The Bible vs Eastern Orthodoxy
(www.youtube.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (53)
sorted by:
It doesn't matter if you accept the pope as legitimate authority. I don't either. The point was that everyone ultimately has to appeal to an authority for interpretation of Scripture. It's either you (protestantism), the Pope (RC) or the Church (Orthodoxy).
The Early Church of the apostles you talk about has never ceased to exist (as Christ promised) and it continues to this day. The problem you and all protestants have is that you don't believe the institution of the Church and its councils is guided by the Holy Spirit and is infaliable. But that same Church decided what the list of the books that go into the Bible is. You hold the Bible to be infalliable but if the people who compiled it weren't infalliable then it's possible they were mistaken.
It's weird you believe this, because the OT and its continuation in the NT is literally a tradition that is upheld by rituals and sacraments. Denying tradition is sawing off the branch you're sitting on. It is this tradition of the Church that has produced the Bible (remember that there was no Bible until 4c.)
So you did imply that we need a Pope to reinterpret scripture for us. You just call your Pope "the Church" when really it's your church father or fathers reinterpreting for you (btw 'Pope" means Papa so same issue).
So yes that brings up the glaring issue that you put a layer between yourself and God's word. You claim there is a need for an interpreter beyond the Holy Spirit. You claim that your church fathers (Popes) are able to communicate with you in a way that you can understand but God's word cannot.
Period. That is the truth. That's what you're saying.
We are saved by the reality of the situation, by God's grace through faith. By God's gift to us. That's not a tradition or a ritual. Period.
Tradition didn't produce the Bible, that is the work of the prophets and apostles who authored it from divine inspiration.
You've twisted everything I've said to fit your tradition and religion. Jesus specifically warned about the "traditions of men". It was in this same context of religious traditions. I'm merely echoing the warning that Jesus clearly gave to you but you resist the truth. Nothing to do with needing an interpreter, it's you resisting the truth in unrighteousness.
You have no leg to stand on against the documented words of Christ himself. "Call no man father", and don't put "traditions of men" on the same level as God's commandments.
Notice he didn't say "God's traditions" or "God's rituals".
Have you red Acts and the epistles? Paul addressed the churches in different cities. Do you realize the Church was established by Christ Himself and apostolic succession and ecclesiology is described in Scripture? The Church is Christ's body and He is the head. It is guided by the Spirit - it's not a man-made institution. It's useless to argue. If you're interested you can always look up what the Church was like in the first centuries after Christ. No one believed the things you do back then - your whole sola-based system came 15c. later. People didn't read the Bible back then because the Bible was a liturgical text to begin with and was compiled much later. They used lexicons and the worship was liturgical. They had sacraments. They had deacons, presbyters and bishops. The Church was decentralized and governed locally and synodally through councils. All of this was part of a tradition and not written neatly in one place and that tradition was a continuation of the hebrew OT tradition of the prophets, priests and Temple worship.
For the fifth time - Scripture doesn't interpret itself. No text does. In the protestant case, you are the interpreter. This is why I called you your own pope - because you believe you have divine authority (given by the Spirit) to interpret Scripture correctly. How do you know you have the correct interpretation? What makes your interpretation 2000+ years after the events more correct than what the early Church fathers taught? You think you get around the problem of reliable authority and "man made traditions" but you miss the part that you are a man making your own tradition 2000 years after the events and that you are fallible. You don't trust the Pope or the Church holds the correct interpretation. You trust that you do. Again, no one did that back in the day. The presuppositions you hold are 400 year old at most.
Anyway, the information is out there, all you need to do is be good faith about it and look for the truth. I can't help you if you're not willing.
Can God communicate to man, yes or no? If so can he enshrine that in scripture in language people can understand? Is the English language, or any language, sufficient to transmit important ideas? If not why are we having this conversation at all?
If Jesus says call no man father, but my church has a tradition calling priests father, in direct violation of this clear declaration, do you require an interpreter to tell you you cannot do that?
You trust the words coming from a human, but don't think the words coming from God can transmit the idea properly. How dangerous is that? Very.
How come people read the same text and come to completely different beliefs? How do you determine who's interpretation is correct? Why do you assume you specifically hold the correct interpretation? This is a problem of epistemology and hermeneutics, not theology.
Do you know what word-concept fallacy is? Do you think for example the word "kid" points to the same concept every time it's used or is it context dependent? You didn't answer if you called your biological father father? I'm pretty sure you did and according to your interpretation you violated God's commandment.
Dude... I'm worried you're too low IQ to argue about this stuff. Every Christian appeals to Scripture. The point of contention is who holds the authority of interpretation. Catholics believe it's ultimately the Pope. The Orthodox - the Church. You believe it's ultimately you and anyone who reads the Bible. Are you not human just like the Pope?
For the last time, NO TEXT INTERPRETS ITSELF. No text is self-evident but is interpreted through a paradigm that comes with many assumptions that are not found in the text. If the Bible was self-interpreting we'd all agree on what the text means. What part of this reasoning is hard for you?