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:
What? I can't read that sentence without my interpreter present. Are you speaking Chinese?
You won't get away from this mess by being clever.
Let's see an example from John 6:
Since you hold that the meaning of God's words are as self-evident as a stop sign and are abundantly clear and straight forward. Do tell, do you eat the flesh and drink the blood of our Lord to get eternal life as He commanded?
Most commandments are self evident, there are few which need interpretation. Is "thou shalt not steal" a head-scratcher? "Call no man father" is self evident, you literally should not call your clergy "father" and CERTAINLY not "holy father" which Roman Catholics do. Simple. If a group breaks such a clear command or even is willing to appear to, then its ruled out from being an obedient church.
It's just like if a church promotes a sodomite lifestyle or gender confusion. The Bible clearly condemns it, such a church should be cut off, no question. There are many such cases.
So yes, you can find some passages that are metaphorical and by definition those require interpretation. God is aware of that (as he is aware of all things). When it comes to salvation, we have sufficient teachings. One can look at a single passage and be confused, but taken as a whole it all makes sense.
Peter said " ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. " [Acts 15:6]
We also see in acts, there is repentance and baptism
Peter said "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." [Acts 2:38]
If there was this need for "sacraments" and other traditions that is the section to mention it. No I don't believe we have a God who withheld that from us and required you meet an Orthodox priest in order to be saved.
We see what is spoken of in the earliest church. Repent, believe, be baptized, receive the Holy Spirit. We see these things. Can we call ourselves conservative if we add to this hundreds of years later (say the 4th century, when some scholars say these additions began)?
Study the scriptures and pray.
Now, it seems reasonable you could already be saved DESPITE extra traditions. If you believe and receive what the apostles clearly write about, then that's wonderful, and I'm happy for that. But getting people focused on ritual, penance and works can definitely lead people away from the gospel shown in the acts of the apostles.
That's a lot of words to answer a simple question and in the end you didn't answer but went on a tangent and weaseled out. Do you follow Jesus's commandment and eat His flesh and drink His blood or do you ignore that, forfeiting eternal life and condemning yourself to death instead? Is this a hard saying for you too? Does it offend you?
I can give you a hundred more examples like this and expose how inconsistent, reductionist and arbitrary your exegesis is.
It seems you pick and choose the parts of it you like and go with them. Almost as if you're doing your own free interpretation that aligns with extra-biblical assumptions you hold (the protestant exegesis tradition and your own biases) and you're not truly following the text...
Thanks for proving my point once more. Yes, even this commandment is not self-evident and absolute. In cases of true necessity for survival, taking what is needed is not “theft” in the moral sense, because life is more fundamental than property.
Same goes for other such commandments. You realize the same God that commanded Thou shall not kill in Ex. 20:13, also said in Ex. 21:12, “He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death.” The Holy Spirit authored both these statements and they are not in conflict. Rather, these texts teach that the sin/crime of murder is wrong, and that a lawful magistrate killing a murderer is, in fact, virtuous. So yes, even this straightforward command is interpreted contextually. Even if you reject the death penalty which God institutionalized, it is obvious to anyone that killing can be justified if it's in self-defense or when protecting the ones you love.
Do you see now how much deeper everything in Scripture is and how your literal, legalist and limited understanding of it is leading you in the wrong direction away from what God intended? This is where pride and putting your faith in your own reason as the ultimate authority and ability to discern leads you.