said] to come up through the water, so that they might be made alive; for they could not otherwise enter into the kingdom of God, except by putting away the mortality of their former life. These also, then, who had fallen asleep, received the seal of the Son of God, and entered into the kingdom of God. For, [he said,] before a man bears the name of the Son of God, he is dead. But when he receives the seal, he puts mortality aside and again receives life. The seal, therefore, is the water. They go down into the water dead [in sin], and come out of it alive. (ibid 9:16:2-4)
JUSTIN MARTYR (inter A.D. 148-155)
Whoever is convinced and believes that what they are taught and told by us is the truth, and professes to be able to live accordingly, is instructed to pray and to beseech God in fasting for the remission of their former sins, while we pray and fast with them. Then they are led by us to a place where there is water; and there they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn: In the name of God, the Lord and Father of all, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they receive the washing with water. For Christ said, "Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." ...The reason for doing this, we have learned from the Apostles. (The First Apology 61)
THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS (c. A.D. 70)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I have always said; the baptism "by one Spirit into one body" (the spiritual immersion into Christ in which he was "now saved"; hence 1 Pet.3:21) was marked by the water ceremony. The person But later Church separated it making it mark entry into the Church organization. Today, in many churches, baptism has been replaced by an altar call. This was not authorized by scripture; it was the same Church that pushed for the sacramental meaning of it that somewhere along the line made this separation in the first place, with baptism following long initiation processes! But it must be the spiritual baptism that does the saving; not a physical act that anyone can do, without actually having received Christ. Just look at Simon the sorcerer!
After this period; we are 100 years after the last apostles already (and John was exiled till his death. So basically, all of the apostles were gone from the Church picture mid-century); and then the writings become more explicitly sacramental.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One can historically make a much better case for second century writers being familiar with the first century thought-forms and thus the context of the church and of the apostles' tradition/Scripture, than one could for projecting back 16th century thought-forms into the first century and pretending that those interpretations are the true ones. The NT wasn't written (nor was the Church established and the tradition handed down by the apostles) in the 16th century context of rationalism, scholasticism, and nominalism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And neither was it in the context of second century gnosticism and other Greek, Roman, and even Persian philosophy. It was warned about, though, and prophesied to make an inroads into the Church.
But this argument once again is nothing more than seniority. They were closer; so there; they had it all right, and they are somehow more honorable and less fallible just for being born at this closer time than those lowly 16th century rationalists.
But just look at it this way. There was no rip in the fabric of spacetime between the first two centuries and the 16th. There was no cosmic singularity that interrputed the sequence of history. The first century led to the second century, which eventually led all the way up to the 16th century.Now; if the second century people had it all together, and the 16th century people were so off; then still; the fall into error had to occur somewhere. If being in the next century guarantees perfect adherance of the doctrine and practice; then the 3rd century people must have been perfect as well. And if they were; then the fourth century as well. And the fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th. Especially since as those centuries went on, the church authority became stronger and tighter, with the councils and everything. Of course; you can take the conspiratorial approach of those "premodernists" (including the ones with the rosy view of American history) and claim that all of a sudden, the Enlightenment, with its "rationalism" and "humanism" and everything just sprang up and ruined it all. But this too did not form in a vacuum. What caused this revolt and break from the stranglehold of that single Church authority?
Already, we have the great rift of the 11th century. Where did this come from? If the Church was all along faithfully maintaining the traditions; and it was only those 16th century humanists who wrecked it all; then why these problems before hand? Why the Waldensians? Are all of these people heretics? Remember; this would include the Eastern Church as well! Even though technically; it was the West (as a single patriarchate) that broke from the [other four in] the East; still; the West had already been recognized as the authority.
So before you even get to those 16th century rebels; you have to address these 11th century ones, who you claim should be the real single church authority.
You for some reason think that the 11th century defectors had the right interpretation compared to the authority of Rome. But now you are in the same bind as the Protestants. You're going by your reason and interpretation instead of just trusting that God's Church (with Peter's successor in Rome) was right. Even something like filioque; even if it wasn't mentioned earlier; it could have been an even more secret tradition or something. Even if it wasn't; if God's inspired Church heirarchy decided that was the best expression of Christology; then who is even four fifths of the Church to decide otherwise?
the only other option is to admit that that central authority had changed over the centuries, and was adding to the original faith. But once again; we are back to when this began. If the second century perfectly continued the first; then why couldn't it continue up to the 11th?
So the whole "God's Spirit guided the Church" argument collapses like a house of cards. God's promise that the gates of Hell would not prevail then is clearly shown to not refer to the absolute errorlessness of an institution (which itself is not that Christ founded).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then, we have the incredible scenario that the Church universally got it wrong on baptism and the eucharist, all misinterpreting the relevent Biblical passages regardless of geographical location and time until a few, Zwingli and his followers, got it right 1500 years after the fact. So according to this scenario, the Holy Spirit allowed the Church to wallow in error regarding these two doctrines until Zwingli (not Luther, not Calvin) saw the light. It's not just a case of "allowing prophecies to come true" regarding false prophets infiltrating the church; it's about the entire church falling into error in the exact same way right from the start until a particular man, guided by God, set them all straight (err..well..set some of them straight, since the majority of the world's Christians continued to believe in the real presence and baptismal regeneration).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look at the example I gave above. An apostolic practice (quartodecimanism) was completely WIPED OUT. Now look at issues like filioque, and everything else the Western Church does that you do not agree with. The only difference is that a larger segment of the Church opposed those changes by that time. So it was not wiped out; but continued to be held in tension; until the rift finally developed. If filioque and other admitted Western innovations had come up in the second century; they would have become "universal" and "believed by the entire church, the same way, at the same time" as well (remember; it was still spreading out), and the opposition would have been small, and easily quelched. You seem to underestimate the power of persuasion the Church was gaining over the world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't consider that the same Holy Spirit who came down on the Church at Pentecost and who inspired the NT authors, could also guide the early post-apostolic church in continuing in the apostolic tradition and correctly interpreting Scripture and finally canonizing the Scriptures.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And you don't consider that the Holy Spirit could guide the canonization of scripture without continuing to correct every area of the Church. I wish He had; but obviously He didn't, as once again; it did eventually change (to a level even you do not accept); so at some point; the Holy Spirit stopped inspiring Church doctrine. The Scripture was to then guide the Church, but as men wanted to maintain their own traditions and philosophy and mix it with the Gospel; they had to come up with this idea that church authority, and some unwritten, untestable "apostolic tradition" was just as authoritative as scripture. Now, there was no way to correct whatever doctrine and practice the Church authority came up with. Still; it gets so bad, that the Waldensians protest; the entire East breaks off, and then the Protestants. Why did the Holy Spirit stop directly inspiring doctrine and leave it up to men and their devices? Perhaps to fulfill prophecy of the Church's apostasy, and however this comes to play in any future propetic events.
On the other hand, if you want to talk about the Holy Spirit; then maybe consider that it was that same Spirit that would guide men back to the truth after centuries of shifting sands of church authority and ever changing untestable traditions.
In all cases; what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If the 16th century could go astray, then so could the second. They were no less human. And if God could continue to guide the second; He could also guide the 16th. They were no less Christian. There is just no warrant from scripture, tradition or history to elevate the second century as such perfect preservers of the truth, and attribute all error only to later centuries.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The difference is the Holy Spirit was promised to guide the Church into all truth. Just because you don't know what was part of the oral tradition (outside of what was also written down) doesn't mean the early church didn't know. Instead of giving them the benefit of the doubt when they substantially agree, and with no historical record of controversy in these areas, you prefer to theorize about gradually encroaching errors (since they disagree with you) and make the baseless charge of "paganism".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, your side is the one who starts speculating on the oral tradition, and projecting them back to the NT because you see some of your ideas were believed by some early fathers. (and even they could be misinterpreted) "give them the benefit of the doubt"? That is really giving you the benefit of the doubt. That is not how we build doctrine and practice. That is not what the Bereans did. They could see the apostles doctrine substantiated, even if they may not have seen it in a different light before. There was no speculation, but then, we'll just give then the benefit of the doubt and take their word for it. That's how people are tricked into error, not how they find truth.
And if you appeal to the Holy Spirit, then once again, there has to be some cutoff period where the Church was led into all truth, and then when it stopped and fractured into all the denominations. Being that men were men all along, and most would not follow the Spirit's guidance, we cannot blame just the docetists or enlightenment, as if they were all powerful influences that squelched the Spirit. The Spirit is gentle and lets men go their way, and they would begin to fall away right away.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Spirit's guidance did not prevent schismatics and heretics from breaking off from the Church during the first millenium of its history (of which there is historical record). Why do you suppose things changed during the second?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They didn't change. The difference was that the Roman Church had gotten so corrupt (with its indulgences and other abuses) that people en-masse began leaving, and the advent of printing led to the widespread publication of the scriptures (which had been kept away from the laity), so now, people began forming new organizations. Originally, Luther and others did not intend this, but aimed to reform the Catholic church. But Rome was set in her ways and expelled the Reformers. Right there is another reason Rome was just as much to blame for all the schisms. They couldn't admit error, and then herself separated those who could no longer go long with it. (This is what we see beginning in 3 John). All along, since the first Millennium, the Spirit was not being followed, for things to get this bad in the first place. So that 1000 years, when you had this all powerful organization, and its sister in the East, were not as homogenous as you make it sound like; only controlled by the institution. But that institution was composed of men, and they did and taught many things wrong, and appealing to apostolic tradition is no justification. So that is not what we are to go back to.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just as Scriptures are of both divine and human authorship, so is the church that Christ founded a divine-human organism, "the fullness of Him who fills all in all" (Eph 1:23) and not just a merely human "organization." It is not "man's orgnization"; it's Christ's divine-human Body. It has it's organizational and instutional aspects, but it has more than that--it has the promise of God to preserve it from error.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's the "organizational and instutional aspects" I'm getting at, and yes, it should be "more than that", but in practice, it comes to be defined by that. So likewise, you look at a "conglomeration" of organizations in Protestantism and then deny that we are one Church, claiming that only your one organization represents it. That is making the Body "no more" than just an organization. If you really saw it as more than that, we wouldnt have this debate over multiple oragnizations versus one organization. All of this is why I say organizations get in the way.
And once again, if your application of this were true, then no part of the Church would have ever gone into error. The leaders' humanity would be overridden in spite of themselves, and if any abuses did occur, as we saw, they are just right, regardless. And then all the schisms remain unexplained. Either they were a result of the enlightenment overpowering the Spirit, or the Spirit stepped away and allowed men to do what they want. But if it's the latter, then this could have occurred much earlier than the Reformation period. Or perhaps the problem is once again looking at the Church as the visible "organization", and thus identifying that organization as the "divine-human organism". The organism is the invisible body of those who trust in christ as their Lord, regardless of the organization they are nominally affiliated with. Together, they make up the visible Church. But we must not confuse this with an organization formed around it. This is what the "Catholist" argument consistently focuses on, to be comparing your "one true Church" with "all the schmistatic denominations". Those are organizations you are looking at. They are all based on control; whether one magisterium controls all, or people break away from it, but then maintain their own circle of control. Forget the organizations for a moment, and you will see the real divine-human organism!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not about a "corporate organizational state government"; It is the visible apostolic catholic Church, which began at Pentecost when the Holy Spirit poured out on the Apostles and other disciples and which continues to this day.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And since the fourth century, a coprorate organizational state government is exactly what it has been. Even in the century before that, it had become what KAren Armstrong in A History of God called a "microcosm of the empire" that impressed Constantine. The original Church was a fellowship, with its simple shepherds and overseers, which didn't even have buildings and state sponsorship and all that stuff. The offices now became big power bases, and it soon became heavily political and state sponsored. To follow these "apostolic traditions" means to align onesself with this organization and its now, kingly leaders. That is the problem with just closing your eyes and saying "I'm just going to follow this group because it has the seniority".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That the "gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church" is a promise of Christ that believers have accepted on faith. Historically one can point to the consistency of doctrine/practice, over the years, across time and space, between the early church and the Orthodox teachings of today to show the Orthodox continuity with the church of the apostles. The majority agreeing upon something is the best method of determining Orthodoxy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No it's not. The majority has been wrong, alot. The Church once was "consistent" in believing the world was flat, made a dogma out of it, and persecuted people over it. The same with it being the center of the universe; until the physical evidence forced them to eventually drop it. But that was seen as right up there with the other doctrines. The Churches back then were all state governments. Remember, Christ said His Kingdom was NOT of this world. The church has been involved in ungodly conquests, robbing of lands (their method of "spreading the Gospel), racism, genocide, etc. Don't try to say "oh, well, that was just a few corrupt leaders". If people can be in the organization and be false, then Christ was not promising the errorlessness of an organization. Again, it is each individual believer the Kingdom consists of!
Meanwhile, there has not been a consistency of doctrine and practice. Only basically baptism and communion, and perhaps Mary and icons. Then, you try to prove those things are from the apostles by this "consistency", which begs the question of whether they are really consistent with the apostles. If we do not have any statement from they themselves, then there is no real PROOF at all they believed these things. You are basically asking us to place our faith in the organization of the Church, based on the premise that God would not let it depart from the truth, but when we see it looks like it did, then we are pointed to a bunch of "truths" that were omitted from writing by the apostles. So then we are right back where we started. How can we know that? We have to have faith in the later church's word.
A lot of things were not clearly understood even in the early Church, and became official statements as time went on. The Trinity is a perfect example. The doctrine as we know it was formulated in the fourth century. Before then, more and more of the statements associated with it were beginning to be coined, as people tried to put togethter the truths from the scriptures, as they were becoming more available (not oral tradition)! At one point, the Church did not even think of Jesus as "being" God, but rather linked God and Jesus in terms of doing the same works. You can see this addressed in Shirley c. Guthrie's Christian Doctrine. Then, we see 2 Clement come and tells us "Bretheren, we ought to think of christ as of God, as the judge of the quick and the dead". We know we can say that Christ is God, but people in the beginning saw it in completely different terms. If it was about a "tradition" passed down from the apostles, then there would never have been any such development or problems. We should not see fathers and apologists framing statements in reaction to heretical views. It would simply be "the apostles told us thus themselves, and it is not in the scriptures, so you are missing some of the revelation; so that settles it".
Then, a whole section of the Church apparently fell away from the true "East" church, even though it descended from the apostolic Church as well. What you have is an invisible organism, which to you is now embodied in the visible EOC oraganization. If Constantinople were to go astray, and Jerusalem were to maintain the practices, then it would be embodied in Jerusalem. God's Spirit is invisible, and the spiritual Body He maintains is invisble, but manifest visibly through its members.
So God never letting "the gates prevail against the Church" does not mean not allowing the Church to fall into error in certain areas. The entire history of the Church; both Western, and the united East-West before that, is proof of that. However, the Gospel of Christ and the real teachings of the apostles would be preserved in the written testimony, for all to see afterward. Whether men twist it, teach all sorts of things, and create thousands of different groups in conflict in different doctrines it still does not mean the truth is not preserved, or that only one group out of all the others holds it. It would always be possible for someone to read and believe the saving message (less possible when the "one Church" tried to keep the scriptures away from the public, to avoid "private interpretation", and thus maintain surface "Church unity" and more importantly, control) despite all that other stuff all the groups add and argue over.
-------------------------------------------------- Christ promised the Holy Spirit would protect the Apostles from error and lead them in truth. With that in mind, the Apostolic Church Fathers such as Polycarp a disciple of John, Ignatius and Irenaeus, both disciples of Polycarp and St. Clement of Rome who was a student of both the Apostles Peter and Paul wrote of the Real Presence.
Are you saying that Christ was wrong and the Holy Spirit didn’t protect as promised, and the Apostles were teaching error right out of the starting gate? If not, then how do you explain what these Early Fathers of the Church wrote.
The burden of proof lies on you to clearly demonstrate that 2,000 years of Church Tradition is wrong and simply your interpretation isn’t going to cut it.
---------------------------------------------------
Everything done in that "2000 years of history" is not biblical or even moral. So apparently, God's promise of not letting the gates of Hell prevail did not guarantee complete errorlessness of a visible institution, which is what is generally being advocated here.
I see Polycarp keep being mentioned, and in his epistle to the Philippians, there is no mention of any "real presence". Is he brought up simply because he mentions Ignatius, who mentioned the "Eucharist". (Also, where does Clement mention it?) So to throw Polycarp in there, as if he himself made such a statement, is what I mean by jumping these teaching back to the early Church. One person says this, another says that, so they all said it. So from this, you can boast about a "broken record" of fathers all afirming this doctrine, and therefore apparently getting it straight from the apostles in its present form. Sorry, but that is shoddy research.
Now, Polycarp does mention in 2:3 "the faith" being "the mother of us all". This may help shed light on a scripture like Gal.4:26. (Usually, if I'm correct, interpreted as "Heaven", because of the word "above"). So I do believe the fathers can help us understand the apostles. It's just that you have not proven that they taught your whole concept.
And all Ignatius said on it was "confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our savior". That still is not spelling out any later "catholic" development. Later fathers, then begin speaking of some "prayer" where the bread "becomes" the body. But now, right there, something has changed from the simple way Ignatius put it. Something was added. This appears to be a development of doctrine, and is not some fully developed "ltradition" being passed down.
"eucharist" means "good grace", (eu + charis) and the forms of it in the NT mean "giving thanks". There is a "real presence" of Christ in His body; the Church, who meets together and gives thanks. It is not focusing on the physical substance of bread and wine, though those are used to represent the body and blood. (in 3:5, it says "I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ", but is just like Christ's words in John 6, which as Rooselk pointed out, cannot be talking about physical Communion because of the discrepancy he mentioned (good point!) Also, 4:16 "breaking ONE AND THE SAME bread, which is the medicine of immortality". Anyone can eat elements, and still be condemned, so it is a metaphor of our unity IN CHRIST's BODY. (by which we have eternal life). And even these "fathers who knew the apostles" statements allowed for that. It's a century later when people began trying to interpret both the apostles and Ignatius, and came up with this new kind of "spiritual presence" inside objects, and ultimately, from that, a transmutation among some. So your whole link to the apostles is broken, and the charge that the change could not have happened "so fast" also falls. Many scholars who are not "Zwinglians" also attest to a change in doctrine going on this period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
So in view of this topic, we can have the confidence that close to 2,000 years of Church Tradition, backed firmly with Scripture, to conclude that Holy Communion is much more than that view held by Baptists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This does not even deal with the fact that that the earliest fathers taught the later concept of Communion. You just read it into three idle statements by Ignatius, and jump it over to others like Polycarp, who did not even mention it. So what you have is 1900 years of confusion that began a century after the apostles. The Protestant divisions are just the end result of it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
We have close to 2,000 years of Church History as a witness and when Christ promised to teach them all things and abide with them forever, we can have the confidence that Christ’s words didn’t fail and will never fail.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, I have heard unbelievers describe a "2000 year crime wave of Christianity". If that is your "witness", then it is you who falsify Christ's promise. Again, it is about individual people together in Christ, not an organization.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
You may not agree with the early Church, but it’s not your position to determine what is and isn’t correct Orthodoxy. Christ didn’t leave you in an Authoritive position, Christ left His Church that Authoritive position and it is to last until the end of the world.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The language of dominance, again. I'm not the one determining Orthodoxy. Church history speaks for itself (more against the faithfulness of the organization than you are willing to admit), as does scripture.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Sola Scriptura" always crashes against the same wall. The other sources of authority in Christianity are the source for their Bible.
And it can't be more authoritative than the sources from which it was compiled.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But all that extravagant liturgy (which is what I am getting at) is not the SOURCE of the scripture. That proves what I have been saying. The true "oral traditions" are the same teachings and practices you do see written in the text. It just might be certain situation applications of them to specific congregations or individuals that might be missing. But it is nothing like all of the later Church's additions. That is quite a stretch to say that all of that was there, and the apostles Church was identical to the modern EOC, but it was all just omitted from the writings. Just face it. You're only trying to project unbiblical teachings back, just like all the other groups you point out. And going to the fathers does not help, because all they show is the later practices gradually coming in. What you're trying to suggest is that the whole body of EOC practice was there all along, and it was only gradually slipped out in text by the fathers, proving it was already there. But that is a shoddy reading of history, and not any real substantiation.
If all that stuff from the later Church was really apart of the same "source" material as the written text, it would have shown up there, rather than being omitted. And again, the letter of Pliny shows that the meetings were simple.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Basically, the The worship and catechesis contained these "details". Of course some of these "oral" traditions not specifically written in Scriptures, were later themselves crystallized in writings which outlined the Baptismal confessions/interrogations, and described the "rules of faith" (etc)--which again were "media different in form, but coincident in content" with what had already been written down in (what was to become) the NT writings. The NT was neither a liturgical church instruction manual nor a handbook of systematic theology. The Apostolic preaching/teaching and the worshipping Church preceeded any of the written NT, and the NT writings were in the forms of narratives (proclaming the life of Christ and the earliest history of the Church) and epistles written to already existing congregations, many of which dealt with issues specific to the congregation addressed and thus did not individually (nor necessarily collectively either) contain every single saying or teaching ever uttered by Paul and the other apostles (and obviously not from the apostles who didn't leave any epistles that we know of). However, the church indeed recognized the apostolic authority behind these writings, as these writings conformed to what was already authoritatively taught orally (without including every liturgical or catechetical detail).
We would agree that the orthodox doctrines of the Trinity and Christology are indeed "biblical". However there are many sincere "Christians" who deny one or both of these, and, as you point out, "claim to be following the bible alone". For instance, "Oneness Pentecostals" deny the Trinity by conflating the Persons (i.e. like the ancient Sabellians did), and they are convinced that Scriptures support their position. In fact, shortly after the Reformation, there was an upsurge in Unitarianism in various places because many people, encouraged by the cry of "SOLA SCRIPTURA!" to interpret the Scriptures all by themselves, concluded that the Trinity was not "biblical". The Church (collectively), recipient of both the "sound pattern of words" and the Apostolic writings, could thus collectively judge truth from error. In fact, we see the Church doing just that even in those early years shortly after the Apostles left the scene. By the authentic Apostolic writings and the "sound pattern of words" (often later referred to as "the rule of faith"), expressed in hymns, catechesis, and short-summaries, the Church was able to determine what was heretical. Not just reading, but in reflecting how the truths (to which the Scriptures testify) were lived out in the worshipping communities from the beginning in it's liturgical life of prayer, hymns, catechesis, rule of faith, baptismal confessions, etc. ('Lex orandi, Lex credendi'--"the rule of prayer is the rule of belief") For instance, the Church knew Arianism was wrong because it taught a different "Christ"--ie, a creature--from the One she had been worshipping and praying to from the beginning as God. Those who disregarded this ecclesial context/understanding, read the Scriptures differently and thus came to a different formulation. So even in the ante-Nicene era (before Constantine allegedely "corrupted" and "counterfeited" the Church), the Church was able, for instance, to fend off docetism/gnosticism, adoptionism (in its various forms) and Sabellianism/modalism and authoritatively declare such teachings "heresy" based on her Tradition received from the Apostles. And in the Nicene era, when the orthodox party and the Arians were constantly throwing Scriptural proof texts back and forth at each other, it was on the basis of received Tradition that the Church was able to convict the Arians of "twisting the Scriptures" by teaching falsely concerning Christ.
So today, while we agree that the orthodox concepts of the Trinity and Christology are indeed "biblical", we must both admit that none of us came to this conclusion by logical deduction from just reading the Scriptures in isolation from a community of believers. We were all taught these doctrines by our respective churches, and we, of course, found Scriptural confirmation for the same. But it's only in as far as our respective faith communities (local churches) have faithfully taught what has confomed to the "sound pattern of words" as agreed on by the Undivided Church on the basis of the 'checks and balances' of "universality, antiquity, and consent", that we can be sure that we are "rightfully dividing the word of truth" rather than "twisting Scriptures to our own destruction". The same Holy Spirit who guided the Church in deciding and accepting the correct Scriptural canon also guided the Church in deciding and accepting the correct formulations (in response to heresy) of the Trinity and of the Hypostatic Union, since it was same Spirit-guided Tradition that was involved with and reflected in both cases. The "oral tradition" was used by applying how the Church had always believed about God and Christ, in contrast to heresies on either side, in making a new formula that would clarify this belief to the exclusion of error. (Particularly when it became clear that the heretics would hide behind the current formulas/confessions while espousing an interpretation that was foreign to the way the truth of the formulas had been traditionally understood and lived out in the worshipping communities--ie the Church)
what has to be remembered is that Scripture - and in particular the NT - is not a 'how to church' manual, whether it be church government or liturgy etc; there are some hints, of course, but it is not comprehensive on these subjects. Therefore it was left to the Church - both in the Apostolic and post-Apostolic periods - to, of necessity, work out these matters itself and it was possible for the Church to do this whilst still maintaining fidelity to Scripture.
That there are folks who have mutually contradictory interpretations--on what the Scriptures seem to teach on such vital issues as the nature of God and the nature of Christ--should not surprising. The Apostle Peter warned in his Second Epistle that there were already those who were "twisting Scripture" to "their own destruction". The question is how do we know: (1) who are the ones "rightly dividing the word of truth", and (2) who are the ones "twisting Scripture to their own destruction"? For each group is convinced that they are practicing the former, while those who disagree are potentially practicing the latter. Who decides between them, and/or how does one know who is right without begging the question?
I submit the answer to the "how" question lies in the Apostolic Tradition.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So now this seem to be admitting that while the oral tradition at least might not be "exactly the same in every detail"; it is still pretty much the same body of teaching, and not an entirely different set of teachings. Yet, it is still using this argument to try to authenticate every single thing thè"undivided" Church has ever taught.
For instance, the Nicene formula was not some hidden "tradition" passed down orally only by the apostles, and more and more of if was gradually revealed by the Fathers, and then suddenly in the 4th century, they dropped the whole thing publically. There are many who seem to believe something like that, including Protestant fundamentalists, and most of our classic anti-cult apologists, who otherwise don't even belive in oral tradition.
But the truth was, Nicaea was a decision on the best formulation of the Godhead, that conformed to what the scriptures were known to teach just by reading them. Before Nicaea, the "orthodox" position was slightly different; not so much of the three way "symmetry".
So what was the "oral tradition" used in that issue? (Unless one believes the Apostles actually uttered the Nicene Creed orally, or at least parts of it, which Catholists do not claim). It was just a matter of harmonizing all the scriptures on the subject, and that's where many people went wrong.
Also, there's this idea that it's the worship that contained all of these details (including the forms such as catechisms, etc) that the apostles held from the scriptures and passed down orally only? So was this the "exhaustive manual" of Church doctrine and practice, and the "table of contents" of the canon? There is no evidence for this at all, exept once again, taking postapostolic writings, extracting the pertinent teachings, and reading the full blown "details" into them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's true that Things were simpler in the beginning, and the more elaborate ceremonies of the liturgy developed with time. Things were by nature simpler when folks were meeting primarily in houses, and by necessity when they had to meet in the catacombs. However, very early on the two-fold pattern of the liturgy became standard (as witnessed by Justin Martyr and Hippolytus for example): (1)the liturgy of the word--in which Scriptures were read, prayers were offered, and a sermon was given; and (2) the liturgy of the Eucharist--when more prayers and hymns were offered and the Eucharist was celebrated. The former was analgous to the synagogue services of the Jews, and the latter represented the fulfilled Temple worship (with the sacrifice of Christ commemorated/re-presented in the Eucharist replacing the animal sacrifices of the Old Covenant). Now as the historical circumstances permitted (i.e. they had their own buildings, persecution stopped, etc) the liturgy became more elaborate (new hymns/prayers, more purposeful architecture, more stately ceremonial, etc) but the basic pattern (has) remained the same. However, this did not develop haphazardly or ad hoc, but there was for the most part an organic continuation with what preceeded it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK. Nobody here is arguing against any of this. Just about every Christian group I know of would admit that much was probably what the early Church service was like. That doesn't mean the rest of the developed doctrine or interpretations that later went along with it was from the apostles.
So this again admits that OTHER aspects of Catholic worship that we DO question DID change based on the circumstances. So then, you can't really say that Protestants have "departed from the Apostolic Tradition" in their protests. As we see here, many of the "Traditions" clearly devloped AFTER the apostles due to external circumstances. So they fail Vincent's criteria right there. So your ace in the hole will be this "organic continuition", but then, that is precisely where things start to get muddy. The Roman Church will claim the same thing for ALL of the doctrines they added that the EOC rejects. The Pope; Persecution of heretics? Again; only their lack of power in the first century that prevented that. But Paul's instruction, such as turning someone over to Satan; that shows in "principle" that all this stuff was God's way all along, and the Spirit guided them into all truth (to adapt to the changing circumstances). Filioque, indulgences, celibate priesthood, etc? They can claim it is all "organically connected" and pull some proof text from the apostles and Apostolic Fathers to show this is what they aimed from the beginning.
This is why the Protestants wanted to start over from Scripture alone. The Church took this "organic continuity" thing and didn't know where to stop with it.
So it becomes quite clear now that the "oral" tradition was not an exhaustive manual either, and cannot be used to justify whatever later practices the Church decided on. So if we disagree with a "catholic" doctrine not expounded in scripture, then, one, the silence means the subject of that doctrine was probably an issue that was never important or a problem in the first century: hence, as you all say, the scriptures only dealt with issues that needed addressing. Two, we are not obligated to follow what "Catholic" bodies say; for their interpretations on those issues not addressed or clearly expounded grew out of history just like all others. The only argument you would have left is "apostolic succession", but the NT does not even speak of this in any formal sense, and even those claiming this "succession" still deviated and added things, practiced things that most of us today would never try to say was biblical (Politics, Dark Ages horrors, etc), and then even split off from each other.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My point is that if one takes sola Scriptura as the starting point, that the next logical question is also epistemological: How does one know a given interpretation of the Scriptural text is the correct one? There are several sola Scripturists running around today, each claiming to be going by the Bible alone (led by the Holy Spirit) who come up with contradictory intrepretations of some key issues, including the nature of the Trinity, the nature of Christ, and the nature of salvation. How does one judge between these varying interpretations of Scripture alone without throwing another subjective interpretation in the midst? The fact is one can't. The truth is sola Scriptura was not invented until about 1500 years after the church was established. As a methodology it is unbiblical, unworkable, and unhistorical. However, if one adopts the epistemological framework of the historical Christian Church (which is well documented) involving the recripocal relationship between Scripture, Tradition, and Church, one can avoid the relativism and subjectivism of sola Scriptura. Indeed, the NT Scriptures were written by the Apostles in the context of the Church and are the chief expression of the Apostolic Tradition, along with the apostolic interpretation and Christological reading of the OT Scriptures. It was also the Church that determined the canon, and it is in the Church that the Scriptures are to be understood. They were never meant to be yanked from their ecclessiastical context and interpreted by individuals or groups who don't share the suppositions of the Apostolic Church (in which the Scriptures were given) which was keeping the Apostolic Tradition (by which the canon was recognized and is interpreted).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some legitimate points, but for you to ty to use these points to suggest that it is only your group that is true because of the established tradition of the already developed institutional Church does no good. I'm sorry, but this is the oldest trick in the book, and once again, no different from everyone elses' method. Your only substantiation for this is the presence of some teaching or germs of teachings in the next century. But even that is not as monolithic as you assume. Even the universal "orthodoxy". People will appeal to Ignatius, Barnabas and Hermas as proving belief in the Trinity (often assumed to be as developed as in the fourth century creeds). But Barnabas and Hermas mention Christ's "preexistence", but do not directly declare Him to be God. That would be compatible with Arianism. Ignatius several times directly calls Christ God, but does not go into much other detail. That would be compatible with modalism. I'm not saying any of them believed those aberrations, but still, the doctrines were being developed as people put together the teachings of the NT as they gradually became widespread, (as most historians will admit), and whatever oral traditions they may have had; rather than some whole body of complete oral interpretation being passed down, (AND them being identical to the EOC of 1054 and afterwards, or the RCC, or whatever groups one is pitching for). The later Church could know from putting together all the scriptures on the subject, that Christ must be God and yet have distinction from the Father. Likewise, I have pointed out in discussions about soul sleep, that Athenagoras (177AD), who is often quoted to prove the Church always believed "the soul lives after death", still denied that "their continuance was as the continuance of immortals", (which would match what most believe today), and his view, while maintaining they were spiritually "alive" in some way, was still "similar" to a sleep. So all the Millerite groups (from SDA to JW) could claim that they had the apostolic tradition. Paralleling the claim that catholic tradition was "omitted from scipture", they say theirs was basically omitted from history, other than as a "footnote (as Armstrong called it), and as you quote scriptures on oral tradition, some of them can quote Rev.12:6 & 14 to support the truth being "hidden" from popular view, as well as "And this Gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached, to all the world for a witness unto all nations, and then shall the end come" (Matt.24:14) to prove it would be restored only in the [yet future] end. Even if you try to argue that your method is better, still, it is basically the same thing. Everyone has to fill in the blanks somehow in order to get their traditions in.
Basically, it all comes down to a need to trust what MEN say. I have to take your word for it that your traditions are true, and you had to take Church leadership's word for it, and if you point to early fathers, I have to take their word that they actually got their peculiar doctrines and practices from the apostles, who deliberately withheld them from the canonized text, and that they did not add to, adulterate, misunderstand, nor misinterpret it themselves. (Once again, man cannot even get the written word right, and you think we would handle oral teaching any better?) With all of the other religious hucksters, and all the other "schisms" being mentioned; I'm sorry; that is too much to expect. I see it as no different from all the tricks and methods they use. "...the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive". (Eph.4:14). You claim "Christ said the Spirit would lead them into all truth", and "The gates of Hell would never prevail", and they all say it too. You are trying to get us to "accept on faith" what your leaders say because your church is older, and you can pull some passages from the ECF that seem to go along with them. This is why perhaps it is good to "take a new look from the old book". Christ's promise for the gates of Hell to not prevail is not contingent on the doctrinal errorlessness of one single religious government. (One which was tied up with and received its later power from the state for centuries).
In both Judaism and Catholicism, we see this "unwritten tradition" is often called the "framework" or even "background" of the written revelation. (Thus, you can't understand it it without the tradition). But how are a bunch of additional rules by themselves a framework or background (as that is what the oral traditions ultimately boil down to)? That again is just projecting our current environment back into the scriptures. Lest anyone say that the oral delivery itself is the "background" (e.g. making an argument that since God appeared and spoke, that was his "primary revelation" which the scripture is only a secondary addition to) oral was just a method of communication. It was not an end in itself. All the methods of communication (oral, writing, signs) were to compliment each other, not supplement each other! However, the written one is the one that has carried on to the present. No one is still experiencing God's visible or audible appearances! People need to think what the "framework" of scripture really is! What is this really all about? Just difficult, detailed rules by which we make ourselves better than others? Unchallengeable authority of man, where he can tell people anything, and they just have to follow? Or is it man's fall, God's grace? If we could answer that, we wouldn't have a lot of these religious disputes.
So any way you look at it, you're just trying to sweep everyone else aside and say "My group is the one", but the more you do that, the more you actually fit in as just another one of all the groups (What an irony!); for that's precisely what they do.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, I don't see why this is big deal since it took even longer for the church to come to a consensus on what the limits of the New Testament "canon" were. Before AD 367 there was no list that had exactly the same 27 books that we have today. We can thank the Church's Tradition--the ongoing life of the Holy Spirit in the Church--for the finally agreed upon 27 book NT that we have today.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe the Spirit gave a special leading in the Church for determining the canon. (over the centuries; not saying that the Spirit directly directed the councils). That does not mean the entire Church always completely followed the Spirit in all areas. Else, then how could there be all the schisms today? The Spirit guided the church until 1054, or the 1500's, and then stepped back and let everyone do as they pleased. Or do we just blame the almighty Enlightenment (just as the Fundamentalists and many of the other "schisms" you criticize do!), which apparently overpowered the Holy Spirit after all those centuries and allowed the one church to lose its sole power?
No, men always went about their own way, and where one body tried to control everone (but still had errors of its own; some grievous ones at that), it got to the point where the world got tired of that and opted for religious freedom instead. So everyone then could indulge in whatever they thought was the truth, and form an organization around it. And here we are today. Still does not mean the former way was right.
(And if the canon was apart of this "tradition" supposedly handed down from the apostles, why was it something that was decided at a certain point? If you say that God guided them to select the proper books; that is not "tradition handed down", but rather new revelation, or as I have said; God leading them despite themselves!)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, in the early fifth century, not too long after the NT canon was "finalized", we have these statements from Vincent of Lerins in his Commonitory, showing how the material sufficiency of Scripture is not enough to ensure sound doctrine:
"I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.
But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reason—because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation."["directed by the rule of the catholic church."]
Just substitute: "Bapist...Lutheran...Methodist...Calvinist....Pentecostal...Adventist...Unitarian...Jehovah's witness...Campellite...Oneness..." for "Novatian...(through)....Nestorian" and one can see just how applicable his point is still today.
But this "rule" indeed began with the apostles teaching the Jews how the OT was to be properly interpreted (and was taught to them by Christ Himself). It continued as the "rule of faith" mentioned by those such as Irenaeus who showed how the Scriptures were to be interpreted as opposed to the interpretations of the heretics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legitimate concern; but then as I said; if we are that unstable and disputatious with written revelation; then how much worse we will be with "oral tradition". And since all those heresies that this approach reacted to were already a couple of centuries after the NT; it shows that this "consensus" was NOT "handed down from the apostles"; but when these disputes became troublesome; people sat down and determined what was the "truth"; read it back into the NT; and then "apostolic tradition" was used to make this an unchallengeable; untestable "authority". No wonder disputes and dissension continued after this; and with the Catholic Church continuing to add new and more radical practices (presumably all from "the apostles"; right?); more groups broke off; the Church divided right down the middle when the Eastern Church split off; and finally; it was so much that we had the Protestant Reformation. So much for these "centuries of Church consensus ruined by those Protestants and their 'novel ideas'"!
Stepping back; in areas like the disputes over the Godhead; the opposing "formulas" were weighed; and the best one chosen. The Nicene formula was not spelled out as precisely in the Bible; (I believe the "economic" view of the earlier fathers was more accurate); but it was superior to Arianism; which made Christ both Creator and Created; and Sabellianism; which couldn't really explain how Christ could pray to the Father. But that does not mean that "the Bible lays out Nicene orthodoxy as a formula". (Even though most; including evangelical Protestants seem to assume that). We do not read these things back into the NT; we just take them in their hostorical contexts. Likewise; since the Church had already adopted its concepts of baptism, communion and works; then these would be "canonized" as "apostolic traditon" as well. What you are missing is how what the Church is actually doing, is claiming to retroactively create new truth "from the apostles". It is similar to the more radical KJVO's claim that the English translation is what God actually inspired; and the ancient texts are based on it!
We must remember that these were men; and they interpreted the truth from their perspective just as much as any later movements.
And if all these other groups are wrong, then you are just taking one group and exalting it over the others because of seniority: it is the oldest organization But it is just as human as all the others, and just as prone to misinterpreting not only the written word, but even its "oral tradition". Once again, if a written word is so easy to misinterpret, then how much more will somehting that is not even written? In fact, in light of the doctrines such as baptism and Communion; we see that these "oral traditions" are nothing more than just more interpretation of that some written word everyone else supposedly gets wrong. No matter what you say, it all comes down to which body of fallen men you will choose to trust in. The only things yours has over the others is that it was older.
You keep saying "whose interpretation of scripture--yours?" (much like a skeptic who uses this line of reasoning to 'prove' there is no 'truth' at all); and really your point is that yours is the one! But what you are doing is basically just like all the others (and I was not excluding the independents), but with your own distinct method of 'proof' just like the others have.
We may have said that much of the Church was in darkness, but you must remember most of
us don't believe that the true Christ was found only in a Protestant
Church, or could not be found in the catholic church. So Christ was
still available, even if a lot of other trappings were added and the
institutional heirarchy corrupt. You're the one claiming that if I am
born in a Protestant land, I am outside the Body of Christ with no valid
canon, and basically in the same condition as a tribesman somewhere that
never heard of Christ, and that I have to find an EOC, or study up on
church history to find Christ through the apostolicity of the EOC, and
still, even if I bought the arguments from history, I would more likely
be pointed to the more commonly prevalent RC Church, which to you is
just as schismatic as the others.
This basically is the more schismatic view of Christ, that compromises
"the gates of hell shall not prevail"; like saying you can only find Him
in some uncommon group like the Church of Christ or JW meeting.
--------------------------------------------------------------- So what did the Church use to determine what is correct doctrine from its inception? The Church has always understood heresy to be one of the gravest sins because; heresy has the potential to steal the Gospel message of its sin cleansing nature. When orthodoxy is distorted the Gospel message is skewed.
So again, what has the Church always used to determine what is correct doctrine? As unfriendly as it sounds to the often myopic Protestant ear, the Church has used Tradition to determine what is and isn’t Orthodoxy.
Tradition is determined by three things: 1) antiquity (what has been believed from the very beginning); 2) universality (what has been believed by all Christians everywhere); 3) consensus (what has been agreed to be orthodoxy, especially by the Church Councils and great Church Doctors).
Let's be extremely clear. Scripture is primary and is the final authority on all matters. If we do not hold Scripture up to be the primary source by which we ascertain doctrine and dogma we quickly find ourselves in a heretical situation. Yet until you pick up Scripture and begin to read it (or hear it proclaimed) it really does not do much for you. Once you begin to either read or listen to the Word you begin to interpret what you hear. This is inescapable. We all interpret Scripture when we read it. As Vincent of Lerins said, for as many interpreters of Scripture there are interpretations.
----------------------------------------------------------------
And who made up those criteria? The leaders themselves, in order to maintain their organizational control over the world. But it still didn't stop all the errors I mentioned above, and the split down the middle. I notice, you leave out the Spirit's guidance there. Everytime that is mentioned, your side would say that that was not enough, either, because all those claiming to be guided by the spirit are still "divided" as well. So the Spirit nor the Word are sufficient to guide into truth, so you claim it is the organization with its tradition. But anyone can come and say that. So you use the Word and Spirit to try to authenticate tradition. But that's just what you criticized everyone else for claiming! So this is cyclical.
And error can meet those the three criteria as well. Pagan religion is has antiquity, certain "universal" concepts and consensus (Such as salvation by works). Judaism as well, and since they also claim an "oral tradition" that goes before Christ, and leads them to interpret scripture in a way that does not point to Christ, then by your own logic, we should follow them. In such case, all of this is moot, as Christ, and his apostles and Church are false, because they're not following the even older ("antiquity"), and uniformly believed ("universal" and "consenus") traditions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In John 6, the Jews are offended by Christ's teaching that one must eat His flesh. This shows it is not symbolic, like in Matthew 16, where Jesus is stating that the disciples should be aware of what the Pharisees are feeding them by way of religious ideology. But this does not seem to be the case in John 6. In fact, the Jews specifically question the doctrine of "eating the very flesh of Christ". Note that in Matthew 16 the disciples are taking the "bread" reference literally and Jesus corrects them, explaining it to be a symbolic thing. This is obvious in the wording of verse 12. This is not so in John 6. Upon the questioning of eating the flesh in the very literal sense, Jesus DOES NOT correct them and explain the symbolic nature, but, instead reinforces the literalness of what he said by repeating it four times. Afterward, it does not state that the Jews understood the symbology, but that IN FACT many left and never followed Jesus again. This only reiterates the absolute extremity of what Jesus was trying to convey to His followers. I think that you have used an obviously symbolic reference to downplay a literal reference that you have not explained. Not everything Jesus said was symbolic. Not everything He said was literal. But we need to be able to understand the difference. Sometimes it's difficult, and sometimes it's not. I, for one, do not believe that the communion service is symbolic. What's so hard to believe that so many would just up and walk away from Christ? Wouldn't it be harder to continue in a faith that required the literalness of the communion rather than the symbology?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This issue of their offense has come up in the Calvinistic debate on the same passage. The Christ-rejecting Israelites (including those falsely following Him) were being hardened or further blinded; hence Christ's statement about speaking in parables so they would not understand. That's why He didn't explain it to them, and they didn't understand and left. IT does not prove Catholic doctrine, which is not expounded as such to the disciples who did continue following Him.
As one person pointed out: In John 6, Jesus has already explained what He means by the 'flesh and blood' -- and the comment about the flesh profiting nothing simply wraps it up. "Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry and he who believes in me will never be thirsty."(John 6:35) Bible explains Bible. Jesus explains exactly what He is about to talk about. You will also notice that when Jesus is talking to Nicodemus in John 3, Jesus is very calm. That's because Nicodemus honestly wants to know. However in John 6, the attitude of the crowd is different. They are grumbling and challenging -- they liked the food they were fed earlier in the chapter, but this business about believing in Jesus "whose father and mother we know" -- that's pushing it just a bit too far!
And so rather than honestly questioning Him, they simply argue among themselves (v.52).
So Jesus responds to them in a very Jewish way, turning their arguments on their ears. It has nothing to do with eating His actual flesh or drinking His actual blood!
As for Christ's original statement in the Gospels, looking at a literal translation, would be: "Then taking a loaf having given thanks, He broke (it) then gave to them saying: This the body of mine is for you being given; unto my memory do (eat) ye!" The reference clearly is not to the bread as the body of Christ; but to the body of Christ Himself being broken for the disciples; eating the bread, they should remeber that!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Compare this to Ignatius who called the Eucharist the "medicine of immortality" (Epistle to the Ephesians) and to John 6:54: "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and I will raise Him up on the last day."
In other words, the fathers didn't the deny the earthly (as did the Docetists and Gnostics) but affirmed both the earthly and heavenly, which was consistent with their view of the Incarnation--Christ having both an eartly and heavenly reality.
From Irenaeus (speaking of the Gnostics):
"Again how can they say that flesh passes to corruption and does not share in life, seeing that flesh is nourished by the Body and Blood of the Lord? Let them either change their opinion, or refrain from making those oblations of which we have been speaking. But our opinion is in conformity with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist confirms our opinion. We offer to Him what is His own, suitably proclaiming the unity of flesh and spirit. For as the bread, which comes from the earth, receives the invocation of God, and then it is no longer common bread but Eucharist, consists of two things the earthly and a heavenly; so our bodies, after the partaking of the Eucharist , are no longer corruptible, having the hope of eternal resurrection." (Against Heresies IV:18:5)
The fathers maintained both the earthly reality (the bread and the wine) and the heavenly (the Body and Blood of Christ) of the Eucharist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Still, what we are arguing here is not whether people are symbolically partaking of Christ, but rather some literal "transubstantiation". (As the RCC considers it). If you understand something completely "spiritual", then you will realize there is no need to say the bread and wine actually turns into flesh and blood in order to partake of this spiritual communion. Notice; BOTH "heavenly" AND "earthly", still; "no longer common bread". Not heavenly only, which we would expect if he was saying it actually transformed into something else, and was in fact, no longer bread and wine at all! That shows a spiritual representation. Your position is half-spiritual, half-fleshy, as you in essence are the one to deny that there is any spiritual reality apart from a physical reality. So you teach it must actually "change". But that is not how the New Testament or even the early fathers, apparently, saw it. As Paul said, "you do show(Gk. "proclaim"; "promulgate" —declare, preach, speak of, teach) The Lord's Death (NOT actually, physically recreate!)
------------------------------------------------------------------
He multiplied the bread and the fish, didn't He? Who are we to say that He can't communicate his divine-human life to His church in the form of bread and wine? It's called the "communion of His body and blood" for a reason.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once again, you are comparing something that does not match what we are discussing. "multiplying" bread and fish WAS a physical supernatral miracle. The communion was not said to be such, but was rather spiritual. That's the difference. Just as we do not commonly see miracles today, this dispensation, God is focusing on spiritual change, rather than physical. Not saying "physical" is bad, but rather quite the opposite; the "spiritual" area is where our problem lies (contrary to docetic style dualism, which says the physical is the problem), so this is what God deals in now. Today, He communicates his divine-human life to His church through the Spirit (2 Cor.13:14, Phil.2:1), through whom we are first baptized into the Body(1 Cor.12:13), and as two or three (or more) are gathered (which usually includes a meal), He is there. Your tradition gets hung up on the physical emblems of both of these ordinances, and this is precisely the type of focus God has always been trying to move people away from.
Nobody argued about "symbolic" versus "transubstantiation" or whatever the EOC calls the "change" of the elements. Any "real presence" was understood as spiritual, not actually physically changing the bread and wine. From what has been shown, the earliest fathers still seemed to understand it pretty much like the Apostles, but began phrasing it a bit differently. This could easily be misunderstood as time went on, and then eventually, people would conclude that it was some metaphysical "change". It would not appear as heresy, because it was a matter of slight changes in expressing it over the centuries.
Regarding what Ignatius condemned, that would be a denial that there was any spiritual significance at all of the communion. People who were so dead set against the physical world would deny that Christ could be represented by any physical item at all. So the Docetists were NOT teaching the Protestant doctrine of a symbol. The argument there was not whether the bread and wine physically transmuted into flesh and blood, or was only a symbolic metaphor. It was whether Christ was "present" at all. (Remember, Christ is present through the spirit witout some physical item to "reside" in; other than our own "temples", of course.
And Paul said that Hagar IS Mt. Sinai, and of course, he also said this was an allegory (Gal.4), but this gives you an idea that just because someone uses the word "IS", rather than "like" or "represents", does not mean that it literally "is" that thing. Also, all of the symbols in prophecy (Rev. etc) So you are overgeneralizing it by comparing it to the incarnation. But the Bible tells us that in Christ, "God was manifest in the flesh", and this is called a "mystery" (even moreso than a concept of "threeness" as the later Church emphasized). But it doesn't say that God (Christ) was "manifest" IN the bread. That is reading too much into it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to your representation theory, unworthy communicants are guilty only of consuming a symbol of the body and blood of the Lord. And they eat and drink damnation not discerning a symbol of the Lord's body. So the number of texts you must alter to accomodate your innovative theory is multiplied.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's not true. Just like I said above, you are looking at there being no spiritual reality without a "physical" reality in the bread. They are guilty because they are violating a solemn spiritual communion (taking what it represents lightly). This says nothing about the food actually becomingthe literal body and blood. And note how that is a meal people could be "filled" off of, not the flat wafers and little vials as used in the churches).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul does not reject the presence of Jesus' body and blood. He first affirms the words of Christ and then acknowledges that unworthy participation is profain the body and blood of Christ. Such a warning would not be given if they were not present. He also affirms the presence of body and blood when he states, "The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" 1 Corinthians 10:16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even though "participation" is one of the meanings that can be translated into the Greek word here, it is not "participation" the way you are thinking of it. The actual word is koinonia (2842; from 2839 koinos "common")and also means partnership or (social) intercourse or pecuniary benefaction and is also translated elsewhere as "communication", "distribution", "fellowship". The context of 1 Cor 10 is Paul's instruction to flee from idolatry, because whoever gets involved with it is partaking of the devils of pagan religion worship. He is not saying there is some "real presence" of the devils in the objects, (though that is often what [ironically, anti-Catholic] Jack Chick and other radical "spiritual warfare" types claim, with all sorts of descriptions of demons "clinging onto" things, as if these were physical space-bound beings; and use this notion against Catholicism, rhythmic music, bad emotions and whatever else they are trying to demonize). You are spiritually partaking of their altar (worship)(v.18), and thus fellowshipping with them (v.20).
So he starts with an example of how this works, with first, the Communion, and then the sacrifices of OC Israel. Again, there is no claim of any "real presence" of God IN the food in the OT practice. It is a sign of spiritual allegiance to the true God or false gods by participating (in social religious intercourse) with a group of people worshipping whichever God.
So what he is saying there is the bread we break and cup we bless (and eat/drink TOGETHER) is the partnership with Christ, whose body and blood we use bread and wine to represent. It is a sign (of allegiance; baptism also), not a claim of anything happening to the food, either "literally", or "invisibly".
He later goes on to point out that people's gluttony of it (which is the only "unworthy manner" in the context) violates this unity, and thus disrespects the meaning of the solemn meal. (Which is why you do not need a concept of a "real presence" in order for it to be profaned, and Paul's words to have meaning).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is ample precedent in the Church Catholic for the use of phrases that are not in bible in order to refute errorists (e.g., the Trinity, the two natures of Christ, Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, etc.). "In, with, and under" refutes those who say they agree with Paul, "the bread that we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" but deny his words. For example, the papists teach that the bread is not present; the Calvinists that the Body is not present; and the consubstantionists that the bread and the Body form some sort of mixture. But scripture, the early fathers, and the Lutheran Church all teach the sacramental union of the body and Blood of Christ in, with, and under the bread and wine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So both the body and the bread are there. Is that supposed to be some "plurality in unity" like the Trinity? I would say that was overgeneralization. But just like that doctrine, because the Bible does not lay it out as a formula, yet some misunderstand and formulate a wrong doctrine, and read it into the scriptures; then the so-called "orthodox" come with a counter-formula, sculpted around the false theories, and read it into the Bible under the premise of "clarifying" it. By this time we have gotten far away from any real Biblical statement, without any preconceived interpretation on it. But it doesn't have to be in the Bible; it is just clarifying what it does teach in opposition to that error over there. I think we need to get back to what the Bible says alone, and realize that much of what we think it says is also our own interpretation.
Once again, Paul repeated Christ verbatim, and if you read the rest of the verse, it is "this is my body, which is broken for you...[now it does not end here]...this do in remembrance of Me." Paul then adds "For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you do show the Lord's death until He come". Nothing about recreating it; no new "homoousion" of the body and bread. And for that reason, anyone who partakes of it to fill themselves is "guilty of (liable to) the body and blood of the Lord", and "not discerning ("separating thoroughly"; not respecting as "set apart" or sacred) the Lord's body" i.e. the "real" one which walked the earth and was actually "broken" for us. The ceremony is to remind us of this solemn event, and to take it lightly dishonors Christ. Nothing other than that is said.
I was aware that I seemed to be totally dismissing any visible elements. (in the way gnosticism puts down physical existence). But still; in the true spiritual fulfillments; they would not be the center of the worship experience. They would not have some divine powers in themselves. This is what Church practice had done. God is a spirit, and does not reside in temples or anything else made by hands. To miss this point IS to rehash the OT and paganism and gnosticism in a new flavor; and is no "fulfillment" of anything (except prophecies of "falling away"). Christ was physical; but when He left; it was the Spirit that took His place and continued His presence on earth until His return. Not new physical manifestations. No other "mediators" either! To have such is to have partners besides God; which is precisely what Jews and Muslims; reacting to these "traditions" accuse Christianity of; even though in reality it is not. So the "new forms instituted by Christ and His apostles" were symbols by which we do show spiritual truths; not actually recreate them.
And notice, the "unworthy manner" was NOT "not having all your sins confessed", and all the other assumptions both Catholist and Protestant alike make. It was certainly not something like DROPPING it accidentally, with liturical churches treating the elements like it actually was the body of baby Jeesus or something. It was gluttony, which means, among other things, that this was not some special little crackers or wafers and tiny vials of wine, but a MEAL, and gathering to eat was a very important part of spiritual fellowship, hence "participation in" the body (even in the world, dinners and banquets are the centers or even mark special occasion!) So such gluttony would be seen as such a serious offense to the BODY of the Lord.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Though not discounting the fact that we must present ourselves as living sacrifices (in view of God's mercy), the Eucharist (the bread and cup), being the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, is the participation in and re-presentation of Christ's unique sacrifice on the cross. This is the commmon belief of Chrisitians for the first millenium-and-a-half.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, but our "sacrifice" (death of "old man" and rebirth of new man) is what is made the re-presentation of Christ's sacrifice. Why do you think we are instructed in terms of "take up our Cross"? Once again, after a whole Milennium and a half, the Church largely became a cultural/sentimantal element, that did not change most people's lives anymore, because these principles became focused on lifeless physical elements, and not the life-changing power of God in our lives.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cross of Christ and the blood He spilt were inanimate objects! This ignores the numerous Scriptures in which God uses physical events and objects to effect not only physical but spiritual healing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't venerate crosses, and none of us claims to have any of His actual spilled blood preserved anywhere in order to make such an idol of it. The Cross and blood are legal concepts that purchase our spiritual salvation. The physical objects themselves did not do anything for anyone. Before anyone, even some Baptists and others, flips over this, just think of it this way. The other thief on the Cross, the one who mocked and did not repent, could very well have gotten some of Christ's blood on him. But that would not save him. This "blood" is applied spiritually, not physically. The physical application of blood (on the doorposts in Egypt) was the type.
So for Churches to make virtual idols out of all of these other things: the Cross, or supposed pieces of it they think they have, or a claim to have a vial of His original blood preserved, or the cup He drank out of, or the shroud he was buried in, as well as bread, wine and baptismal water; is all apart of the shift from the Spirit as the center of things of the Spirit to material items, and this is what promotes the nominalism where people think they are saved by the Church through these items, no matter their actual relationship to Christ.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
A contrast is made between the believers' communion and idol worship, and communion with demons. Unless it is possible to eat and drink the bodies and blood of demons, then there is no reason to think that the communion of bread and wine for believers is literal. The contrast holds because both are symbolic.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just because God could "take on matter" in the Man Jesus Christ, that is a far cry from taking on matter AGAIN, as bread and wine. One is a living man, the other inanimate food. One is the reality; the other representation (and if you deny at least "representation" of Christ, then you are making it altogether a separate "christ", equal with the one who was man). God's Spirit is never said to reside in such matter; and no, not the Cross, nor the blood spilled on the ground either.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Of course, Christ wasn't ultimately speaking in the crassly carnal cannibalistic sense that the Jews may have thought. He said His words were "spirit"...but this doesn't mean that His words were "symbol and metaphor" (ie God and angels are "spirit" but they certainly aren't mere metaphor or symbol). He was quite clear that there was to be a literal eating and that His flesh and blood--the same He was giving for the life of the world--were literally food an drink. Had the Jews stuck around they would have learned that Christ was literally communicating the divine-humanity of His flesh and blood in the forms of bread and wine that the disciples were to literally eat and drink.
In the Eucharist, we literally eat (physically) the bread and wine which is the literal communion (spiritually and ultimately physically as well, in view of the resurrection of the body) with the Body and Blood of Christ which is thus literal (spiritual/physical) "food indeed" and drink indeed".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now you make it sound like there is some parallel "spirit bread and wine" next to the physical elements. But Spirit is not confined to physical space. If we are eating invisible spiritual flesh and blood, then you might as well say that the bread and wine and "eating" are symbols of the invisible reality. (This I could basically go along with. At least it is not the RCC view, which seems to insist on some real "change"). The Incarnation is similar, but not an exact comparison. There was no divine "spirit Jesus" next to the visible man. The humanity and deity were combined in one Person, and the humanity of course was seen in the physical world in the body.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But of course Paul is not saying that, but rather:
The Greek word for "communion" here also has the primary meaning "participation in". Keeping that in mind, if Paul meant what you think, he would have said: "this gathering to eat of the bread, is it not the communion of believers?... and this gathering to drink of the cup, is it not also the communion of believers".
"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" (1 Cor 10:16). You err in limiting the expression "body of Christ" to the gathering of believers, especially when Christ Himself said of the bread: "Take, eat, this is my body which is broken for you." (1 Cor 11:24) So you are ignoring the context since Paul calls the bread the communion of Christ's Body in 10:16 and he recalls Christ saying the same thing--that the bread was His body--in 11:24. Therefore, clearly Paul and Jesus both meant more than communion just being the mere fact of a Christian gathering.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, but the people themselves were the body! I guess eating was so important, because you are taking something into your body--into yourself, and sharing the same substance, so it points to oneness. As I point out on Defense of the Faith when addressing why we keep practices such as communion, eating together is a significant thing, even in the world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are several examples of God using material means to communicate with His people, including the quintessential example of the Incarnation, in which God the Word permanently became Man while remaining God. Christ ordained the material forms of bread and wine as the means of communion with His Incarnate body and blood which He gave for us on Calvary. I'm not sure how many other ways I can repeat this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But that is overgeneralizing those things. In studying God's dealings with the world, we see that all of those physical manifestations ceased with the final manifestation of the Logos as Christ. Now, we are in the dispensation of the Spirit, where God reveals Himself to us through the Spirit in us. I never argued that God couldn't be manifest visibly. He just does not choose to do it now, because the New Testament (after Christ) is about the Spirit, and the Old Covenant was "fleshy", and more physical/visible oriented (the whole lesson is that that did not solve man's problem of sin). Now, you may try to liken this to gnosticism, but the problem with that ideology, is not a distinction between spirit and flesh altogether, but that they go to an opposite extreme and overgeneralize it to making matter evil. Nothing I have said suggests any such thing. One would only arrived at that conclusion by overgeneralizing any distinction between physical and spiritual with any supremacy of the spiritual. It's not that matter is evil, but that God is a spirit, and to come into the truest contact with Him must be in the spiritual realm. What you are describing now is a spiritual reality, but you are still trying to attach some physical element as crucial to it, and using the past "physical manifestations" as examples, but they are not examples; only types. (Even the incarnation can be viewed as such in a way. God is now "incarnate" in us; still "physically manifest", but no longer external. It's people in the world who insist on visible signs of God (beyond the design in Creation), and don't realize that this never gave men more faith.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This was not to dispense with the visible/physical by any means, but was rather to redeem it. Therefore, to suggest that we are not to use visible means to attest to this truth or that God "doesn't choose" to use visible means to convey His Incarnational reality to us, but that rather the visible/physical was done away with (once Christ ascended) and is still (by the mere fact of it being visible/physical) irredeemably "fleshy", falls back into quasi-gnosticism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's not true. It is not a total shunning of physical matter as if evil. As I have always said, just like in areas such as sexuality (which "catholic" churches led the way in making evil, based on gnostic influence, showing it was not free of such, though I don't know if the East was always as bad as the [Augustinian] West), the sin lies not in physical matter, but in man's soul. (Quite a reversal of the gnostic belief!) He tends to idolize physical things. God gave Israel a bunch of physical things in their worship, and we see where that went. So in this age; God focuses on the spirit. That is all that is really needed right now; not necessarily all that is "good".
The biblical bases of those practices are not biblical at all. The only argument in favor of images was that Christ came down incarnate. The Apostolic Fathers were no even attempted to be mentioned for this one!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The saints in heaven, including the Theotokos, who have been perfected in Christ are honored with the respect (to a lesser degree) paid to their icons. This is not an excuse, but is the glorious implication of the Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection of Christ who is our salvation, Who rescues us from the "letter of the law" since the letter kills but the Spirit gives life. We are to serve in the newness of the Spirit, not in the oldness of the letter (Romans 7:6). That's why I wouldn't be too quick to lump venerating the icons of Christ and His saints with the bowing down before the graven images of false gods simply in your zeal to keep "the letter".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By what basis does the physical facts of Christ revoke the command against images? What does one have to do with the other--the one Son of God walking the earth have to do with a picture someone draws (centuries later, or were those passed all the way down too?) of a saint or Mary? We cannot just jump one thing over to something else like that. You can appeal to tradition, but then there must be some way to test this tradition (and NOT with ITSELF!) and see how it possibly is even consistent with scripture, and what you've suggested sounds like just as much as a retrospective attempt to justify it as anything we "1500AD" Christians say.
The spirit of the second commandment is that ANYTHING we put before God becomes an idol (whether visible/tangible or not). This does not free us now to literally bow down to objects; but instead further implicates that practice. People bow to these things; cross their chests in front of churches, put ash on their foreheads; etc. and think nothing of really obeying God; even the commandments that the Church does emphasize like monogamy and other moral issues, hatred, etc. These are idols that have in effect taken the place of the true God. The people keeping "the letter" in the sense you are talking about, would be the Jews who felt that they were alright because they did not literally bow down to anything. But they had their agenda (of what God shoul do; of what Messiah should be, all centered around their righteousness); which caused them to reject Christ; and that was definitely an "idol". And yes; many of us who condemn the Catholics for literal idolatry need to watch out as well. Many do have a similar moral/cultural agenda that becomes an idol. But still; in no case does literal bowing to things become OK now. God is still invisible; and Christ has now gone back to Heaven, and the "incarnation" in this age is now the [invisible] Spirit in us, the new "temples" of God!
Of more significant note, is the admission, from the page http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/medny/evans/icons.html:
It was during the sixth century that the icon became an essential part of Byzantine art and Christianity, and devotion to icons was further increased through stories telling of the miracles they performed. However, many believed that the people who used icons were idolaters, worshipping earthly images rather than the divine things which they represent, and so the Byzantine Empire adopted a policy of iconoclasm in 726 C E. As a result, many religious works were destroyed. The devastating loss of these icons prompted religious thinkers like John Damascene to formulate theories in defense of the sacred icons. His theory, which reflects Neoplatonic thought and the idea that matter is redeemed through the Incarnation of Christ, was extremely influential in bringing about the restoration of holy images in 843 CE. Following this early controversy, the Eastern church developed one of its core doctrines which is still in practice today. The Orthodox believe that icons make the divine present, and that through the veneration of icons, it is possible for one to share in the kingdom of God.
So rather then some "tradition" pased down from the apostles, icons and the philosophy undergirding them are clearly shown to have been devised centuries later!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But people did a lot of bowing down in the Temple which contained many "graven images" made at the command of God which the Israelites treated with high honor because of what they represented. Images of Cherubim were commanded to be made in the tabernacle and then the temple. In fact the temple had images of oxen, lions, and cherubim (I Kings 1:28-29). Moses even made an image of a bronze serpent in the wilderness so that people would look at it an live (Num 21:9). So to say that images were strictly forbidden is incorrect, and therefore your conclusion that only "aberrant sects" would have images in their synagogues is likewise incorrect.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One thing you must understand about the Jews is the regulative principle. This has been debated with the Campbellists and Primitive Baptists, regarding intruments in Church. While I do not agree that this carries over today in the way these groups insist, still, to the Jews, the only things that were authorized were those things God specifically permitted, and anything else was autmomatically forbidden. People could not just improvise and take it upon themselves to go and make any other kind of image. So if God told them to make images of those things, they would, but any other image was strictly forbidden, as per their understanding of the second commandment. So any group that would make any image of anything other than those temple items, in the Temple only was obviouly an aberrant sect.
And once again; the Spirit of the Law means it becomes all the more restrictive. While they were not actualy bowing TO things, there was still a lot of focus on visible items for worship. You could also add the brazen serpent they were required to look on to be healed (Kind of suprising to me that God would order this; when you would expect that more from pagans). But here is where I would agree with Calvin, Chrysostom and others about the "puerile instruction of the Law". God allowed things like that because they were the carnal, unspiritual nation, and what He was doing was in preparation for the New Covenant of the Spirit anyway. Just like there were visible appearances of God back then too; but after Christ, there are none. We live through the Spirit, by faith today. Visible things were apart of that very "letter" you are talking about. They were only shadows of spiritual realities. What the liturgical churches have done is take us right back to the OT; only changing the weekly and annual days of worship; confident that THOSE are what distinguishes them from the Old covenant. But everything else is quite OT; even down to the use of "priests", and claims of supernatural rituals. The Eastern Church even copies the garb and beards of the Israelites.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Revelation 8:3-4
"Another angel came and stood at the altar, 3 holding a gold censer. He was given a great quantity of incense to offer, along with the prayers of all the holy ones, on the gold altar that was before the throne. 4 The smoke of the incense along with the prayers of the holy ones went up before God from the hand of the angel."
Exodus 25:6
"olive oil for the light; spices for the anointing oil and for the fragrant incense;"
Exodus 30:35
"and make a fragrant blend of incense, the work of a perfumer. It is to be salted and pure and sacred."
We see in the Bible and this is why the RCC and EOC use them:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The latter examples are OT; and the former is heavenly scenes in Revelation; that are most likely symbolic. 5:8 says that the golden bowls of incense are prayers of saints. The OT practice therefore is a shadow of the spiritual reality.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- However the only mention of those who denied the Real Presence is by Ignatius of the Docetists who denied the doctrine since it was inconsistent with their erroneous belief that Christ did not become a physical human being. Indeed, denial of the Real Presence was (and is) certainly more characteristic of Docetists and Gnostics who opposed matter to spirit than it was of those who confessed that the Divine Word became physical man in space and time for our salvation.
Memorialists use those same arguments that people use to interpret miracles--which took place physically in time and space--in a "spiritual" sense. For instance, that Christ really didn't physically rise from the dead, but only did so "spiritually". This is a tragic consequence of some philosophical movements beginning at the time of the Reformation (but that actually resemble a quasi-Gnosticism--matter, "bad"; spirit, "good") which have led to a radical dichotomy between spirit and matter in the minds of many Christians and to a practical deism. The fact of the Incarnation should debunk such a radical distinction. Christ became a physical man, born of a physical woman, who suffered and died on a physical cross and shed physical blood before physically rising from the grave and ascending physically into heaven. This He did to accomplish our spiritual and physical salvation, because at the resurrection we will have physical, though transfigured, bodies. No, the early Christians had the more balanced understanding of matter (as opposed to the Gnostics) based on their understanding of who Christ is, and this understanding was certainly the biblical one. They didn't see matter (water, bread or wine) as ends in themselves, but as means of union with the Incarnate Christ as ordained by Christ Himself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not making matter bad, and have argued elsewhere against those who do. It's putting "matter" in its proper perspective. I did not say the elements were to be done away with because it was spiritual. But your side does in practice make idols out of them (gives them some mystical or saving power IN THEMSELVES). Sorry, but you cannot compare this to the incarnation and resurrection. In fact, it's your position that is closely related to what you have described: "Jesus' body looks like flesh; but it is really something else". That's what the Docetists and other monophysites said. So likewise, they would have to deny that the bread and wine were really bread and wine. This in fact, is probably one source of the doctrine, and though the fathers may have opposed those groups, they still were a bit unwittingly influenced or compromised with them.
So it has to be an invisible body; because even the NT began warning of corrupt leaders coming in and taking over, and if you rely on them, denying that they are fallen men, and they become above scriptural examination. How then could error be stopped then? No wonder they kept adding more doctrines, and not many challenged it. That is such a dangerous position. And the fact that there are people today who have restored more and more of the truth shows that untimately, the gates of Hell did not "prevail" against the Church. Whether or not it was a visible organization all that time.
The postapostolic fathers received the apostles teaching, but put their own spin on it. Then the later leaders take that and put further their own spin on it. In a few centuries, you have this huge monstrosity of an organization filled with pagan ritual, infallibility of its leaders, that Eucharist of "flesh and blood" becomes a new "sacrifice" being done over and over (Christ said His work was "finished"), and the exaltation of Mary. This is why people today try to cut this off at the source and go completely back to the Bible, and though they may not agree completely among themselves, still that does not justify the "catholic" churches' practice.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our side is more consistent and doesn't deny (in practice) the miraculous. It takes Christ at this words, through the eyes of faith.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And adds your own spin to it, as we have seen.
Anyone can use that "Faith" line. Calvinists use it, when people question their doctrine, and so do the faith healers today. Appealing to "faith not sight" is a common tactic of the very Protestants you deride, in other areas. Anytime something is questioned that cannot be substantiated, that's what is thrown out. Our "faith, not sight" is in the divine, died-and-rose-again Christ directly, not in any other supernatural claim people come up with. Faith is only good when it is faith in what has been revealed to us in God's Word; not what centuries of changing Church tradition says.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is amazing is that Christians who could believe in a Trinity that defies all human explanation; in a that God created the world out of nothing; in a virgin birth; in a resurrection from the dead after three days; and all the miracles found in the Bible, suddenly become skeptics and demand a scientific explanation when the Lord says, "this is my body, this is my blood." Let me just say that there are just some truths which God in his own wisdom chooses not to explain to us. Moreover, it is in seeking an explanation for those things that God has chosen not to explain that we sometimes fall into error. For instance, in trying to explain predestination John Calvin and Jacobus Arminius gave us mutually exclusive doctrines that divide the church to this very day. The same would be true regarding human explanations of the bread and wine, body and blood at the Lord's Supper. If Jesus Himself says "this is my body, this is my blood" then that should be explanation enough.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is basically an "intellectual suicide" arguments like the Church always used on "scientific skeptics" or "unbelievers" when it insisted on docteines such as the world being flat. Again, these other "supernatural" events, (changes in physical matter) you could actually see the change; like the Creation, Virgin Birth, raising the dead, and all the other miracles. Then there are spiritual realities such as the doctrines about God (Trinity, grace, indwelling of the Holy Spirit, etc), in which there is no change in any matter, because it is spiritual. What your doctrine has done is confuse the two types of "supernaturalism", so you get these physical elements that "change", but there is no physical difference in them, so you have to conclude some "spiritual; presence" in them, (and have to conclude that as "another one of those reason-defying 'supernatural' events" even though it is neither physical nor match any other spiritual event). God's Spirit is always described as indwelling people, not things. It's us who sinned and needed to be regenerated, not food.
Also, if there is no change, and only a "presence" IN; then actually, the Orthodox position is taking the "this is my Body" the same basic way as the "memorialist" position!
-------------------------------------------------------------------
the Realist position is not "intellectual suicide". But to disregard Christ's own words of "this is my body, this is my blood" is intellectually dishonest since all other explanations do not do justice to the plain and natural meaning and understanding of these words.
There will always be those who will resist truths they do not understand. That is just the nature of things. And even though this matter of the Real Presence is not an essential doctrine that effects one's salvation, I still prefer to take Christ at his word. After all, it seems to me that if Jesus had intented to convey a memorial meaning he could have just as easily said, "this represents my body, this represents my blood."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
He did say "Do this in reMEMbrance of Me". And again, if there is no change in the elements, then eating the bread and wine is not really eating the flesh and blood, which are from what I understand, some separate "spiritual" material eaten with the food.
But "just take it literally" is in this case itself an interpretation of what could be a metaphor. Especially, since the elements are not literally flesh and blood. When you understand that God's "presence" is in the believers, especially when two or three come together, forming the spiritual "Body"; then it becomes clear what the true "spiritual mystery" is (Christ in US), and yes, this is spiritually discerned, and can be misunderstood. The problem is, that catholic fathers did try to explain it (such as the "change" at consecration, etc), and went too far, and made it into something it wasn't, and THEN had to quell "understanding" when the resulting theory made no sense. The difference between east and west on this, is that the East, once again, drew a line, while the West continued to try to define it.
Thus, the Church has often overdid the concept of "mystery", and used it to get out of tight spots like that, that resulted usually from going beyond scriptural bounds in teaching.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- Somewhat similarly with the Eucharist, the bread and wine are empirically bread and wine. Not counting stories of possible Eucharistic miracles, if one were to look at the consecreted bread and wine under a microscope one would see...bread and wine. However, there is no a priori reason to suppose that the bread and wine couldn't possibly have another spiritual reality in addition to the empirical one--namely the true participation in the body and blood of Christ by the believer. Of course, the difference in the Incarnation is that it happened once in history and was the Divine Person of the Son of God taking on real empiric humanity (while also remaining Himself divine), while in the Eucharist Christ takes empirical bread and wine and spiritually (not simply 'symbolically') makes it His body and blood (while remaining empirical bread and wine). The point is, the Incarnation itself shows us there is no hard and fast distinction between one 'supernaturalism' which involves 'spiritual' truth and another 'supernaturalism' which involves only matter, since the material miracle of the Virgin conception and birth brought God Himself into intimate connection with matter without causing Himself empirically detected within the matter He assumed.
So which category of "supernaturalism" would the INCARNATION fall into? The latter? For empirically Jesus of Nazareth was a man. However, we believe that He is from eternity GOD, and then became man at a specific point in time. In becoming man, he didn't assume a man who had a separate subsistence in his own right, but He--the Divine PERSON--assumed humanity and made it HIS OWN. Yet, looking at the historical human Jesus of Nazareth (ie if we were to somehow put Him under a microscope) we wouldn't be able to tell that He's any different from any other human being. So while empirically Jesus certainly is a human, the truth is more complex than that--He is the eternal Divine Logos who assumed real humanity in becoming the man Jesus in history without ceasing to be God. This is a profound spiritual truth yet it supernaturally entails an intimate incomprehensible involvement of the Divine with His material creation--physical flesh and blood, etc--without empirically changing the nature of the matter involved (except perhaps at the Resurrection).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But again, this embodiment is still in a PERSON; not just an inanimate THING. Since all "persons" inhabit bodies, then this divine person would be no different in that respect. And the flesh in itself is not said to be divine, as it bled and died like anyone else. (Though I have seen Catholists, including even the Lutherans argue otherwise, with such potentially confusing statements such as "the blood of God", "the death of God", and even this whole thing about Christ being supernaturally born without even opening up the birth canal and all that; which strikes right at His true humanity!)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking at the miracles of the feeding of the 5000 and the changing of the water-into-wine, we can admit that these aren't strictly analogous to presence of Christ's body and blood in the bread and wine of Communion since there is no empirical change detected in the bread or the wine. However, these miracles are helpful to illustrate the power of the One, who is from eternity God but is time empirically man, to communicate (indeed "multiply") Himself to us in the forms of the empirical bread and wine should He so choose. Jesus as God-become-man is certainly able to so involve Himself with the elements of bread and wine that they become in a spiritual (but not empty 'symbolic') way His very Body and Blood, just as He so identifies the bread and wine in the Gospel narratives.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would agree with "spiritual presence", but then again, the spiritual presence is in US already, and there is no need to make anything else of it. If it is a spiritual presence IN the bread and wine, then not only is there no change in the elements, but there is no flesh and blood at all (because those are PHYSICAL substances, in contrast with "spirit"), and you might as well just go on and say that the elements themselves are symbols, with the Spirit "entering" us as the food enters us, or something like that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ And regarding Solomon's Temple: So, we have a clear Biblical statements that God fills physical inanimate objects such as tabernacles and temples, and that He is actually said to dwell in objects such as clouds and temples. This seems to be the straightforward reading of these passages, unless one asserts despite such realistic language that:
(1)There is no real connection between the cloud and the glory of the Lord
(2)That there is no special presence involved in God's shekinah glory filling the tabernacle or temple.
(3)That the "cloud" is simply a non-physical metaphor for God's glory (despite the fact that this non-physcial entity would somehow physically preclude Mose and the priests from entering the tabernacle and the temple respectively.)
So if one concedes that, yes, God can (and did) have a special presence in specific locales (temples/tabernacles) by dwelling in physical non-human objects (clouds) while remaining omnipresent, there is no logical reason that Christ cannot in a sense do likewise with other physcial non-human objects (bread/wine)--unless one wants to beg the question.
“The cloud covered the Tabernacle of meeting and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. And Moses was not able to enter the tabernacle of meeting because the cloud rested above it and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle.” (Exodus 40:34-35)
(The Tabernacle is a physcial "thing", is it not?)
"And it came to pass, when the priests came out of the holy place, that the cloud filled the house of the Lord, so that the priests could not continue ministering because of the cloud; for the glory of the LORD filled the house of the LORD. Then Solomon spoke: 'The LORD said He would dwell in the dark cloud. I have surely built You and exalted house, and a place for You to dwell forever.'" (1 Kings 8:10-13)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And in those cases, God had some sort of visible manifestation inhabit a physical object. But then the physical item itself was not then said to "BECOME" God's body, but rather; God continued to say that man had still never seen any real "form" of God (Deuteronomy 4:12, 15-16). And there was still some empirical difference in the object: the light and sound from the cloud or mountaintop, the bush not burning up; priests getting struck down for entering the holiest of holies in the Temple wrong, etc.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't believe anyone has demonstrated that God cannot use physical objects (even "food") to convey spiritual benefits, given the fact that it's all HIS creation--physical matter and spirit--and He can do what He wants to with it. The fact is that God has already brought spiritual benefits through the use of physical means by bringing spiritual (and, at the Eschaton, physical) salvation to mankind through the physical Incarnation, physical Death (on a physical cross with physical nails, shedding physical blood), and physical Resurrection of His Son. Lest, one think that after Christ's Ascension that God now only deals with us spiritually, we need to remember that ultimately we're going to continue to be physical-spiritual entities (with real physically resurrected bodies like Christ's) and not become a bunch of disembodied spirits (which would be the hope and dream of gnostics). That being the case, there is no a priori reason that Christ can't spiritually convey the benefits of His physcial/spiritual Atonement through the physical means of bread, wine, and water to His people.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So-called "Memorialism" could agree with a "spiritual benefit" being "conveyed" through bread, wine and water. In that case, the elements have no change, or power in thelselves, but are being used to "convey" something else; which in its definitions (To transport; to carry; to take from one place to another. To communicate; to make known. (law) To transfer legal rights [to].) This is compatible with symbolism. (i.e. You can transport an actual item, or "make it known" through a representation of it). The difference would be in he belief that the "benefit of atonement" being conveyed through these things is not salvation itself (in which case, not matter how much you do them, you are not finally saved). The benefit of atonement is in Him dwelling us; imparting his Life spiritually through us (by which we are saved, and not the works of our hands), and baptism and communion are representations of that reality that "convey" its truth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
So once some a priori philosophical/theological objections are dealt with, one can then turn to the texts themselves and see if grammatically and in context the Scripture writers do in fact teach a real connection/identification between the bread and wine with the actual body and blood of Christ--with the former not being empty metaphors, but truly making present the thing signified. I believe the case has been well made by many people for this real connection through out the posts on this thread.
------------------------------------------
Again, since your "supernatural" concept matches up with no other supernatural event in the Bible, yet we are taught about the Church being Christ's body, and Him dwelling in us, there would be no reason to read anything else into that, except a desire to read mysticism into the Bible, as was present in the postapostolic period.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- And Christ also teaches that the BREAD--the bread that He literally broke at the Last Supper--is His body. It's not a matter of either the Church or the Bread being Christ's body. The Scriptures affirm BOTH.
So, by that logic we should reject the "supernatual" concept of the Incarnation since it matches up with no other supernatural event in the Bible. There is only one instance of a Hypostatic Union between God-Man alluded to in the Scriptures--it is unique. There is nothing else like it, so I guess we need to come up with another explanation since the concept of the Incarnation (Hypostatic Union) is not valid by your criteria for "supernatural concepts....
--------------------------------
Again, as I mentioned above, what I was trying to address was the fact that it is claiming the bread and wine ARE the body, but since it doesn't change, it is really a "spiritual presence". This "presence" does not match neither the Incarnation, nor the glory cloud and other Theophanies used to try to illustrate it. I hate to say it, but this is just an abstraction, and the type of argument Paul tells us to ignore; being fruitless.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
We just leave that up to God. The sort of differentiation between the physical and spiritual, between the natural and supernatural, which your question implies is very much a Modernistic post-Enlightenment Western innovation and one which would have been unknown to the Early Church.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, we see the same scapegoats! That whole "modernistic/enlightenment" line is the same old copout the Church (of all stripes) has used everytime it runs out of defenses for its hypotheses. And everytime, it is backed into that corner by overhypothesizing its doctrines.
If the body and blood are spiritual, then they are spiritual, and not physical. If it is supernatural, than it is not natural. The Bible does recognize a difference. Else, much of it is speaking nonsense. So there is no change in the elements; not at the prayer, or any other time. That basically is a spiritual memorial. Whatever "supernatural" aspect, there is to it then has nothing to do with the elements. Christ is spiritually present in us, His Body.
But the Church had to go further than that, and make something much more out of it, and then resort to the intellectual suicide tactic of attacking modernity and enlightenment when it could not defend it logically any further. But you've already added too much rationalization in hypothesizing such a thing out of the passages in question in the first place.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Making the embodiment be in a PERSON is somewhat ambiguous. If this is suggesting that the Divine Word became embodied in another subsisting PERSON, then you are Nestorian.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. I mean a person as opposed to a thing.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the NT, Christ is declared to be the express image of God, and He was seen physically and handled. And if He declares the bread and wine to be His body and blood, we believe Him.
Now you seem to be retreating into an unproven assumption that if there's no "empirical difference in the object" then God can't possibly be supernaturally present in it. God was supernaturally present (in a unique way) in Christ, yet for most of Christ's life (the many years He wasn't performing any miracles) there was apparently no empirical difference between He and other men (ie under a microscope, one wouldn't be able to tell He was God Incarnate). And when Christ did start performing miracles people didn't instantly conclude that God dwelled in Him. Similarly, there's no empirical difference between the Scriptures and other books that would compell us to say that the words of the former are "God-breathed" in contradistinction to the latter (eg. empirical lightening bolts don't jump off the pages when we read them) So there's no a priori reason to rule out God becoming supernaturally involved with His creation, in different ways, without being "empirically detected".
So what was the 'visible manifestation' that inhabited the dark cloud? Solomon said in the verse cited above that God dwelt in the "dark cloud". So what was the 'visible' manifestation that inhabited the dark physical cloud?
Nobody ever claimed that the cloud, temple, of tabernacle "became" God's 'body'. Just that the Scriptures asserted that God at one time or another dwelt in those things.
---------------------------
The "Glory of the Lord".
The whole point with that, was that whenever God "inhabited" an object like that, what it meant was that there was a visible manifestation of Him emanating from the cloud. Again, God would continue to say that man has never really seen Him. It is a manifestation, not a claim of some "spiritual presense" that you can't see, hear, feel, taste; etc. but it's "just there".
One one hand, you insist that the Bread and Wind IS flesh and blood, but then when asked to explain it further, you come up with this "presence", and try to use these other examples in the Bible that just do not fit. So either the food "changes", or you have God inhabiting them, but you cannot compare it to the glory cloud.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
But the flesh belongs to the Divine Person. It's HIS and no other person's. The same Divine Person whose human flesh was given on the cross ("for the life of world") had said that this same flesh is food indeed and His blood drink indeed, and that at the Last Supper He declared that the bread was His body and the wine was His blood.
------------------
The point there was, He was not claiming any "change" to the bread; the first statement (my flesh is food) was a spiritual analogy. It was by his flesh being "broken" for us, that we would inherit eternal life, and the actual "bread" represented ("remembrance" ) it. You have turned this simple truth ito a continual process of "receiving Christ" (having His flesh and blood applied to you) every time you eat this meal, which then has some spiritual change applied to it that you can't see, hear, feel or taste. I do not see all of that in those statements at all. Rather than you simply "taking them at what they say", as your side has constantly claimed; it looks like you are adding to them.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- Not unless you assume that there can't possibly be two "types" (or modes) of Divine presence exisiting simultaneously, one of the Son (in the Eucharist) and the other of the Holy Spirit. But we already know from Scripture that God is omnipresent and yet can be said also to dwell (somehow 'locally') in the cloud/tabernacle/temple. And if God can so be present simulataneously in more than one of different senses in the OT examples, He certainly can be present in different ways simultaneously so in the NT.
Again, it seems you have the Persons of the Trinity confused. It's Christ who "enters" us in the bread and the wine. (The Spirit, as you say, is "already in us")
Except now you seem to be digressing into modalism, or at least confusing the Persons of the Trinity. It's Christ whose Body and Blood is present in the bread and wine. The Holy Spirit did not become Incarnate (though He played a "role" in the Incarnation) Himself, so His presense in the Church is not exactly the same as Christ's special presence in the Eucharist (though of course, the Son and the Holy Spirit can't ultimately be separated). Also, at Christ's baptism, when the Incarnate Son came out of the water, the Holy Spirit descended as a dove. In other words, They were both present in unique ways at Christ's Baptism, so there's no a priori reason to assume They could not be both present in unique ways in the Church.
----------------
It's you who sounds Nestorian now; rather than me sounding "modalist" (the opposite) as is now being implied. Whatever The Holy Spirit is in; Christ is in, and the Father (John 14). They are separate, but nevertheless, "one substance". You seem to be making three separate spiritual "substances" now, with only one of them inhabiting the bread, and another inhabiting us.
Of course, God can have more than one inhabitation simultaneously (such as inhabiting all of us), but that is because Spirit is not confined to space anyway. (that's what I was trying to say by discussing "persons"). The times God did appear to inhabit objects in space (theophanies) were special visible manifestations. That is not the same as the way the Holy Spirit inhabits us; nor do I think that really compares with the concept of the "real Presence" in bread and wine. That is what I was trying to say regarding "like no other supernatural event".
(And actually; it says the Holy Spirit descended "like" a dove, not AS a dove! So that was no "inhabitation" at all.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
But that doesn't necessarily follow, unless you want to tell Christ our God that He can't possibly communicate His flesh and blood to us in the empirical forms of bread and wine.
----------------------------------------
Not that He can't; just that that does not seem to be the way He did; it's only people's deduction based on their reading it into scriptural metaphors.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
That may be your assertion, but it doesn't logically follow. Saying that "there's a special spiritual presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the bread and wine" can't be logically reduced to the proposition that "there's no special spiritual presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the bread and wine" (if that's what you mean by the word 'symbol'). That's like saying, "Well if A is true, you might as well just go on and say A is not true".
--------------------------------
That comes from the double talk (sorry to put it that bluntly) from your side. It's like there is a change; there isn't a[n empirical] change. So what is it, then? You're eating regular bread and wine, yet you believe you are receiving God's spiritual presence somehow. We believe God's Spirit already inhabits us. So I guess...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- If one believes that spiritual benefits are actually conveyed through bread, wine, and water, then that one is by definition not a "memorialist", but a "sacramentalist". But you don't really believe that spiritual benefits are actually conveyed through the bread, wine, and water themselves.
So being in Christ is not salvation itself? Or are you objecting to God using the objects of HIS material creation to communicate the Life (including the Merits) of Christ to believers? If the latter, on what are you basing your objection if you don't disagree in principle that God can do whatever He wants with His creation?
No one is "finally saved" unless he endure to the end and until he stands at the Judgement seat of Christ. (But that's a whole other topic...)
If God can use physical means to bring about the (objective) Atonement, He can also use physical means to (subjectively) apply the benefits of the Atonement to individual lives, since it's ALL God's creation (matter and spirit), and He can do what He wants to with it.
--------------------------
Here now, the real issue of the debate becomes clear. It is actually more along the lines of the Eternal Security debate, in which Catholics reject security, based on the scriptures on "enduring". But we see now that it ties in with their belief in sacramentalism and also confession. No one is finally saved now, but the routine "literal" impartation of Christ's "flesh and blood", along with the routine forgiveness of sins at confession (based on a mechanistic interpretation of 1 John 1:9 where the forgiveness for each sin occurs only at each individual confession, rather than a general attitude of confession which follows our initial conversion in which all our sins are laid on the Cross!), and the rest of good works, are what "impart" salvation, which is only realized if you "persevere" in all of this, till the end. This is compared to the way many conservative Protestants believe you will "spiritually die" if you do not pray or read the Bible enough, which is considered our "daily food" or "relationship" and compared with human acts such as eating or a marriage. Some, such as the "once saved, always saved" advocates like the Baptists, will then come up with a new definition of "spiritual death" or "Christ spewing out the Lukewarm", called "carnal Christianity" to avoid contradicting the OSAS stance; which is also used by many Arminians against Calvinists who claim lack of perseverance shows they were never saved to begin with.
All of this confusion comprises several cans of worms that cannot be addressed here. But suffice it to say, we believe we receive God's Spirit and are saved and made apart of Christ's body once; upon receiving Him into our hearts, with baptism and Communion as remembrances marking or showing forth the change. Catholists apparently believe we receive some sort of "dose" of the Spirit and salvation, first when we are baptized; and then afterwards at Communion; and this wears off, or whatever, so we have to keep receiving it (as well as doing other good works) in order to finally make it to Heaven in the end. This is basically "another gospel" (good news of Christ) that is no good news! Again, that is more in line with other religions, such as the gnostics, as well as Judaism and Islam.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed, and God can use physical objects as a means to this end.
"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in Him" (John 6:56)
"For as many of you as were baptized into Christ, have put on Christ" (Gal 3:27)(etc)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And that's spiritual language. The physical elements used represent it, not impart it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
God imparting His life through us through bread, water, and wine is not being saved "by the works of our hands". Neither I nor you can impart life through bread, wine, or water, but God certainly can.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the catholist view, the impartation of the life is connected solely with something we DO, with salvation ever hanging in the balance if the dosage wears off, or whatever. I have seen people argue this stuff, in their conversion process to the EOC, waiting to be chrismated, which is supposed to be the initial impartation of salvation (the sacramental view of baptism). The Campbellists (Church of Christ) are in lockstep agreement with the Catholists on that one. But then what if a person dies during the "catechumenation" process they must go through first? (The Campbellists claim they would baptize a person right away, but I find that hard to believe. They, like anyone else, will want to teach (indoctrinate) the new convert on all the rest of the "truths", before allowing him to join their group). The Catholics' way around this is what is called a "Baptism of Desire". There is also a "baptism of blood" for any unbaptized person who dies for Christ. Both of these RIGHT THERE, show that baptism is SPIRITUAL, and not imparted by the water! It couldn't be, if those people are allowed to be saved without the literal water! Just extend this "baptism of desire" to everyone who wants to be baptized, but has not yet found a church, and then there is no argument! Anyway, as discussed on Altar Calls, Baptism, Conversion, The Baptism issue is made complicated by it being all about joining a corporate organization anyway, where in the NT, the apostles baptized new converts on the spot, so therefore, baptism could actually mark the "washing away of sins". Now, it has all changed, as people are not baptized right away. But it has always been the SPIRITUAL baptism "by one spirit...into one BODY" (1Cor. 12:13) by which we are saved and our sins SPIRITUALLY washed away!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- You define "convey" in such a way (i.e. in which something merely 'represents' another reality without actually 'making present' the reality) in order to assert that Memorialists believe that baptism and communion "convey" the reality they signify. Perhaps, I should have been more specific in which word I used to describe the idea the physcial object/sign actually making present the reality it signifies, instead of the object being a mere visual aid of a reality already present.
This removes baptism and communion from the reality they convey. In other words, in your view baptism and communion don't actually convey the reality at all. They are separate from another "(that) reality that 'convey' its truth", however that's supposed to be interpreted. In other words instead of the water conveying the reality of the new birth, you say the reality of the new birth itself is conveying...itself? (isn't that a tautology?)
-------------------------
The reality is the reality; the water and communion represent (show) it. I guess we are looking at "convey" differently. I take convey as "show the reality", and you take it as "impart the reality". Again, it indelibly ties into the different soteriology of catholicism and Protestantism.
Regarding the conversion of many Protestants to Eastern Orthodoxy:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frederica Mathewes-Green, a former Episcopalian and author of Facing East: A Pilgrim's Journey into the Mysteries of Orthodoxy, said the experience of Orthodoxy was "startlingly different" from anything she'd known in Western churches. But it clicked when she saw it was directed toward God rather than her own emotional needs. "It called us to fall on our faces before God in worship and to be filled with awe at his glory. I could never go back. I now find Western worship tedious and sentimental. To me, the contrast is jolting."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What an irony. While the much touted shallowness of modern evangelicalism is largely (and unfortunately) true, people making this move are still gratifying their emotions, only changing the flavor; like a person getting tired of one food and getting "into" another for a while. This becomes clear when you listen to them discuss their "journey" or "pilgrimmage" further. Often it will be the whole "loftyiness" of the liturgical atmosphere, and such. (The cathedrals were even designed to convey this). In other words, like the charismatics, it is some emotional "feeling" of communion with God they are judging this by. One person looks at the other's way of acheiving this, and calls it "self-oriented", but it is really a different method of the same thing.
I have this sense of curiosity regarding the EOC and its "ancientness" (as it is not as bad as the RCC); but still; I do not see all of that incense and ritual in the New Testament. Much of it looks and even sounds pagan to me. Such organized, formalized system (which really kicked off when the Roman Emperor recognized it) is what paved the way for all of the later denominations; even though they have modified the worship in many different ways.
A group of people meeting in the home, singing, praying, reading scripture; with shepherds, elders (older, wiser men), and overseers of several congregations, and missionaries (apostles) at the highest level. THIS was what the original ancient church was. I have heard that there are families like this around Israel that go all the way back (though I'm not sure if they affiliate with the EOC or RCC or not). Such a group is what I would be more interested in, regarding a connection to the ancient faith.
To finish on a step back to the "church organization" debate:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just what is this "Church invisible"? What do they believe that's in common, and how do you know what this invisible body believes? By what criteria is one in this invisible body and how can you prove that criteria is valid?
And how is the world going to be convinced of the truth of Christianity by some alleged unity of some invisible body (John 17:21)?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And this is the fundamental question of the Gospel. What does it mean to be "in Christ"? It means to believe on Him to be saved (Acts 16:31, John 3:16; etc). Then, "by one Spirit are we baptized into one body" (1 Cor.1:15). This was not a magisterium of leaders; leaders were "shepherds" to guide the flock (who were then to grow and lead others themselves; not remain "as children" forever (Heb.5:12-6:2, 1 Cor.3:1ff). And of course; we are to "not forsake the assembling of ourselves together". Once that is established; "BY THIS will all men now that you are My disciples--that you have love for one another" (John 13:35)
Yes; all the divisions may counter that; but even moreso did the big powerful institution that created the Dark Ages, and led to the very "rationalistic" revolt (the opposite extreme) everyone complains about.
But then that in itself does not prove either the one polity or the other. We are all men, and do not live the Bible the way the Bible outlines the way we should. By coming and saying "see; look at what your method has done; See; this proves ours is the way"; you are doing precisely what all of those others have done; and are just as much apart of the problem of schism; apart of the game as they are; no different really. You can't escape it; except to let them do what they want, and you just try to follow God to the best of your knowledge. Focus on Christ, not another organization competing with all the others.
Here's another point. "Individualism" is being condemned so much by the EOC arguments; but each EOC advocate, as an individual, at some point had to decide to join the "one true Church" organization. You had to be persuaded, from your reading of the Bible, that they and their traditions are truest to the Bible. All you are doing is what everyone else is doing, and what you criticize protestantism for. Unless you advocate people being indoctrinated against their will; and/or born into the religion by physical lineage. We had a lot of that too in the past; and it certainly didn't work; and just produced whole societies and pews full of uncoverted reprobates.
"Saved by Works"?
Scriptures like Romans 2 and James 2 are frequently cited to teach salvation by works, and they argue that you gain forgiveness necessary for eternal life only when you ask for forgiveness, but the context of both are people who JUDGE others (Rom.2:1; 2:2-4, 11). We read these apostles' instructions on works, and think that they are speaking to free-wheeling antinomian licentists, but these were Jews and perhaps also former gentile proselytes who actually boasted in the Law and tried to judge others with it; deeming themselves "religious". (Rom.2:17, 18-19, James 1:26). What we see is that they omitted other parts of the Law, and thought they were still justified by their faith. That's similar to the view that if we sin and ask for forgiveness and try to do better, then and only then will "faith" save us, which is precisely the Catholists' position based on their reading of 1 John 1:9! The mechanical "saved again when you ask for forgiveness" system means that we fall in and out of salvation each time we sin! But salvation is described as a BIRTH, and there is no concept in scripture of "unbirth" or many other rebirths afterward.
But as Paul says in Galatians, if you try to justify yourself by the Law, you are indebted to do the WHOLE Law.
And people fail to realize that God demands PERFECTION. Does anyone really think he has repented and asked forgiveness for every single sin he has ever committed after conversion? Then we really do not know God's definition of sin! (Matt.5) Of course, then, they will fall back on "OK, God will forgive sins done in ingorance". Just like the "baptism of desire" argument, we deny a spiritual application of "grace" and insist on physical deeds imparting salvation, but when circumstances don't allow this, THEN we allow God to step in with grace IN SPITE OF our actual works! THIS is precisely what Paul and James are condemning! Again, if you pledge to justify yourself by works, you are indebted to do the WHOLE Law; none of this "God will excuse it in this circumstance if I'm at least trying my best and asking forgiveness".
Also, they will take all references to the Law as being only about the OT Law, so it is some new NT "law" of "working in love" that now saves. But then what do you think all of these "works of love" are, but the LAW! The good works discussed are mostly abstinence from the evil works condemned in both testaments. The only part of the Law that has passed is the ceremonial aspect. So to make this "OT does not justify, but NT LAw IS what justifies instead" distinction; then it is only a matter of exchanging one set of ritual for another. Other wise, everything is completely the same as in the OT. Look right here in Romans (2:25): if they actually kept the whole Law; their "circumcision" WOULD actually avail after all! Christ would not even be needed! That's also what verses 7-9 should be understood in regard to. (and recall 2Pet.2:15,16. You can't just grab his verses like that and pit them against other scriptures that have been given). He is telling you like he tells you in Galatians what "works' are required to be saved. They are trying to justify thesmelves that way, and so this is what how they should be performing. But they are not performing that way, so they have good reason to fear! (As other passages are taken to teach we still have something to fear).
No, love is the motivation for us keeping the commandments, rather than the self-centered motivation of fear—making it to Heaven and escaping Hell. All of this is why Heb. 4 says that it is the person who does "NOT" work, but rather RESTS in Christ. It is not simply exchanging circumcision for baptism, and a bloody animal sacrifice for one that is made to look like bread and wine. For then we are left in the same bind: that our works were NOT perfect and therefore not good enough!
TRUE love CASTS OUT fear! He who FEARS is NOT made perfect in love! (1 John 4:18) This means that all those other verses telling people to fear are being misunderstood, or taken out of context. Most of them are addressing people trusting in the Law, and ignoring the sins they still commit, as discussed above. Romans 11 is comparing the national groups of Gentiles vs. Jews. Now, if we reject the Augustinian misuse of chapter 9 to teach the individuals rather than nations being "vessels of wrath fitted for destruction"; then why are we doing the same exact thing with chapter 11? If those Gentiles did the same things as the Jews— trust in their own works and ignore their sins, He could turn away from them just like He turned away from Israel.
Also, another common misunderstanding is that "walk in the spirit" means "doing good works", and "walk in the flesh" means "sinning". This is also based on taking "sin willfully" and "Trampling undefoot the blood of the Son of God". But again, if "sinning willfully" in the sense of any conscious choice to sin is "trampling underfoot" the Blood, then everyone is lost. So then, we change it to "living in sin", like in sinning beyond an "allowable" amount for it to be excused as ignorant or an honest mistake or whatever. We don't even know where to draw the "line". I used to think this as well (and it was hardly helped me through fear to never do something wrong willfully). But if you look at the rest of Paul's usage of "flesh"; it is talking about the national inheritance the Jews were trusting in. This was the theme of Romans and Paul's other teachings, and the contrast can be seen most clearly in Romans 8. "flesh" for Gentiles would be "sinning apart from the Law", and parallel the common understanding of "living int he flesh". But in the immediate context, where people try to justify making salvation be by works based on Paul's statements, flesh is about the Jews, under the Law. So again, this is talking about trusting and boasting in the Law. Again, if you trust in the Law, it does not justify; but only exposes your sin. Man by nature is predisposed to commit those acts. A person rejecting Christ's righteousness, and trying to justify himself through the Law; though he might look righteous on the outside; still commits these acts (even though covered up, hidden, denied, excuses made, etc). This is why Paul says "the works of the flesh are these...", and then lists several sins. Because as Paul even says in Rom.2:1, 21-22, the one judging someone else; thinking he is keeping it, is the one more likely who "does the same things"! See also John 7:19 "Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keeps the law?" This is basically what happens with all these groups including Catholicism, where all the people are taught to try to do "good enough" so (maybe!) they can "make it" to Heaven. They see how hard it is, and then they become the ones to give up and live in all sort of sin, figuring God will excuse them for their efforts. They can't stay with one partner and be faithful for life, they can't love their neighbor as themselves; they lie, steal, cheat, kill, greed, hedonism, etc. they try to get the Church to change its teachings on abortion and homosexuality. Yet they still baptize their babies, take communion, and accept their church's belief in working for their salvation, and hopefully, God will "weigh" their good and bad at the judgement, and their "Faith through works" will get them in. THIS is what Paul, James and Jesus are condeming! Great irony, isn't it?
Just think, what act really tramples the blood? What is the biggest slap in the face you could give to Christ? To claim to accept His blood's covering, and then think you are actually gaining justification by your own works, which are not even perfect. Look at the rest of the verse: "...and counted the blood of the covenant, by which you were sanctified an unholy thing, and have done despite unto the Spirit of grace". "Despite" means to treat insultingly, with contumely" (intensive, hubrizo, "to insult;" some connect it with huper, "above, over," Lat. super, which suggests the insulting disdain of one who considers himself superior), Notes: (1) Hubrizo, "to insult, act with insolence," is translated "to use despitefully" in Act 14:5, AV; RV, "to entreat ... shamefully." See (ENTREAT) SHAMEFULLY, (ENTREAT) SPITEFULLY, REPROACH, —BlueletterBible.org) Simply committing a sin, or whatever amount of sins after conversion is not that. If He forgave all your sins before, then any other sins committed afterward, the blood can handle! What this is talking about, are those who completely RENOUNCE the Blood after claiming to accept it, and go back to self-justification to the Law. This we saw also in John 8, where Jesus tells some of the same Jews who "believed in Him" that they were of their father the devil, and then they eventually try to stone Him. Nobody here is claiming that is saving faith. Yet, in a sense, they were "sanctified". Sanctification can also mean "to separate from profane things and dedicate to God; dedicate people to God". A person can be "separated" or "dedicated" (passive) to God, yet still not have a saving faith. That described much of Israel. And several of them who "accepted" Christ, for the wrong reason, and then their true motives were exposed by Him. While Sanctification is supposed to produce the other definition, "to be venerable or hallow", it is not a state of us working our way to goodness; for then that lowers God's standards, and claims our imperfect works are what made us holy and granted us entry into Heaven.
Final Conclusion:
So this whole debate had me thinking about the different "traditions" by which sola scriptura is supplemented (violated through reading it in light of these things) or outright set aside, and yet projected back to the Bible.
•Rabbinical Judaism: "mosaic" oral tradition through Rabbis (1 century BC-11th century?)
•Catholists: "apostolic" oral tradition through "Fathers" (2nd Century to 1054 when East no longer accepted Rome's continuing additions)
•Reformed: Creeds and Reformed confessions (16th/17th century)
•Fundamentalists: "the faith of our fathers" (18th century to 1950's America)
•Sects and Cults: leaders' "restoration" of the truth by their own reinterpretions.
•More radical cults and movements: esoteric revelation or additional writings.
I think the independent Church movement is the closest to the truth. Unfortunately, they often get this way by neglecting doctrine, usually in favor of experentialism, mainly through "charismatic" type revelations, and hyped "testimonials". And many suffer the "megachurch" mentality, and other aspects of what I call "pop-evangelicalism". But once again, there is no perfect Church, yet it seems that these groups do have more of a unity, when all of those methods listed above are let go of. (the Anabaptists and also had a similar faith, though some were aberrant, and the modern Mennonites sound like a good biblical group). They don't even come here and argue their position. They just live for Christ, and try to carry forth His message to the lost. That's what it's all about. (1 Tim.6:3-5)
Independents (or more accurately, non-denominationals) swept a lot of stuff aside, and said "Let's just focus on worshipping God and reaching the lost". They did not get hung up in doctrinal arguments, though they are doctrinally sound, at least on the books. (some may add stuff like word-faith, charismatic emphasis, etc.) You basically have to go to special classes to get the doctrine. Unfortunately, this has resulted in many in modern evangelicalism who then think doctrine is just divisive, and not really that important; just worshipping and winning souls. I am more intellectual, and less emotional, so I see that as a problem. So I am not defending that, just pointing out that setting aside the doubtful disputations and focusing on worship and soul winning does help erase all those denominational lines, and that was my point in mentioning that, rather than "which group is the true one".
Final Summary:
The EOC starts with Christ's statement to the apostles about "binding" to
establish the premise of "infallibility". But that would assume then the
truth is in the leaders. But this doesn't sound right, so then when it
is pointed out, you deny this, and say it is only about the body of
people in agreement, and they can even reject leaders' decisions. But
when it is suggested then that if it is about the people, then the rest
of us outside the EOC, who hold to Christ, (but disgree with some of
your other teachings and the Apocrypha) are included in that definition,
then you go back to the one Church that never changes again. But that
suggests the truth is in an institution, which you deny as well. When
pointed out the disputes and changes (such as Easter), then allowances
are made for "non dogmatic truth", and at the same time "the "binding"
is extended from relaying God's truth, to basically determining it anew
on a situational basis. You then claim it is the Holy Spirit guiding the
people, yet again, to avoid that including us, you are forced to assume
that this guaranteed 100% errorlessness and agreement, which again points
to one single institution (consistently holding a particular set of
teachings), which you deny again and say no, it's the teachings
themselves being agreed on (by how ever many different "groups" that
hold them) that are definitive. But the original premise is that the
teachings are proven by the "Church" holding them. So you basically
have a 'loop' with no start or ending point; it "just is", and is proof
of itself. The Church is the true Church of Christ because of its
teachings. The teachings are the true teachings of Christ because of the
Church.
Why should anyone believe this game any more than the atheist who claims
evolution proves God is "just not needed", yet admits he cannot explain
abiogenesis, and insists he doesn't have to? (And hurls at Christians
the same taunting questioning of "our basis of believing as we do").
You're using rather devilish tactics that do not lend credence to your
whole premise. It looks like trying to take advantage of the admittedly
shameful doctrinal weaknesses of modern Protestantism, and use it to
your Church's advantage, like a preying wolf.
The one truth that God has always preserved is "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us... He came unto His own, and His own received Him not. But as many as received Him. To them gave he the power to become the sons of God, who were born, not of blood, nor the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God". (John 1:1, 12-14). I'm not saying that is all there is to the faith, but that is the basic core of the Gospel that God has preserved and not allowed the gates of hell to prevail against, and all who deny or change this truth have never been allowed to co-opt the Church beyond their own little band of followers which ususally did not go very far. Anything else men may add to this basically causes division, and that is what we see condemned in 1 Tim.6 "doting about questions and strifes of words from which comes envy, strife, railing, evil surmising, perverse disputings..."
Now, if anyone really cares about Christian unity, you will stop creating division by speaking of the EOC (or whichever other group they represent) as the only true Church, and realize that if the true Church is not a heirarchical institution, then none of the organizations, not ours, nor yours, defines a "Church" (as the very "Body of Christ") that is either "the true one" or false, and all of them can have nonapostolic traditions and be in error and disagreement on some issues (of what they think are true), yet the people in them still be apart of the true Body.
•Christ founded only one "Church", and the Eastern Orthodox Church {Or Roman Catholic Church} is it. Not the thousands of disagreeing "churches" in Protestantism
"the Church" is a spiritual body of believers, not a corporate or government organization, known as a "denomination" which men have formed around various issues. Many EOC/Catholic practices not scriptural.
•We are commanded to follow "the traditions handed down" whether "written or oral".
These were not separate bodies of teaching, but rather any "transmission" (Gk. "paradosis"). 2 Thess. 3:6 even gives us an example of of one of them being referred, and it is an instruction that can be found elsewhere in scripture, and in scriptural principle. Not "high" liturgy and other later Church teachings
•You can't prove they were the same as what was written. The Bible is not an exhaustive manual of teaching. (The world could not contain books of all of the "truth" Christ handed down to us).
The doctrines you are assuming were oral tradition developed after the Apostolic age. John's closing statement about unwritten information was Christ's works, not Church teachings and practices.
•No, the Early Christian Fathers believed in Real Presence and other sacraments, showing they were "believed by all Christians everywhere - across space and time". If these were wrong, people would have opposed them.
The Fathers began adding their own way of putting things, and it was not a full fledged high liturgy or Mariology, or other doctrines being read into them. As time went on, and people borrowed more pagan philosophy, then these doctrines and practices did develop. However, earlier on, the letter of Pliny and other evidence shows that Church worship was simple.
•Christ promised "the gates of Hell would not prevail" against the Church, and that it was the "pillar and ground of truth". Since the EOC is the only Church that goes all the way back, that proves it must be completely without error, and identical to the New Testament.
Church history, was not errorless; not in ANY of the organized bodies that have existed across the centuries. (Dark ages, persecution, etc). So Christ's promises obviously did not refer to the 100% doctrinal errorlessness of an organized denominational body. It meant that the Gospel would be available to the world the whole time. It lasts as the written testimony of the Bible, while the church often obscures it in its actions.
ETB ©2007