>

Martyred for the Gospel

Martyred for the Gospel
The burning of Tharchbishop of Cant. D. Tho. Cranmer in the town dich at Oxford, with his hand first thrust into the fyre, wherwith he subscribed before. [Click on the picture to see Cranmer's last words.]

Collect of the Day

The Fifth Sunday after the Epiphany.
The Collect.

O LORD, we beseech thee to keep thy Church and household continually in thy true religion; that they who do lean only upon the hope of thy heavenly grace may evermore be defended by thy mighty power; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Daily Bible Verse

Friday, September 13, 2013

Is Eastern Orthodoxy True?


93 comments:

John said...

Ha ha, an ignorant diatribe by some ignoramuses, who wouldn't last 1 minute in a real debate.

Charlie J. Ray said...


Well, if you delete the Bible and just run your mouth, I'm sure you could think you were winning a debate. But since Scripture is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice, you would be hard pressed to prove that the Scriptures are wrong:)

John said...

" But since Scripture is the final authority in all matters of faith"

Oh yes? Chapter and verse please.

Charlie J. Ray said...

There are plenty of them. Here's a few:

and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:15-17 NKJ)

"If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), (John 10:35 NKJ)
But He answered and said, "It is written,`Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.'" (Matthew 4:4 NKJ)
Blessed is the man Who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly, Nor stands in the path of sinners, Nor sits in the seat of the scornful; 2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD, And in His law he meditates day and night. 3 He shall be like a tree Planted by the rivers of water, That brings forth its fruit in its season, Whose leaf also shall not wither; And whatever he does shall prosper. (Psalm 1:1-3 NKJ)

John said...

Charlie.. Good verses to prove that scripture is -a- rule of faith. Not -the- rule if faith.

Charlie J. Ray said...

It's not my problem if you do not believe that Scripture is the Word of God, fully inspired in every word, thought, and proposition. Scripture is not contradictory, nor does Scripture ever err whatsoever. Scripture does err in matters of faith and practice, nor does it err in matters of geography, history, science, medicine, or mathematics.

I cannot prove to you that Scripture is inspired of God. It is the beginning axiom of Christianity that Scripture IS the Word of God.

2 Timothy 3:15-17 proves that Scripture is fully sufficient as the only rule of faith because it makes that claim for itself:)

To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. (Isaiah 8:20 NKJ)

LAMED. Forever, O LORD, Your word is settled in heaven. (Psalm 119:89 NKJ)


Furthermore, if Scripture is not self-attesting, then there can be no other witness that could establish the truth of the Bible other than itself.

I am willing to bet that you do not even believe that Adam and Eve were historical persons who brought the curse upon mankind. The Eastern Orthodox Church is liberal:)

Charlie J. Ray said...

Of course, you cannot prove the Scriptures are wrong, nor can I prove that the Scriptures are the Word of God. Both are presuppositions.

Charlie J. Ray said...

Scripture cannot be broken. John 10:35. So where does Scripture say that Eastern Orthodoxy is a rule of faith that cannot be broken?

John said...

2 Tim says scripture is enough to equip you for good works. It doesn't say it is the only inspired thing. Obviously it isn't, since 2Th 2:15 says to hold to traditions. Whatever those traditions were, they were something not in scripture. And since 2 Timothy is commonly dated to AD65, at which time the Gospels weren't finished, and were circulating in oral form, Paul can hardly have had in mind to ignore Jesus' words, not yet enscripturated, to solely follow the Jesus-less written scriptures.

Why are Protestants so foolish that they imagine the apostles as preaching a Jesus-less message, that 2 Tim means scripture-only? So foolish, and so ahistorical, as to beggar belief.

Charlie J. Ray said...

You say, "Whatever those traditions were, they were not in Scripture..." Case closed. You don't even know what the "traditions" were. Secondly, authority for Papists and for the EO patriarchs is in the church, not Scripture or "traditions" since the church lords it over both. The Protestant and Reformed position is that we do know the objective revelation of God from the propositions and information revealed in Scripture. Scripture contains all we need to know to be saved.

As for Scripture not saying that there are other sources of inspiration, that is an argument from silence. However, Scripture does claim that it is itself the inspired Word of God. I will go with Scripture's own testimony before I follow false prophets and wolves who claim to have some revelation in addition to Scripture.

Scripture claims to be sufficient information, doctrine, and revelation for even a small child to understand and be saved. I'll go with the plain teaching of Scripture, thank-you. 2 Timothy 3:15.

Charlie J. Ray said...

>>>And since 2 Timothy is commonly dated to AD65, at which time the Gospels weren't finished, and were circulating in oral form, Paul can hardly have had in mind to ignore Jesus' words, not yet enscripturated, to solely follow the Jesus-less written scriptures.<<<<

This is because Paul was speaking about the Old Testament. The Gospel of Jesus Christ and all the doctrines of grace are revealed in the OT and the OT is sufficient for even a small child to understand the Gospel and be saved. Jesus appealed constantly to the OT to prove that His doctrine was revealed in the Scriptures. Why would we do anything less?

Of course, Paul would have been aware that even Lukes's writings were being accepted as apostolic Scriptures (2 Timother 5:18; Luke 10:7), and Peter likewise acknowledges that Paul's writings were Scripture. (2 Peter 3:15-16).

These two examples show ample evidence that the NT was already attested as Scripture, even before canonization.

Charlie J. Ray said...

Article VII
Of the Old Testament

The Old Testament is not contrary to the New; for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and man, being both God and man. Wherefore they are not to be heard which feign that the old fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the law given from God by Moses, as touching ceremonies and rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet, notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the commandments which are called moral.

Charlie J. Ray said...

I notice that you didn't answer my question about the historicity of the Bible. Is the Bible true when it affirms that Adam and Eve were the first individual human beings created by God? Yes or no?

Let me help you out here:

What if Adam was not a historical person?

Looks like the Eastern Orthodox Church is as liberal as Anglican apostate churches are.... Go figure:)

Charlie J. Ray said...

As for being "ahistorical," that would apply to the Eastern Orthodox Church, not to Calvinism. The Bible is the earliest historical account there is and yet you do not believe its historical account of Adam and Eve is true.

John said...

"You don't even know what the "traditions" were."

How do you know I don't know? You must be very well informed to know ahead of time all the things I don't know.

"Secondly, authority for Papists and for the EO patriarchs is in the church, not Scripture or "traditions" since the church lords it over both."

*IF* that's true... and it's a big IF, it means we lorded it over the canon of scripture, which Protestants then swallowed hook, line and sinker.

Of course, if you want to throw out some argument to try and weasel out of that one, I'll take it and throw it back in your face about our traditions.

"As for Scripture not saying that there are other sources of inspiration, that is an argument from silence."

No, it's not silence. The bible is explicit that there are other sources of inspiration.

"This is because Paul was speaking about the Old Testament. "

Ahh, so according to your line of logic, the OT is sufficient, meaning we can throw the NT in the trash can, RIGHT????

No?? Then why would I throw tradition in the trash can, which Paul said to hold to in 2Th?

Obviously, by the simplest deductive logic, your exegesis is plain out crazy.

"These two examples show ample evidence that the NT was already attested as Scripture, even before canonization."

Oh, so Paul said the OT was "sufficient", even knowing about some NT scriptures which were, I guess above and beyond "sufficient". And this is argument against tradition? HOW?

"Is the Bible true when it affirms that Adam and Eve were the first individual human beings created by God? Yes or no?"

Yes, but its not the topic at hand, is it? On a related topic, have you stopped beating your wife?

Charlie J. Ray said...

Hey, you're the one who said "whatever those traditions were..." Sounds to me like you don't know what they were or are.... It's all a mystery?

Charlie J. Ray said...

As for canonization, it wasn't the church that inspired or wrote Scripture. It was God. The church simply recognized what is self-attesting. Moving the process back two steps to some church council still does not establish how the men participating in the council knew that these books were Scripture. Answer, they knew the same way every Christian knows--through the Holy Spirit... And even if many of them were not regenerate the process can be attributed to God's sovereign providence:

4. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God [who is truth itself] the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it as the Word of God.1


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 2 Pet. 1:19,21; 2 Tim. 3:16; 1 John 5:9; 1 Thess. 2:13.

5. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture,1 and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole, [which is to give all glory to God], the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the word in our hearts.2

See also: WLC 4


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 1 Tim. 3:15

2 1 John 2:20,27; John 16:13,14; 1 Cor. 2:10,11,12; Isa. 59:21.

6. The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.1 Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the word;2 and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the word, which are always to be observed.3


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 2 Tim. 3:15,16,17; Gal. 1:8,9; 2 Thess. 2:2.

2 John 6:45; 1 Cor. 2:9,10,11,12.

3 1 Cor. 11:13,14; 1 Cor. 14:26,40.




Charlie J. Ray said...

>>>No, it's not silence. The bible is explicit that there are other sources of inspiration.<<<

No, it does not. The only traditions we have are recorded in the Scriptures themselves. Any other "traditions" are lost and are therefore irrelevant. God surely would have told us in WRITING what He wanted us to remember and know?

1 Corinthians 15:1-5

Charlie J. Ray said...

4. How doth it appear that the Scriptures are the word of God?

Answer: The Scriptures manifest themselves to be the word of God, by their majesty1 and purity2 ; by the consent of all the parts3 , and the scope of the whole, which is to give all glory to God4 ; by their light and power to convince and convert sinners, to comfort and build up believers unto salvation.5 But the Spirit of God, bearing witness by and with the Scriptures in the heart of man, is alone able fully to persuade it that they are the very word of God.6

See also: WCF 1.5


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Hos. 8:12; 1 Cor. 2:6,7,13; Ps. 119:18,129

2 Ps. 12:6; Ps. 19:140

3 Acts 10:43; Acts 26:22

4 Rom. 3:19,27

5 Acts 18:28; Heb. 4:12; James 1:18; Ps. 19:79; Rom 15:4; Acts 20:32

6 John 16:13,14; 1 John 2:20,27; John 20:31

Charlie J. Ray said...

>>>Ahh, so according to your line of logic, the OT is sufficient, meaning we can throw the NT in the trash can, RIGHT????<<<

That's a non sequitur. Scripture is Scripture. The NT is WRITTEN down. And it is self-attesting. Is that the best you can do to convince me to follow your false teachers? Please:) hehe. Hint: I'm not the one having trouble with following logic.

Charlie J. Ray said...

>>>Oh, so Paul said the OT was "sufficient", even knowing about some NT scriptures which were, I guess above and beyond "sufficient". And this is argument against tradition? HOW?<<<

Take it up with Paul. He's the one who said that the OT taught the Gospel and the coming of Christ.

We need nothing more than Scripture. Of course, Paul knew that Jesus and the Apostles were teaching the OT and interpreting it. Only an apostle had the authority to write Scripture and that apostle would have had to be any eyewitness to the teaching ministry of Jesus and the other apostles.

"Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 "beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection." 23 And they proposed two: Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. (Acts 1:21-23 NKJ)

Charlie J. Ray said...

>>>Yes, but its not the topic at hand, is it? On a related topic, have you stopped beating your wife?<<<

Asking you if you believe in inerrancy is part of the topic at hand since we are discussing Scripture. I didn't ask you a question that has no possibility of having a correct answer:)

It's a simple yes or no. But the fact that you see it as a Catch 22 is revealing. I'm guessing you might not be fully truthful here:)

Charlie J. Ray said...

I have written for him the great things of My law, But they were considered a strange thing. (Hosea 8:12 NKJ)
For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12 NKJ)

John said...

"The church simply recognized what is self-attesting."

Hey, it wasn't me who said the church lords it over scripture, it was YOU!!

If you want to run with the story that, oh, the church just recognised what God is doing, that's great, I will run with the same story. Thus your argument about the Church "Lording it over", becomes empty rhetoric.

"The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God "

I see. So you didn't follow what your church taught about what the bible is, you impassionately read thousands of "holy books" and decided for yourself on those 66, independent of anyone else. RIGHTTTT....

Even if you had done that, there would be an open question how it is that you're not relying on your own testimony and not God's, since you feel the need to discover such things internally, and not in the external reality of what God did in the world and in his church. You are gnosticism rehashed for the new millenium.

"No, it does not. The only traditions we have are recorded in the Scriptures themselves. Any other "traditions" are lost and are therefore irrelevant."

Who said they are lost? The church book Didache (teachings of the apostles), which is pretty much agreed upon is a 1st century book, i.e. from the era of the apostles, teaches that the church fasted twice per week, on Wednesdays and Fridays.

Now surprise, surprise, to this very day, the EO church teaches to fast on Wednesdays and Fridays. I guess traditions can be passed on flawlessly for 2000 years.

"God surely would have told us in WRITING what He wanted us to remember and know?"

Why? We don't point to the Didache as proof of our fasting traditions as being apostolic. We don't need the Didache. We can if we want to point out that our traditions are 2000 years old, they date from the 1st century church when the apostles walked the earth, but we don't NEED it. Why would we?

"The Scriptures manifest themselves to be the word of God, by their majesty1 and purity"

I guess we now know where Mormons got their doctrine from.

"That's a non sequitur. Scripture is Scripture. The NT is WRITTEN down. "

Come now. You attested to me that 2 Tim refers to the OT, that therefore the OT is sufficient by the testimony of this verse, and therefore we don't need tradition. If the OT is sufficient, then there would be no new insights or doctrine in the NT. It is obvious to all and sundry that this is manifestly untrue. Hey, we could find thousands of examples. Do I really have to go there?

"Take it up with Paul. He's the one who said that the OT taught the Gospel and the coming of Christ. "

Is that all the NT says? Come now. The NT has a lot more to say on a lot more topics than merely "the gospel and the coming of Christ". Just like tradition has things to say on other important topics beyond the mother's milk of just the basics.

"It's a simple yes or no. But the fact that you see it as a Catch 22 is revealing. "

How is giving you a "yes", not enough for you?




Charlie J. Ray said...

>>Then why would I throw tradition in the trash can, which Paul said to hold to in 2Th?<<<

Where is this mysterious "tradition"? I've never read it. Surely it would have been committed to writing?

2 Thessalonians 3:6 is speaking about apostolic tradition taught by Paul and the other apostles. That teaching is written in the Scriptures.

Those who are unfaithful to Scripture and the teaching of the apostles are excluded from the congregation.

Charlie J. Ray said...

Odd that Jesus appealed to Scripture so often:

Then He looked at them and said, "What then is this that is written:`The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone '? (Luke 20:17 NKJ)

John said...

"Odd that Jesus appealed to Scripture so often:"

Odd that Jesus and the apostles appealed to tradition so often.

Scripture says that Joseph and Mary returned to Nazareth after their sojourn in Egypt, "that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, ‘He shall be called a Nazarene.’" (Matt. 2:23). All commentators admit that the phrase "He shall be called a Nazarene" is not found anywhere in the Old Testament. Yet Matthew tells us that the Holy Family fulfilled this prophecy, which had been passed on "by the prophets."

For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ" (1 Cor. 10:4).

The Old Testament says nothing about any movement of the rock that Moses struck to provide water for the Israelites (Ex. 17:1-7, Num. 20:2-13), but in rabbinic Tradition the rock actually followed them on their journey through the wilderness.

Jude relates an altercation between Michael and Satan: "When the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you.’ " (Jude 9).

This incident is not in scripture, but is Jewish tradition.

Paul dips into rabbinic tradition to supply the names, Jannes and Jambres, of the magicians who opposed Moses in Pharoah’s court (2 Tim. 3:8)

James tells us that because of Elijah’s prayer there was no rain in Israel for three years (Jas. 5:17), but the Old Testament account of Elijah’s altercation with King Ahab says nothing of him praying (1 Kgs. 17).

There are so many examples. The apostles accepted the Jewish tradition UNQUESTIONINGLY. And we are told to do likewise (2Th 2:15) . And since Paul accepted the oral tradition, and since he says to 1Cor. 11:1 "Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.", I'll follow Paul, as you follow the gnostics, thanks.

Charlie J. Ray said...

All the propositions of Scripture are true. I believe ALL the Scriptures, every word of them. Acts 20:27.

As for the bait and switch tactic, that's par for the course for you. It does not follow that Protestant churches "lord" it over Scripture. That would be your church's view, not mine:)

Which is obviously "why" I'm not Eastern Orthodox:)

And, as the video I linked above demonstrates, you have your own liberals. So Eastern Orthodoxy is better how?

Charlie J. Ray said...

>>>I see. So you didn't follow what your church taught about what the bible is, you impassionately read thousands of "holy books" and decided for yourself on those 66, independent of anyone else. RIGHTTTT....<<<

But my church is fallible and admits it. Yours claims to be the voice of God. That alone is heresy.

Besides, I think even you know that we put the emphasis on Scripture, otherwise you wouldn't be here arguing about it:)

Charlie J. Ray said...

>>>How is giving you a "yes", not enough for you?<<<

When you think the question is the logical fallacy of asking a complex question and all I did was ask a simple question, then it raises another question in regards to your motives.

Charlie J. Ray said...

Oh, wait. Excuse me. I forgot the Orthodox do not follow logic or rationa revelation in Scripture. Contradictions and paradox are your forte.

John said...

"2 Thessalonians 3:6 is speaking about apostolic tradition taught by Paul and the other apostles. That teaching is written in the Scriptures. "

He specifically says ORALLY. Do you enjoy contradicting the bible? Where do you get off saying it is written, when Paul says it was oral?

"I believe ALL the Scriptures, every word of them."

Except 2Th apparently.

"you have your own liberals. "

Irrelevant.

"But my church is fallible and admits it. Yours claims to be the voice of God. That alone is heresy."

So you could be wrong about the canon of scripture, and what is scripture? Shouldn't you SHUT UP then, since you are so fallible?

As for us claiming to be the voice of God, oh no, we merely RECOGNIZE what God said. See, that argument cuts both ways.

"When you think the question is the logical fallacy of asking a complex question and all I did was ask a simple question"

NO, you didn't simply "ask a simple question", you phrased it as "you do not believe its historical account of Adam and Eve is true.", even though I said no such thing. This is the "have you stopped beating your wife", rhetoric.

Charlie J. Ray said...

>>Odd that Jesus and the apostles appealed to tradition so often.<<

I guess you never heard of the Nazarite vow taken by Samson? But thanks for showing that Scripture is fulfulled again.

Calvin quotes Bucer on this one:

"Bucer [213] has explained it, I think, more correctly than any other writer. He thinks that the reference is to a passage in the Book of Judges: The child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb, (Judges 13:5.) These words, no doubt, were spoken with regard to Samson. But Samson is called the “Redeemer” or “Deliverer” [214] of the people, only because he was a figure of Christ, and because the salvation, which was accomplished by his instrumentality, was a sort of prelude of the full salvation, which was at length exhibited to the world by the Son of God. [215] All that Scripture predicts, in a favorable manner, about Samson, may justly be applied to Christ. To express it more clearly, Christ is the original model: Samson is the inferior antitype. [216] When he assumed the character of a Redeemer, [217] we ought to understand, that none of the titles bestowed on that illustrious and truly divine office apply so strictly to himself as to Christ: for the fathers did but taste the grace of redemption, which we have been permitted to receive fully in Christ." Commentary on Matthew 2:23.

Charlie J. Ray said...

I cannot help but notice that you're citing Scripture to prove these unknowable propositions from "tradition". I also note that Paul quotes pagan poets and Jude mentions the apocryphal book of Enoch, but neither are inspired. What is inspired is the fact that the quotation is included in Scripture to stress a logical proposition. Jesus was a Nazarite as was Samson, although Jesus did not take a vow not to drink wine nor did he vow not to cut his hair.

Charlie J. Ray said...

>>>The apostles accepted the Jewish tradition UNQUESTIONINGLY.<<<

Oh? Like when Jesus and His apostles broke the sabbath, ate the shew bread, and picked the ears of corn on the sabbath? Maybe you mean Jesus actually approved of the traditions of the Pharisees like not supporting their parents, praying on the street corners, and giving to the poor so everyone could brag about their good works?

"Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread." 3 He answered and said to them, "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? 4 "For God commanded, saying,`Honor your father and your mother'; and,`He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.' 5 "But you say,`Whoever says to his father or mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God"-- 6 `then he need not honor his father or mother.' Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. 7 "Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: 8 `These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. 9 And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'" (Matthew 15:2-9 NKJ)

Charlie J. Ray said...

If the Didache is inspired Scripture, why was it not recognized as such? Both East and West rejected it as Scripture and so was the Book of Enoch. It's not even part of the deuterocanonical books.... The Shepherd of Hermas is not Scripture either.

Nice try, but no cigar.

Charlie J. Ray said...

>>>I guess we now know where Mormons got their doctrine from.<<< The same place you get your traditions from. Men. Traditions of men... :)

The Bible, however, is self-attesting and claims to be God's Word. I'll stick with the Scriptures, thank-you.

2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:19-21

Charlie J. Ray said...

>>>He specifically says ORALLY.<<< Hello:) Of course he did. The apostles were still alive. They were still writing the NT. What part of they were not dead yet do you not understand? :)

Charlie J. Ray said...

>>>As for us claiming to be the voice of God, oh no, we merely RECOGNIZE what God said. See, that argument cuts both ways.<<<

Well, no. We do not claim to speak infallibly while your false prophets claim to have the same authority to speak "God's Word" as the apostles did. Scripture ALONE is the Word of God. Isaiah 8:20

Charlie J. Ray said...

>>>So you could be wrong about the canon of scripture, and what is scripture? Shouldn't you SHUT UP then, since you are so fallible?<<<



You apparently still do not understand sola Scriptura. it does not mean that we re-invent the wheel:) It means that confessions of faith are subservient to Scripture, not the other way around.


Article VI

Of the sufficiency of the Holy Scripture for Salvation

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.

In the name of Holy Scripture, we do understand those Canonical books of the Old and New testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

Of the names and number of the Canonical Books.

Genesis.
Exodus.
Leviticus.
Numbers.
Deuteronomy
Joshua.
Judges.
Ruth.
The First Book of Samuel.
The Second Book of Samuel.
The First Book of Kings.
The Second Book of Kings.
The First Book of Chronicles.
The Second Book of Chronicles.
The First Book of Esdras.
The Second Book of Esdras.
The Book of Esther.
The Book of Job.
The Psalms.
The Proverbs.
Ecclesiastes, or the Preacher.
Cantica, or Songs of Solomon.
Four Prophets the Greater.
Twelve Prophets the Less.

All the books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them canonical.

And the other books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine. Such are these following:

The Third Book of Esdras.
The Fourth Book of Esdras.
The Book of Tobias.
The Book of Judith.
The rest of the Book of Esther.
The Book of Wisdom.
Jesus the Son of Sirach.
Baruch the Prophet.
The Song of the Three Children.
The Story of Susanna.
Of Bel and the Dragon.
The Prayer of Manasses.
The First Book of Maccabees.
The Second Book of Maccabees.

Charlie J. Ray said...

Calvin on 1 Corinthians 10:4

4. That rock was Christ. Some absurdly pervert these words of Paul, as if he had said, that Christ was the spiritual rock, and as if he were not speaking of that rock which was a visible sign, for we see that he is expressly treating of outward signs. The objection that they make—that the rock is spoken of as spiritual, is a frivolous one, inasmuch as that epithet is applied to it simply that we may know that it was a token of a spiritual mystery. In the mean time, there is no doubt, that he compares our sacraments with the ancient ones. Their second objection is more foolish and more childish—"How could a rock," say they, "that stood firm in its place, follow the Israelites?" —as if it were not abundantly manifest, that by the word rock is meant the stream of water, which never ceased to accompany the people. For Paul extols [1] the grace of God, on this account, that he commanded the water that was drawn out from the rock to flow forth wherever the people journeyed, as if the rock itself had followed them. Now if Paul’s meaning were, that Christ is the spiritual foundation of the Church, what occasion were there for his using the past tense? [2] It is abundantly manifest, that something is here expressed that was peculiar to the fathers. Away, then, with that foolish fancy by which contentious men choose rather to show their impudence, than admit that they are sacramental forms of expression! [3]

Charlie J. Ray said...



>>>Jude relates an altercation between Michael and Satan: "When the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you.’ " (Jude 9).

This incident is not in scripture, but is Jewish tradition.<<<

No, it is from an apocrypha or pseudepigraphal book, The Book of Enoch... Not even the EOC accepts this book as Scripture.

John said...

" I also note that Paul quotes pagan poets and Jude mentions the apocryphal book of Enoch, but neither are inspired. "

Unless you are stubborn and totally without discernment, you would see how the apostles regard what they are quoting. Merely quoting is one thing, but when the apostles blindly believe the rabbinic tradition about various things not found in scripture, then anyone discerning can see the significance. It's not just a case of approving of what some poet said, it is a case that the apostle, who could not know this thing from history except via tradition, and they choose to believe it. Not only believe it, but quote it as authoritative to the other believers. Not just "this poet said something cool", but "tradition said, this happened to Moses, and you should believe it".

"I cannot help but notice that you're citing Scripture to prove these unknowable propositions from "tradition"."

And I can't help but notice that I am quoting scripture about the apostle's attitude to tradition, but you don't follow scripture in this matter, because it defies your pre-conceived non-biblical gnostic philosophy, which you prefer over scripture.

"Oh? Like when Jesus and His apostles broke the sabbath, ate the shew bread, and picked the ears of corn on the sabbath?"

Come to that, Jesus and the apostles defied the plain meaning of SCRIPTURE. So if that is your best shot, you just blew up your own position.

"Maybe you mean Jesus actually approved of the traditions of the Pharisees like not supporting their parents, praying on the street corners, and giving to the poor so everyone could brag about their good works?"

Jesus didn't approve of various writings too. One needs to distinguish inspired and non-inspired writings, and inspired and non-inspired traditions. You are no better off in this regard, unless you want to claim that everything ever written is inspired, including the book of Mormon.

"If the Didache is inspired Scripture, why was it not recognized as such?"

It might not be scripture, but it does accurately represent the teaching of the apostolic church, circa the first century. How come the WHOLE church, from the 1st century until today taught the Wednesday and Friday fast, but OH NO, you know better? You know better than the 1st century church when the apostles roamed the earth?

">>>He specifically says ORALLY.<<< Hello:) Of course he did. The apostles were still alive. They were still writing the NT. What part of they were not dead yet do you not understand? :)"

Why can't you see the problem with your argument? If the apostles were still alive, and therefore they hadn't wrote down yet everything they wanted to say, every teaching, every tradition, every doctrine was not yet written down, then obviously 2 Timothy CANNOT teach sola scriptura! It can't, because you just ADMITTED that the apostles were still alive, still with new things to say, still with teachings not yet written down!!!

Now yes, the apostles subsequently died. But by sheer obviousness, they CANNOT have taught sola scriptura while they were alive, because they hadn't finished writing it all down while they were alive!!!

So will you now retract your claim that 2Tim teaches sola scriptura, since the apostles, by weight of logic, cannot have taught sola scriptura while they were alive, because their teachings were still oral, circa the time of 2Tim?

John said...

"Well, no. We do not claim to speak infallibly while your false prophets claim to have the same authority to speak "God's Word" as the apostles did. "

REALLY. Is your 66 book canon infallibly the canon, by weight of your own authority? If yes, then you are in the same boat. If no, why don't you go away, since you have no authority to be telling anybody anything about what is scripture?

"No, it is from an apocrypha or pseudepigraphal book called The Assumption of Moses. Not even the EOC accepts this book as Scripture."

Duh, but the point is not everything that is true and authoritative is to be found in scripture. You are so obtuse as to keep going to our side of the argument with your preconceptions. Lots of things are not scripture but are still valid expressions of the Holy Tradition.

Charlie J. Ray said...

Jannes and Jambres are mentioned in the Targums. Again, no one accepts those books as inspired. Not even the Jews.

Charlie J. Ray said...

>>>REALLY. Is your 66 book canon infallibly the canon<<<< No. The canonization of the books is a fallible process. The church is fallible.

The Scriptures are infallible and are self-attesting to anyone who is regenerate. The Bible claims to be fully inspired and all the Scriptures are included. The whole counsel of God is included in the 66 books. Acts 20:27; 2 Timothy 3:16. 2 Timothy 3:16 refers by logical inference to the NT as well as the OT.

Your problem is you don't believe the Bible is God's Word. Instead you follow the principle of sola ecclesia.

Charlie J. Ray said...

If no, why don't you go away, since you have no authority to be telling anybody anything about what is scripture?

Of course I have no authority. That's why I preach the Scriptures:) Scripture alone has the authority to compel men to repent. The word of God does not return void but accomplishes what God sends it to do. Isaiah 55:11

2 Timothy 4:2

Scripture needs no proof other than itself:)

Charlie J. Ray said...

>>>Unless you are stubborn and totally without discernment, you would see how the apostles regard what they are quoting. Merely quoting is one thing, but when the apostles blindly believe the rabbinic tradition about various things not found in scripture, then anyone discerning can see the significance. It's not just a case of approving of what some poet said, it is a case that the apostle, who could not know this thing from history except via tradition, and they choose to believe it.<<<

I see. So unbelieving Roman poets are part of your tradition...

Calvin's commentary on Acts 17:28

"Certain of your poets. He citeth half a verse out of Aratus, not so much for authority’s sake, as that he may make the men of Athens ashamed; for such sayings of the poets came from no other fountain save only from nature and common reason. Neither is it any marvel if Paul, who spake unto men who were infidels and ignorant of true godliness, do use the testimony of a poet, wherein was extant a confession of that knowledge which is naturally engraven in men’s minds. The Papists take another course. For they so lean to the testimonies of men, that they set them against the oracles of God; and they do not only make Jerome, or Ambrose and the residue of the holy fathers, masters of faith, but they will no less tie us to the stinking vile answers of their Popes than if God himself should speak. Yea, that which more s, they have not been afraid to give so great authority to Aristotle that the apostles and prophets were silent in their schools rather than he.



Now, that I may return unto this sentence which I have in hand, it is not to be doubted but that Aratus spake of Jupiter; neither doth Paul, in applying that unto the true God, which he spake unskillfully of his Jupiter, wrest it unto a contrary sense. For because men have naturally some perseverance of God, [1] they draw true principles from that fountain. And though so soon as they begin to think upon God, they vanish away in wicked inventions, and so pure seed doth degenerate into corruptions; yet the first general knowledge of God doth nevertheless remain still in them. After this sort, no man of a sound mind can doubt to apply that unto the true God which we read in Virgil touching the reigned and false joy, that All things are full of joy. Yea, when Virgil meant to express the power of God, through error he put in a wrong name.



As touching the meaning of the words, it may be that Aratus did imagine that there was some parcel of the divinity in men’s minds, as the Manichees did say, that the souls of men are of the nature of God. [2] So when Virgil saith concerning the world, The Spirit doth nourish within, and the mind being dispersed through all the joints, doth move your whole huge weight, he doth rather play the philosopher, and subtilely dispute after the manner of Plato, than purely mean that the world is supported by the secret inspiration of God. But this invention ought not to have hindered Paul from retaining a true maxim, though it were corrupt with men’s fables, that men are the generation of God, because by the excellency of nature they resemble some divine thing."

Charlie J. Ray said...

>>>So will you now retract your claim that 2Tim teaches sola scriptura, since the apostles, by weight of logic, cannot have taught sola scriptura while they were alive, because their teachings were still oral, circa the time of 2Tim?<<

If you can produce someone still alive after these 2,000 years who qualifies as an eyewitness to the teaching ministry of Jesus Christ, yes. I will recant. Otherwise, you're only blowing smoke.

Charlie J. Ray said...

>>>Why can't you see the problem with your argument? If the apostles were still alive, and therefore they hadn't wrote down yet everything they wanted to say, every teaching, every tradition, every doctrine was not yet written down, then obviously 2 Timothy CANNOT teach sola scriptura! <<<K

Oh, so the canon is open and we ought to believe every prophet who comes along, include the pope, the patriarchs, and Joey Smith of Mormon repute?

No, thanks. God preserved exactly what we need to know in the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone.

The problem is with you. I have the Bible. All you have is some vague reference to mysterious traditions that are poorly defined and function as new revelations in addition to Scripture.

Charlie J. Ray said...

>>>Now yes, the apostles subsequently died. But by sheer obviousness, they CANNOT have taught sola scriptura while they were alive, because they hadn't finished writing it all down while they were alive!!!<<<

Funny thing is Jesus didn't have a problem preaching from the OT:) And neither did the apostles. And 2 Timothy 3:16 clearly refers to the OT, which does clearly preach the Gospel and the doctrines of sovereign grace:) Even the sacraments are in the OT. Circumcision and Passover....

Charlie J. Ray said...

>>>It might not be scripture, but it does accurately represent the teaching of the apostolic church, circa the first century. How come the WHOLE church, from the 1st century until today taught the Wednesday and Friday fast, but OH NO, you know better? You know better than the 1st century church when the apostles roamed the earth?<<<<

If it ain't Scripture, it's man's tradition and therefore not binding upon the conscience of any Christian man. You admit it is not Scripture, case closed.

See Article VI above....

Charlie J. Ray said...

The reference to disputing over the body of Moses is from the book of Enoch, not the Assumption of Moses, I think.

John said...

"If it ain't Scripture, it's man's tradition and therefore not binding upon the conscience of any Christian man. You admit it is not Scripture, case closed."

Nah, you already admitted that 2Th teaches that the apostles had teachings not yet written. You've just asked us to believe that everything was EVENTUALLY written down, even though there is no reason to believe it. No scripture says such a thing, the church NEVER believed it... but OH, you know better than 2000 years of history.

"See Article VI above...."

For someone claiming scripture alone, you do an awful lot of needing to quote your gnostic confessions of faith.

Charlie J. Ray said...

>>>Nah, you already admitted that 2Th teaches that the apostles had teachings not yet written.<<<

Right. The NT was not yet written. What part of the apostles only can write Scripture do you not understand? :)

>>>You've just asked us to believe that everything was EVENTUALLY written down...<<<

Absolutely. I'm asking you to believe what Scripture says about itself. 2 Timothy 3:16

Thanks for reconfirming to me why I won't join with your synagogue of satan nor the papists version of the same.

>>>>even though there is no reason to believe it. No scripture says such a thing, <<<

Well, Scripture says such a thing over and over again. Things like, "Do not go beyond what is written..."

Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other. (1 Corinthians 4:6 NKJ)

Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. 6 Do not add to His words, Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar. (Proverbs 30:5-6 NKJ)
"You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. (Deuteronomy 4:2 NKJ)
"Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it. (Deuteronomy 12:32 NKJ)
For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. (Revelation 22:18-19 NKJ)

And as for history being the inspired revelation of God, the ONLY history "I" know of that is the inspired and revealed Word of God is the history recorded in the words recorded in the Holy Writings of Scripture.

Charlie J. Ray said...

>>>For someone claiming scripture alone, you do an awful lot of needing to quote your gnostic confessions of faith.<<<

Your misuse of the word "gnostic" is amusing since you're the one who rejects the information contained in the logical propositions of Scripture. Eastern Orthodoxy is all a "mystery" of ecstatic religion, not logical revelation in the words of SCripture.

Furthermore, simply because our churches formulated systematic "confessions" of what we "believe" the Scriptures teach is in no way a claim to have an "infallible" and "inerrant" interpretation of the Scriptures.

But the Eastern Orthodox Church would have us not read the Bible and instead just listen to the church because we "allegedly" cannot understand the Bible on our own with the illumination of the Holy Spirit and by logical and reasonable understanding. Any plow boy can read and understand the Bible AND be saved. 2 Timothy 3:15; 2 Peter 1:19-21.

Furthermore, if the Bible cannot be understood without an infallible interpreter, then it logically follows that I cannot understand the infallible interpreter without another infallible interpreter to interpret the second infallible "revelation." It's an infinite regresss of insufficient means to understand an allegedly irrational infallible revelation. If the revelation is beyond our understanding in the first place God must have been wasting his time in revealing it to us on our level.

Furthermore, the traditions you speak of morph like a nose of wax or shadow puppets on the wall. Who knows what the "church" is going to say next? It changes with the wind.

God's Word, however, is forever settled in heaven! :)

I will delight myself in Your statutes; I will not forget Your word. 17 GIMEL. Deal bountifully with Your servant, That I may live and keep Your word. (Psalm 119:16-17 NKJ)
LAMED. Forever, O LORD, Your word is settled in heaven. (Psalm 119:89 NKJ)

Charlie J. Ray said...

Look, if this is the best drivel you can invent to try to shake my faith in God's Word, you better give it up, buddy:

>>>Oh, so your canon is probably wrong then. Certainly it differs from what the vast majority of people think is the canon. <<<

Now simply because the process of canonization was at the time a fallible process it is a non sequitur to say that the canon is therefore wrong. I already quoted that the 66 books are not in dispute and that has been so since at least the 4th century when both Athanasius and Jerome listed all 66 books. And by the way, both affirmed that the apocryphal books were not Scripture but could only be read for information and edification, not doctrine.

I'm sure you impress you peanut gallery over there in lala land. But for those of us with a rational mind your arguments are pathetically weak and amount to nothing more the propaganda or preaching points for your stupidified audience:)

Charlie J. Ray said...

If you have discovered another book that could be added, it wouldn't make it because the church certainly would have discovered it by now.

Charlie J. Ray said...

>>>How are you going to know you are regenerate, without knowing which books are inspired to inform you of such thing? And around and around in a circle.<<<

Everyone begins with unproven axioms or self-evident truths. You cannot prove that your doctrine of sola ecclesia is true. You only presuppose it as a starting point. So why would you fault Christianity for starting with Scripture as the beginning axiom rather than a church that changes with every wind of doctrine through the centuries?

Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. (Jude 1:3 NKJ)

The new pope is now saying that practicing homosexuals and atheists can go to heaven by good works. And one of your own "allegedly" infallible priests following the "infallible" Orthdox Church has said it does not matter if the historical creation account is true or not. See the YouTube video above.

Churches come and go. But God's Word never changes. It is forever settled in heaven. If you church eventually endores gay marriage--and it probably will some day--it will be judged by the Scriptures, the final revelation of God and the only infallible rule of faith, practice and teaching.

Charlie J. Ray said...

>>>Who said you preach the scriptures? Nobody with authority. You only preach some stuff that by your own puny authority you CLAIM to be the scriptures.<<<<

The Scriptures claim to be the Word of God. If you do not believe that, it is evidence that you are unregenerate. Scripture claims to be the Word of God. Either the individual accepts the Bible as true or he does not. Claiming that your church is infallible does not change the obligation to believe the Scriptures one whit. And since your church changes with the wind, it makes more sense to believe what Scripture says about itself. It claims to be THE inspired Word of God. It is a rational and logical revelation revealed in understandable propositions in written language. The plow boy or the garage mechanic who reads the Bible knows more than the pope or any Orthodox patriarch.

John said...

"Right. The NT was not yet written. What part of the apostles only can write Scripture do you not understand? :)"

The part where Mark, Luke, James, Jude (at least) were not apostles.

But of course, that is not the issue. The issue is whether everything they taught was written. 2Th says no. Nowhere is there anything to say that state of affairs changed.

"Absolutely. I'm asking you to believe what Scripture says about itself. 2 Timothy 3:16"

You can't make scripture contradict scripture. Whatever 2Ti is claiming, it is certainly NOT claiming that every teaching is written down. 2Ti might be saying that scripture is sufficient for CERTAIN purposes, but not for containing everything. Otherwise 2Th is wrong, and the gospels should be burnt as coming later in time. But I guess, like all Protestants, you feel free to pick and choose what scriptures you will follow.

"Things like, "Do not go beyond what is written...""

Bad translation. A better translation is "do not think of men above what is written". Or in other words, don't let these men become too puffed up, when the scriptures say they are sinners.

If you read the church fathers... you know, the guys who spoke koine as their native language, you'd know this stuff. Unfortunately, you are too puffed up, thinking of yourself above what is written.

""You shall not add to the word which I command you".

Were there no books added to the bible since that sentence was written? Hmm, thought so. Funny that.

"Your misuse of the word "gnostic" is amusing since you're the one who rejects the information contained in the logical propositions of Scripture. Eastern Orthodoxy is all a "mystery" of ecstatic religion, not logical revelation in the words of SCripture."

You realise that gnostic means knowledge right? Yes, we know how much you value your (alleged) knowledge as so central to your superiority, and put zero value on the experience of God's church of God's Spirit through the centuries.

"Furthermore, simply because our churches formulated systematic "confessions" of what we "believe" the Scriptures teach is in no way a claim to have an "infallible" and "inerrant" interpretation of the Scriptures."

Then why quote them? The nature of systematic approaches is the attempt to fit the bible into a framework which it was never meant to fit into. That you can't quote the bible on its own terms as a sufficient source is very telling.

John said...


"But the Eastern Orthodox Church would have us not read the Bible and instead just listen to the church because we "allegedly" cannot understand the Bible on our own "

Firstly, I dare say an EO service has 2-3x as much scripture in it than any service in your church. Secondly, at least we're open about the teaching authority of the church. You guys pretend your church has no authority, yet you pick and choose based on your personal views a church that fits YOUR beliefs. Like we say, you gave up the Pope in Rome, to substitute the Pope that you see in the mirror every morning.

"Furthermore, if the Bible cannot be understood without an infallible interpreter, then it logically follows that I cannot understand the infallible interpreter without another infallible interpreter to interpret the second infallible "revelation."

That logic doesn't follow at all, and if you ever read your bible in Acts of the story of the Ethiopian Eunuch, who couldn't understand the scriptures without help, then you would know why. The bible is not interactive. You can't ask it questions. You can't clarify a disputed point. You can't seek its interpretive wisdom when passages seem in conflict. The church is a completely different animal. It's composed of the living breathing saints who can answer questions and interact with you, and over time it can clarify disputes as they arise.

"Furthermore, the traditions you speak of morph like a nose of wax or shadow puppets on the wall. Who knows what the "church" is going to say next? It changes with the wind."

That's a complaint better levelled at the papists, where one man can do as he will, and the Protestants who are forever morphing into something new. We don't have that problem. It's our non-centralised base, and tradition based doctrine which is precisely what prevents that. Tell me, who looks the same as they did 500 years ago? Orthodoxy? Or Protestant-land? The answer is so obvious, it requires no further comment.

I already showed you the Wednesday and Friday fasting tradition documented from 2000 years ago. Even though the Didache itself was lost for millennia, its traditions were consistent. Your complaint is mere rhetoric, about as rational as the liberals saying the bible was corrupted when the facts are actually supporting the tradition. Orthodoxy is the most consistent and unchanging religion on the planet.

John said...

"I already quoted that the 66 books are not in dispute and that has been so since at least the 4th century when both Athanasius and Jerome listed all 66 books."

Firstly, nonsense. The Syriac church never accepted lots of those books, James, Peter, 1,2,3 John, Revelation etc. Chrysostom came from the Syriac church, which is why in all his incredibly extensive writings, he never quoted them. That situation remains to this day in the Syriac church, and the Peshitta, their bible.

And of course, the Ethiopian canon is containing more books.

The Protestant 66 books is neither the smallest canon, nor the biggest. It's just your arbitrary decision.

"If you have discovered another book that could be added, it wouldn't make it because the church certainly would have discovered it by now."

The church? What church? You mean there's a visible, identifiable church which we can quiz on this issue? Or is it just any random group of religious "Christians"? Like the Mormons, who seem to have "discovered" some new writings.

Bleating about "the scriptures" does not solve your problem of deciding which ones. But you seem to have at least twigged that there is a "church" which is authoritative on this, and yet it isn't the Mormons. Why not?

"So why would you fault Christianity for starting with Scripture as the beginning axiom rather than a church that changes with every wind of doctrine through the centuries?"

Did you stop beating your wife yet?

The church's doctrines do not change, and I demonstrated some 2000 year old doctrines in the Didache that didn't change. So that remains a claim not in evidence.

Now starting points... Even atheists and pagans generally recognise that there was a guy called Jesus Christ, that he started a church, and that the EO church has historical continuity with that church. Whether you happen to accept that is neither here nor there, but because WE recognise it, we actually follow the teachings of that church, by way of the writings of its leaders, from the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th.... all the way up to 20th centuries. We don't throw out any of it. You on the other hand very self consciously reject a whole lot of it, which means your continuity with the church and organisation Jesus Christ founded is severed, even in your own mind.

So why is my starting point superior? Because the 2000 year old church is a historical reality. On the other hand, knowing which books are actually infallible and inspired by God is totally subjective, outside of an objective church to tell you about it. Who wrote James? People aren't sure which James it was, but they seem to agree he was not an apostle. Whoever he was, and whatever merits it might have as a holy book, you can't objectively know if it is inspired, any more than a Mormon can know the book of Mormon is inspired, without the historical continuity of the authority of the church to tell you so.

"And one of your own "allegedly" infallible priests following the "infallible" Orthdox Church has said it does not matter if the historical creation account is true or not."

Individuals are not infallible in the Orthodox church. Another non-sequitur.

John said...


"If you church eventually endores gay marriage--and it probably will some day--it will be judged by the Scriptures, the final revelation of God and the only infallible rule of faith, practice and teaching."

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

The Orthodox church isn't even TALKING about women as priests, let alone gay marriage, which is more than can be said than about almost every protestant denomination on the planet. Why? Because while opinions about how to interpret scripture are a dime a dozen, we respect the Tradition, and the tradition is clear. Furthermore, nobody in Orthodoxy actually has the authority to change it. Which is another difference to both the papists and the protestants, where every individual takes upon himself to decide what ought to be changed, and inevitably some leader, according to the many and varied leadership structures actually decides to change.

Wake up! Take a look at Christendom and see who is holding to the traditional positions, and ask yourself why. Why is Protestantland disintegrating, and Orthodoxy is not?

Charlie J. Ray said...

>>>The Orthodox church isn't even TALKING about women as priests, let alone gay marriage, which is more than can be said than about almost every protestant denomination on the planet.<<<<

Oh? But it is talking about theistic evolution as the link above shows. It's only a short slide from making science supreme over the Bible to the other departures from the faith.

You seem to have buried your head in the sand.

Charlie J. Ray said...

Semi-pelagianism is not taught in the Bible. That's your tradition taught by mere men. The Bible alone is God's Word:)

Charlie J. Ray said...

>>>>Firstly, nonsense. The Syriac church never accepted lots of those books, James, Peter, 1,2,3 John, Revelation etc. Chrysostom came from the Syriac church, which is why in all his incredibly extensive writings, he never quoted them. That situation remains to this day in the Syriac church, and the Peshitta, their bible.<<<<

So churches can and do err. And the Syriac church claims to be based on "tradition" as well, does it not? It's also an EASTERN church:)

So much for the infallibility of tradition and churches. Thanks for the concession.

Charlie J. Ray said...

>>>>Firstly, nonsense. The Syriac church never accepted lots of those books, James, Peter, 1,2,3 John, Revelation etc. Chrysostom came from the Syriac church, which is why in all his incredibly extensive writings, he never quoted them. That situation remains to this day in the Syriac church, and the Peshitta, their bible.<<<<

So churches can and do err. And the Syriac church claims to be based on "tradition" as well, does it not? It's also an EASTERN church:)

So much for the infallibility of tradition and churches. Thanks for the concession.

Charlie J. Ray said...

>>>Even atheists and pagans generally recognise that there was a guy called Jesus Christ, that he started a church, and that the EO church has historical continuity with that church. <<<

Oh, so atheists agree with Eastern Orthodox claims to apostolic succession? Hardly:) You're reaching.

If the church is the starting point, why not start with Rome or Syria or Ethiopia? Maybe you would then agree with the monophysite error since those churches agree with that "tradition"?

The bottom line here is that church councils, synods, and such are all prone to err. You admitted as much. And the Eastern Orthodox Church has erred egregiously in matters of the atonement and soteriology. The fact that it espouses sanctification as the end all and be all of Christianity says it all.

The atonement is not universal nor does it recapitulate man to a state of perfect sanctification. It is about appease the wrath of a holy God whom you have displeased more times than you will ever admit. The atonement is about propitiation, not recapitulation.

Charlie J. Ray said...

>>>The Protestant 66 books is neither the smallest canon, nor the biggest. It's just your arbitrary decision.<<< It was also the decision of both Athanasius and Jerome in the 4th century, both of whom listed all 66 books as inspired Scripture. By the way, the word "arbitrary" comes from Latin. It means the "will". So yes, the canon was chosen willfully.

Charlie J. Ray said...

>>>Firstly, I dare say an EO service has 2-3x as much scripture in it than any service in your church. Secondly, at least we're open about the teaching authority of the church.<<< Open is an understatement. What you mean is that your church demands obedience to itself. The Reformation stands on Scripture and Scripture alone. You have added to Scripture and you have done so without any apostolic authority whatsoever. That's the issue here.

Charlie J. Ray said...

That logic doesn't follow at all, and if you ever read your bible in Acts of the story of the Ethiopian Eunuch, who couldn't understand the scriptures without help, then you would know why.<<<

So that's why Protestants confessions of faith and catechisms. But we are not Apostles nor do we fictitiously claim have the authority of apostles to add new revelations and traditions.

And if churches never err, why did Rome and Syria and Ethiopia go wrong? Tradition is set in concrete and inspired, remember? hehehe

Charlie J. Ray said...

>>>That's a complaint better levelled at the papists, where one man can do as he will,<<< That's not quite the way the papist magisterium works. They have a council of bishops as you do. They just make the pope supreme over them. But your patriarchs are just as bad as any papist magisterium and worse. Church synods do not have any authority but Scripture. If a synod pronounces a doctrine that is not warranted by Scripture, it is to be rejected. Icon idolatry comes to mind here.

Charlie J. Ray said...

The Didache? Please:) You don't follow the Didache. You pick and choose.

I have read it. Do you believe this part of it? >>>

And he should not remain more than one day, and if he has a need also another. But if he remains three days, he is a false prophet.

And when the apostle goes forth, he should take nothing except a loaf of bread, until he arrives at his night̢۪s lodging. If he asks for money he is a false prophet. Also, you should not test or judge and prophet speaking in the Spirit, for every sin will be forgiven, but this sin shall not be forgiven. Chapter 11

Charlie J. Ray said...

>>>the Protestants who are forever morphing into something new. We don't have that problem. <<< See the You Tube video above:)

Eastern Orthodoxy is prone to error precisely because of its emphasis on human freedom and semi-pelagianism.

But enough of this. The bottom line is that churches err as you yourself admitted above in reference to Rome and Syria. So you "claim" your church didn't err. Rome, Syria and even the Protestants disagree. Looks like "morphing" is what tradition really is.

Churches err but God's Word NEVER errs. If you say otherwise, you cut your own throat. Say it:) You know you believe the Bible errs.

I'm done here. Feel free to have the last word. It won't impress anyone since you convict yourself further with every diatribe against the authority of Scripture.

Charlie J. Ray said...

>>>If you read the church fathers... you know, the guys who spoke koine as their native language, you'd know this stuff. Unfortunately, you are too puffed up, thinking of yourself above what is written.<<< Yah, stupid me. I wasted 2 years of college Greek and one year of Greek exegesis in seminary all so I could not read the Greek NT for myself. I should just let the experts tell me what it says:)

Right.

Anyone can read the KJV or the NKJV and compare that with other modern translations. It doesn't take a genius or a seminary degree to understand the propositions written in the Bible.

Any plow boy or truck driver can read and understand the Bible and all without the help of the Syrian church, the papists, or the eastern unorthodox. The plow boy who knows the Bible knows more than any un-Orthodox priest or patriarch.

May God grant you the grace to read and understand the Scriptures for yourself.

Charlie J. Ray said...

>>>Then why quote them? The nature of systematic approaches is the attempt to fit the bible into a framework which it was never meant to fit into. That you can't quote the bible on its own terms as a sufficient source is very telling.<<<

So you're saying do not systematize Scripture while your church systematizes Scripture? HUH? Your logic is brilliantly stupid.

If Scripture cannot be interpreted logically, propositionally, and systematically, then it follows that your own interpretation is nothing more that irrational ramblings. The Westminster Confession of Faith is the most comprehensive, systematic, and consistent organizing of the propositions of Scripture ever accomplished. Christianity is defined by the Westminster Confession of Faith. I would add the Anglican Formularies and the Three Forms of Unity to that mix as well.

John said...

"Oh? But it is talking about theistic evolution as the link above shows. "

There's got to be an interaction between science and bible. You can't just say the value of PI is 3.0 because a cursory reading of 1 Kings 7:23-26 might seem to indicate that. So, there is a struggle between what scientists say is true, and how we interpret the bible.

The reality is, there are people in ALL churches, who believe in scientific explanations for things that are to one extent or another difficult to reconcile with the bible. They might believe it because they are scientists, and they can't see any other solution, or maybe because they are not scientists and they read some scientific article. These people are in your church. They might or may not speak up about. So this Orthodox monk poses a theological what-if, Adam was not a literal person. And as he pointed out, some people in the ancient church interpreted the bible this way, not because of science, but because of interpretation. So he poses this hypothetical.

And that's all part of the struggle of science and bible. You can't just close your mind from the start and say PI is 3.0, because the bible says so. You have to weigh considerations. You have to pose what ifs. How likely is science to be wrong on a particular question? How sure am I that my personal interpretation of this verse is the correct one? These are complex issues that need to be explored. The what-ifs have to be spelt out loud so people can understand them.

That's a completely different kind of issue to gay marriage, because marriage is not a scientific problem, its a social and theological problem that science cannot address.

Charlie J. Ray said...

>>>There's got to be an interaction between science and bible. You can't just say the value of PI is 3.0 because a cursory reading of 1 Kings 7:23-26 might seem to indicate that. So, there is a struggle between what scientists say is true, and how we interpret the bible.<<<

First of all, all truth can be logically deduced from Scripture. The text never says that PI is 3.0. That's a presupposed misreading of the text. The Bible never errs. The text is not being precise to cite this as an error is nothing more than a presupposed view that the Bible contains errors. You betray your skepticism and unbelief:)

>>>The reality is, there are people in ALL churches, who believe in scientific explanations for things that are to one extent or another difficult to reconcile with the bible. They might believe it because they are scientists, and they can't see any other solution, or maybe because they are not scientists and they read some scientific article. These people are in your church. They might or may not speak up about. So this Orthodox monk poses a theological what-if, Adam was not a literal person. And as he pointed out, some people in the ancient church interpreted the bible this way, not because of science, but because of interpretation. So he poses this hypothetical. <<<<

So science has more authority than even your church. It is as I suspected. This is why the Bible is the starting point, not science nor even the church.

The fact is science is always changing. It is relativistic, materialistic, and completely incompatible with philosophy and theology. Theology is the queen of the sciences. But you don't seem to believe that. You've already sold out to postmodernism and irrationalism.

Induction is always false and can never lead to universal conclusions. Evolution is not taught in the Bible but you seem to think that theology and "science" should be reconciled with "science" having the upper hand. Thanks for the concession.

The Bible never changes. Tradition is always false. Science is always false. But the Word of the Lord is forever settled in heaven. Psalm 119:89. The Scriptures cannot be broken. John 10:35

John said...

"So churches can and do err. And the Syriac church claims to be based on "tradition" as well, does it not? It's also an EASTERN church:) So much for the infallibility of tradition and churches. Thanks for the concession."

I don't know that its erring to leave a question unanswered, like the status of certain books, but anyway.

It's all very well for you to gloat, because your tradition inherits from a different branch that has a shorter canon than some, but a longer canon than others, and just say, aren't we so superior because we're right. We can't prove we're right, we think we are, but we'll gloat anyway. That's really childish.

Now, how do you know these books are scripture then? Saying, ha ha, the Syrians were wrong, is not answer.

"If the church is the starting point, why not start with Rome or Syria or Ethiopia? Maybe you would then agree with the monophysite error since those churches agree with that "tradition"?"

I don't follow Rome, because its clear to me at least that they've changed a lot of things. Most of these changes happened around 900AD to 1200AD in that area. And they were caused by the forged Isidorian decretals, which led to false ideas about the papacy. The papacy led to a departure from tradition, because they invested in the Pope the power to change, whereas we recognise no such power.

I don't follow the Ethiopians, because it seems to me they are a bit isolated from the mainstream and catholic tradition. Similarly for the monphysites, but talks have occured between our respective churches, and most people agree that the differences are a lot of fuss about terminology rather than much of any reality. If I were to follow the monophysites, or the Ethiopians for that matter, nothing much would be different. The differences are quite minimal.

And like I said, you don't escape this conundrum. You follow YOUR bible, because your heritage comes from ROME. And you didn't have the intestinal fortitude to revisit a lot of issues. Most reformed churches even say the corrupted Roman Nicean creed, which really only gained favour in 1200AD forwards. That's how wedded you guys are to your traditions.

"The fact that it espouses sanctification as the end all and be all of Christianity says it all"

Yes well I've studied the word sanctification in scripture, and there is really no hope at all for Protestants to prove that it means what they think it means. And its also impossible for you to show that what the bible calls sanctification is not its central message. Ro 6:22 says the outcome of sanctification is eternal life. Sounds pretty important to me.

Of course a lot of these arguments are really about terminology, and Protestants are very pig headed and welded to their system and their terminology, not wanting to explore a more historical and culturally aware interpretation, in line with ancient thinking.





Charlie J. Ray said...

any non-Christians, and all too many Christians, are of the opinion that science, (i.e., the physical or natural sciences) is an ever-growing body of truth about the universe. The progress of science, its technological triumphs, so we are told, demonstrate its truth. Science is seemingly unassailable. After all, it works doesn’t it? And isn’t success the measure of truth?

This being the case, so it goes, when the Bible and science appear to be at odds, we need to re-interpret the Bible. For example, since science tells us (and the pope agrees) that (some sort of) evolution is a fact, not just a theory, we need to take a fresh look at Genesis 1. No longer can we assert with the Westminster Shorter Catechism (Q 9) that “the work of creation is God’s making all things of nothing, by the Word of His power, in the space of six days, and all very good.” Six-day creationism needs to be re-examined. It is, we are assured, an obscurantist view of things.

To speak against this sort of scientific thinking is almost blasphemous in some circles, because, for many, science is the god of this age. Yet, that is what this paper intends to do, that is, to blaspheme the god of science. Science, it will be seen, is not the main revealer of truth. In fact, science is not capable of revealing any truth at all.
Dr. Gary Crampton


- See more at: http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=163#sthash.eyFikmaP.dpuf


The Biblical View of Science

Charlie J. Ray said...

So your choice of churches is arbitrary and capricious and you cannot prove your church is the right one. Yet you admit that churches do err.

Further, you say the canon is up for grabs since one church shortens it, namely Syria, while the rest accept 66 book plus or minus a few deuterocanonical books.

So it's all a source of skepticism.

Unless we begin with the 66 books that are self attesting to everyone. That is our position. Our position is that Scripture is the starting point, not God and not the church. God cannot be known except through the Scriptures. Scripture alone is the infallible and inspired Word of God. I believe that no because of any church or confession or synod. I believe it because Scripture makes the claim for itself over and over again. But I wouldn't expect you to believe the Bible since you probably don't read it much.

Everyone knows this verse, though:

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, (2 Timothy 3:16 NKJ)

That verse does apply specifically to both the OT and the NT canon since this is a logical deduction from the verse itself.

As I said before, I'm done here.

Charlie J. Ray said...

>>>Yes well I've studied the word sanctification in scripture, and there is really no hope at all for Protestants to prove that it means what they think it means. And its also impossible for you to show that what the bible calls sanctification is not its central message. Ro 6:22 says the outcome of sanctification is eternal life. Sounds pretty important to me.<<<

Nevermind everything Paul says about law, justification by faith alone and all the rest. But thanks for admitting that you think you can merit God's forgiveness by your works. This is another reason I would never join your synagogue of satan.

Charlie J. Ray said...

>>>You'd struggle to show that from the bible.<<<

Your ignorance of Scripture is truly appalling. Every school boy knows John chapter 10.

"I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep. (John 10:11 NKJ)
"As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. (John 10:15 NKJ)
"And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins." (Matthew 1:21 NKJ)

John said...

"The Protestant 66 books is neither the smallest canon, nor the biggest. It's just your arbitrary decision.<<< It was also the decision of both Athanasius and Jerome in the 4th century, both of whom listed all 66 books as inspired Scripture. By the way, the word "arbitrary" comes from Latin. It means the "will". So yes, the canon was chosen wilfully."

So its not from God then, its from human will, according to you.

Athanasius and Jerome? You just spent a lot of time telling us how councils can err, and now you appeal to even lower entities: individuals.

And you are wrong anyway. Athanasius' canon included Baruch.

Jerome is really about the one and only sole supporter for your 66 book canon. And even he is ambiguous because he refers to other books as scripture in various places.

Anyway, is Jerome your Pope then?

"You have added to Scripture and you have done so without any apostolic authority whatsoever."

Saying we have added to the deposit of faith without apostolic authority is rhetoric that is not backed up by facts. I showed you one example the document Didache - "teachings of the apostles" dating from the 1st century. I think the burden of you is to show how the WHOLE church from east to west, north and south, from the 1st century, followed this fasting practice from then until now, but you say it is not apostolic. Who is the one stretching credulity?

"So that's why Protestants confessions of faith and catechisms. "

So you admit that ordinary people often don't understand the bible without help. Then the problem becomes, whose help will steer in the right direction, and whose help will send you off the rails? Because as well all know, lots of people are "helping" understand the bible, right into cults and heretical ideas.

So once you admitted you need creeds and catechisms, you lost the battle.

"And if churches never err, why did Rome and Syria and Ethiopia go wrong? Tradition is set in concrete and inspired, remember? hehehe"

As I said, Rome went wrong because it abandoned tradition in the church, in favour of some forged documents that the popes latched onto.

As for Syria and Ethiopia, I don't know for sure they are off the rails, I just think we lost contact and stopped talking for so long that our terminology got in the way. If we'd kept talking, and if we keep talking we may yet sort it out.

"That's a complaint better levelled at the papists, where one man can do as he will,<<< That's not quite the way the papist magisterium works. They have a council of bishops as you do. They just make the pope supreme over them."

Not true.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19930324en.html

"This means that these definitions do not need the consent of the bishops in order to be valid, neither an antecedent consent, nor a consequent consent, "since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment""

"But your patriarchs are just as bad as any papist magisterium and worse."

How so? I don't see Patriaches promulgating doctrine alone, without the church.

Charlie J. Ray said...

>>>So its [the canon] not from God then, its from human will, according to you.<<<

God foreordains everything by His decrees, including canonization. However, the canon was chosen by men and that process was fallible.

The Bible itself is inspired of God and is self-attesting such that even uninspired men can read it and see that it is God's Word. Regeneration and illumination are necessary. So if a church council can see the 66 books and recognize them as God's Word, so can I. They have stood the test of time as a canon and they stand the test of self authentication:

6. The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.1 Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the word;2 Westminster Confession Ch. 1:6

Charlie J. Ray said...

5. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture,1 and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole, [which is to give all glory to God], the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the word in our hearts.2 WCF 1:5

John said...

"So your choice of churches is arbitrary and capricious"

Never said that.

" and you cannot prove your church is the right one. Yet you admit that churches do err."

Hmm, I can't prove it in a couple of sentences on some blog discussion. Neither can you prove the bible is true with such limitations.

"Further, you say the canon is up for grabs since one church shortens it, namely Syria, while the rest accept 66 book plus or minus a few deuterocanonical books. "

That's a rather obtuse way of putting it. I could say that all the churches accepted a 43 book old testament, plus or minus this or that, so why did you shorten your OT? No church AT ALL accepted that OT canon, circa 1500AD.

The reality is there are short canons (Syria), slightly longer (Protestant), longer still (Rome), and a bit longer (Orthodox) and really long (Ethiopian). You are just on blip on the spectrum.

"Unless we begin with the 66 books that are self attesting to everyone. "

There is no such thing as the 66 books that are self attesting to everyone, as has been explained to you. I might just as well talk of the 73 books that are self attesting, or the Syrians of the 64 books that self attesting or whatever.

The historical church never got itself worked up about differences in canons, whether it be between Syrians and the West, or between Athanasius' list and Jerome's list and Carthage's list etc, because the tradition of the church's doctrine wasn't settled by scripture alone. This is your conundrum, not ours.

"Nevermind everything Paul says about law, justification by faith alone and all the rest. But thanks for admitting that you think you can merit God's forgiveness by your works."

Your error is thinking justification and sanctification are different. They are not, and the bible never teaches, nor even implies anything else. Of course you are so locked into your Calvinist system, you'll never be able to recognise what is obvious to those whose minds were not corrupted.

">>>You'd struggle to show that from the bible.<<<

Your ignorance of Scripture is truly appalling. Every school boy knows John chapter 10."

And my bible has nothing in Jn 10 about appeasing a wrathful God.

Charlie J. Ray said...

" and you cannot prove your church is the right one. Yet you admit that churches do err."

>>>Hmm, I can't prove it in a couple of sentences on some blog discussion. Neither can you prove the bible is true with such limitations.<<<

Nor do I claim that the Bible can be proved to be God's Word. Obviously it cannot. But the point here is that all knowledge begins with unproven axioms. My starting self-evident axiom is Holy Scripture. Yours is an arbitrary church among other churches. If the current situation proves anything at all it proves that churches are prone to err and so do church councils. Although they get much right as they draw their conclusions as warranted from the propositions of Scripture, they get much wrong, too. ONLY Scripture is the infallible rule for faith and practice. Scripture is inerrant in all the details, including math, history, creation, science, the supernatural, etc. You, on the other hand, have already conceded the argument because you do not believe that Scripture is self-attesting AND you believe the Bible contains errors in math where you claimed that Pi = 3.0 according to 1 Kings 7:23. That was completely false and merely a false presupposition.

You also conceded that the priest in the video was justified in denying that a literal creation is essential to Eastern Orthodox interpretation of the Bible. Furthermore, you think science should lord it over Scripture and the Christian church. On all these concessions you show how utterly bankrupt Eastern Orthodoxy really is. Like other man centered theologies, it is essentially neo-orthodoxy, irrationalism, and skepticism pretending to be Christian.

The Bible IS God's Word. The Bible is the starting point for all knowledge and without it knowledge is impossible.

Nice chatting:)

Charlie J. Ray said...

>>>That's a rather obtuse way of putting it. I could say that all the churches accepted a 43 book old testament, plus or minus this or that, so why did you shorten your OT? No church AT ALL accepted that OT canon, circa 1500AD.<<<

I see. The Jewish canon didn't exist? And I guess Jerome never translated the Hebrew into the Latin Vulgate?

Oh, brother:)

Charlie J. Ray said...

>>>And my bible has nothing in Jn 10 about appeasing a wrathful God.<<< But your Bible does say something about appeasing a wrathful God and since ALL Scripture is inspired of God, your Bible does teach it:) But you said the Bible said nothing about particular atonement. I could show you other verses but those are the most obvious ones:)

"For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God. (Acts 20:27 NKJ)

Charlie J. Ray said...

I find it extremely amusing that you don't believe the 66 books are inspired:)

Charlie J. Ray said...

If am so fallible that I cannot understand the infallible Bible, neither could I understand an infallible interpretation of the Bible.

The Protestant position sees this problem and faces it squarely. If individual men cannot understand the Bible, then neither can an entire council of individual and fallible men understand the Bible.

But the Bible nowhere says that we cannot understand the Scriptures. Isaiah 1:18;55:11. It does say that no one will believe the Scriptures unless they are first born again. John 3:3-8.

Comments are closed.

Support Reasonable Christian Ministries with your generous donation.