If no one can interpret the bible due to its lack of perspicuity then what makes you think you can interpret any other text such as the writings of the church fathers to help you define tradition. If you say a council or pope dogmatically defines these things then how do you know if you're interpreting their interpretation right? If their words are clear enough for people to privately interpret them was God a bad communicator?
Also, rate my OC meme.
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
It isn't prudent to have a personal interpretation apart from the interpretation of the people who wrote these books (of the Bible) or from the people closest to these people. In other words, although it often proclaims timeless truths, it wasn't written in a vacuum and does require a certain understanding of context.
Private interpretations also go against the general spirit of the Bible. It wasn't written simply for the individual, but for the whole of the Church and belongs to the Church. Therefore a deviation by an individual from the interpretation held by the Church from the very beginning can properly be identified as a misreading.
Being this this smug while strawman shitposting without a serious attempt at discussion is a tell of atheist posting.
because the interpreter (the Church) is indefectible as per Christ's promise the gates of hell will not prevail against the ground and pillar of truth (which is the Church).
Hey, OP here. Since you're an orthodox, I was wondering something. I've been considering the orthodox church but the whole culture has really bothered me. Like, you guys don't really define things and leave it all as a mystery. Like, while the West was in the scholastic age you guys were focusing on theosis. Not that there's something wrong with theosis but just that I think it's against the spirit of the early church of defining just so we can safeguard against heresy.
Could you tell me your thoughts?
We take the mystical approach to theology rather than defining things in a scholastic way. Isn't it more important to focus on having direct experience with God rather than trying to know God through your intellect?
You cant define everything and set rigid postulates to every subject. Its both pointless and may degenerate into legalism like in Judaism or Islam.
This doesn't mean, that there aren't any dogmas, Nicene Creed is, for example a dogma, that should be followed despite your opinions on other subjects.
second reply, because I'm a retard
Not really. Scholasticism was, in fact, formed in its modern shape by John of Damascus, who was a member of the Eastern Church and highly respected saint in Orthodoxy. We dont reject Scholasticsim per see, but neither do we overestimate it. I understand that in modern times, there is a trend to disregard it, in favor of apophatic theology primarily found in writings of pseudodionysus. (What most dont realize that most of the Areopagetic corpus is largely a garbage, that tries to reduce God into some brahma tier passive entity, is influenced by neo-platonism severely (his angelology is quite an example of that) and most probable identity of pseudodionysus is Peter the Iberian, who was described as leader of monophysites in the east. My point is that using it to defend apophacy isnt a bright idea.)
As for theosis, it has been part integral part of apostolic Christianity. Even in Old Testament, it is emphasized that humans are made in image and likeness of God and humans are even called "gods" in psalm 82:6, that is later quoted by Jesus in book of John. I know that posting wikipedia article may seem lazy, but there are quotes from church fathers since early Christianity, so it was a thing since the beginning.
…..Or I might've misunderstood what you were trying to say, which is most likely.
How do you define church?
Nah, it still bugs me. I just hate it when I talk to an orthodox and tell them in studying orthodoxy then suddenly they get angry at me and say the church is something you should experience rather than study. I mean, I get the message but this will only get you so far. I wanna know what I'm getting into, the history and the theology before I even think about joining it. And this culture of mysticism is a real stumbling block for me.
You have to develop our theology and have a similar scholastic phase in the east so you can better define yourself. It's the apostolic spirit.
Were the Apostles scholastic?
In the sense that they defended and defined their teachings.
Even in the bible sometimes Paul would make up words by joining to pre-existing words to explain a new concept.
We have many great fathers of our church who do that as well. I'm not sure what you mean by scholastic, or I'm not sure why you say we don't defend or define our teachings.
Don't forget you're reading a book which is 2,000 years old. Few people have enough historical understanding to read a book with correct interpretation which is even 500 years old. For instance, when Shakespeare is performed today, everyone misses about half the jokes.
So take the Bible, a book which presents a history which is about half allegorical, a prophetic tradition, a legal codex, the lost tradition of producing wisdom books and the life of Jesus. All of which was written in a more or less everyday language of the time. So some things are easy, other things are extremely difficult and prone to being lost in translation.
...
He did, that's why He established a Church.
Even those who have have studied the historical context and original language as well as its connection to the OT don't even think about becoming Roman Catholic or orthodox.
I just want you guys to be be intellectual like the scholastics. More studying and development oriented as opposed to simply staying mystical.
Just like anyone who knows the absurdity of relativism doesn't even think of becoming protestant.
And it's not just that. Treating the Bible like a literary text is just silly, literary criticism makes cases for all kinds of interpretations. Saying 'I have the best one' means nothing, because without objective authority to judge it, your guess is as worthwhile as anyone else's.
Now here's a scholastic question for you, would God, who is perfect, condone the absurdity of relativism when it comes to interpreting His word?
Relativism is a meme and a bad one too. But I like how you admired that those who study the text from all sides have enough common sense to not follow the catholic or eastern church.
You think protestants read the bible like a literary text? Youre either ignorant of have a huuuuge bias. If it's the latter then I have no use talking to you.
And yes, any right minded protestant would say that God would not condone or relativism.
We have a whole list of great minds like Palamas and many others, including contemporaries. I'm not sure what you mean. Do you want us to simply be scholastics?
Studying what? Development of what?
Yeah, you do, proved by the thousands of denominations you have. More than Shakespeare's works I'd imagine.
It's not a meme. It's common sense. If there is no objective interpretive authority, who decides what the correct intepretation is? A ballot? God hiding the true meaning of the Bible for 1900 years until the most illistrous protestant scholars appeared?
Because you all claim your, or your group's, interpretation is correct, while in reality your guess is as good as anyone's because you're in a relativist system. There's just so many logical holes in your babbling that I have no use talking to you.
Palamas' area of study wasn't as diverse or even as influential as Aquinas. Also, the entire culture is just "don't ask questions experience" and that just isn't me. I want answers. REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
Theology
Tell me what all those thousands of denominations as well as sources. I'm sure you can give me something and you aren't simply spouting things you've heard on the internet. ;-)
The scriptures themselves. Our job is to understand it by interpretation. And Tradition is the one who interprets. Also, before you come at for using the word Tradition, I don believe your tradition is true but rather the commandments of man.
Nope, protestants don't deny all 2000 years of church history. We notice and appreciate the good that has come from it as well as filter out all that was wrong. I would love to go deeper where your man made traditions have gone wrong.
Your bias is showing. A seasoned scholar or pastor who has spent hours reading the word of God has infinitely more value than pastor Jim who planted a church after a born again experience in his trip to vegas.
We have many fathers who wrote many books on many subjects. Palamas not being "influential" is not a proof against his work. And since his writings are accepted by Christianity's second largest denomination I'd say he's pretty influential. But I'm still not understanding what exactly you mean by not being intellectual.
Experiencing God is more important than knowing things about Him.
We don't "develop" our theology in the way the West does or engage in much theological speculation. The Truth has already been given us, it's not up to us to go ahead and "develop" what God has already given us. It borders on hubris to think one can know the mind of God outside of what He has revealed, or to assume things about what God would want (of course God would want female clergy, etc.). It's up to us to accept it and live our Christian life.
Don't play dumb and don't dodge the fact relativism is in the heart of your shenanigans.
Oh, so the scriptures tell you how to interpret them? Your 'tradition' is just a meaningless word, there's no 'tradition' with you, what tradition? Mennonite? Lutheran? Methodist? Baptist? Anabaptist? You have as much claim to Apostolic tradition as I do to the cultural heritage of the african Bushmen.
See, it's not a matter of argument. Your general claim is ridiculous and arrogant:
Just stop, you're a glorified conspiracy theorist. Now, I'm suuure you'll saaay how aaaall those Churches sat down together and said 'hey guys, let's disergard what the Apostle told us and just start saying totally something else hihihihi'. Because screw what the Syrians and oldest Christians say, I, a protestant scholar from 2018 who could barely wipe my ass 15 years ago am the authority.
Oh so person who spends more hours 'studying' the Bible automatically knows the true intepretation of it? Get your stopwatch, assemble the major denominations, let's duke it out.
Palamas has the attitude that I'm talking about the the West has lost. During the council of nicea we had to make up a new word as well as a new way of explaining the trinity. Being exposed to criticism and those who oppose the faith helps us develop the understanding of our own fait. It's the whole reason why palamas made the energy essence distinction. Eastern orthodoxy being in the east and pretty much secluded and having to fend of muslims made it hard for them to develop a better understanding of their theology. For you to deny development and simply say the truth has already been given to us is to ignore the spirit of the church.
Also, no need to mention female clergy. We're discussing theology not ecclesiology.
Palamas explained what was already true, he didn't develop anything new. That's why he was universally accepted by the Orthodox, whereas the West went with scholastic innovations.
That's your opinion.
The two are very much related.
Name a piece of scripture or church father before palamas who made the energy, essence distinction? Also, this is what the scholastics would also claim to be doing "explain what is already true."
And I proved it
Sure, but even your ecclesiology is a innovation.
What profound and utter nonsense, considering you didn't even mention natural theology, because the user you responded to obviously isn't talking about natural theology.
Look a this guy, acting like everything he says is dogma.
Good God Almighty.
It's kind of like saying "show me where in the Scripture it mentions the Trinity".
How?
In what way?
Yeah, I don't get it. Early on, it was a religion followed by grisly Roman soldiers. Nowadays, it reads like sjw propaganda. Something doesn't add up. If God's word truly will always be preserved as He claimed it's probably locked up in some Alphabet agency vault and our Bible is pure propaganda.
You meme and argue like a leftist jew by assuming that biblical scripture, consensus and traditions are arbitrarily agreed upon, so much so that new opinions, based on novelty alone, are worth anything when they contradict all three.
Perverted through mistranslation in the modern day.
Lmao
Boomer zionism is basically tradition now.
Go away, Satan.
Hold up a sec. According to Jesus Christ in John 14, 15, and 16 the interpreter of his words isn't the church but the Holy Spirit.
John 14:16-17
And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
John 14:26
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
1 John 2:27
Yes actually. Like Paul says in 1 Cor. 2:13, the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. As it says "that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God."
2 Peter 1:20-21
So who better to give the true meaning and interpretation than the same Holy Spirit of truth that first moved the holy men of God that wrote the scriptures. And why place some man in that role instead? Because that's what you're doing or tantamount to it.
I studied it in the original and I became an Apostolic Christian… Are you implying like a fedora that reading God's word will make you into a fedora?
Ah, I get you, you're a non-apostolic prot, well, I'm afraid I have bad news for you. You're a heretic XD
The problem I have with the proddie reading with the Holy Spirit meme is that how can be sure He means It will teach you through scripture and not something like schizo hallucinations or an angel personally knocking on your office door and tutoring you? What if only 12 people have been taught by the Holy Ghost?
John 14:26 says he shall "bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."
Also in John 16:13-14 it says:
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
—
So it's all through scripture.
If that were true then 1 John 2:27 wouldn't say what it says. Our God is an ever-present help in time of need and he truly teaches all things to all men. That's why 1 Cor. 2:14 tells us that the natural men receiveth not the things of God, "for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."
I see that your bantime has expired, or found another proxy. sad.
No idea what you're talking about.
Jesus was talking to the Apostles about Pentecost, not to the reader.
The Epistles were written by the Apostles to their disciples. Context matters.
Yeah and there it says the Holy Spirit teaches them. Thanks for making my point for me.
Them meaning the disciples of the Apostles, not some random reader. Thanks for proving mine.
I rest my case
What case? That you translate δόξα as "honor"?
Looks like you've got some studying to do. Any order works, but I'd suggest starting with the NT in this case.
I rest my case.
You've proven the point I was trying to make. What more needs to be said? And why do you take heresy lightly?
What point? I thought you were memeing.
Like Paul says in 1 Cor. 2:13, the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. As it says "that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God."
sage for repost
So Paul was talking to his disciples in Corinth telling them that "we" might know the things that are freely given "us" by God. I mean if you're just going to take things out of context I don't know what to tell you.
1 Corinthians 1:1-2
Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,
Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:
Yes, Paul was also addressing the Church in general.
1 Thessalonians 2:13
For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
Hebrews 4:2
For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.
Ephesians 1:13-14
In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
2 Corinthians 1:21-22
1 John 3:24
Acts 5:32
Romans 8:11
Luke 11:9-13
And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?
Romans 10:8-9— But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Galatians 1:8-9— But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
Acts 20:29-32
For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.
And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.
2 Timothy 3:14
But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
John 10:1-5
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.
1 Peter 1:23-25
Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
Are you going to make a point, or just spam quotes from Scripture out of context?
It's not up to you to provide the context.
I know, it's up to you, you're the one attempting to make a point by spamming.
You're not the one who explains what's out of context and what isn't. That task isn't up to you.
I already explained to you to the Apostles wrote to the Church, and there was and is only one Church. They did NOT write their general letters to individuals to make up their own minds about how to interpret what's being said. The Scripture can only be understood in the context of when, where, and to whom it was written. In other words it wasn't written in a vacuum.
And it's not up to you to provide it.
Do I need to cite 1 Corinthians 1:1-2 again? And will that then cause you to complain about spam again? Because you are just not getting it and you're dead wrong. You don't know the first thing about what you're talking about and you're doing little more than interfering with the word of God right now and referring to vain philosophy and deceit instead of Scripture. You are not in the church of God. And the Holy Spirit is the person who interprets the Scripture, as I've abundantly shown, not man. So therefore, if one is unsaved then no man can explain that to them or bring understanding. So it's time for you to go your separate way; now read and actually hear the word of God.
So this is what prelest looks like.
False authority leveraged through lies and historical illiteracy. That's your answer.
Do you truly believe that man is incapable of logic?
And I mean logic and not reason.
If it's consistent. You're asking about what makes something correct correct, but because we can't know Truth in the Abstract Sense of it, we are not God, consistency is how we can check for falsehoods.
The metaphysical is by definition a mystery to physical beings.
It's like explaining Theology to an ant. It can't be done fully. Certain things such as how God acted before He created time is absurd to know.
You're taking metaphysics too lightly here. It is literally too complex to know in the realm of the physical world and time.
That's what the scholastic were out to develop their understanding of. It was natural theology whilst the east was all about "muh theosis."
I'm not an ododox or a papist and don't use such words
It's called the reformation for a reason. We weren't inventing anything new rather just reforming what went wrong. Also, this isn't even an argument. No one says mormonism is wrong because it came really late. Instead we know what they believe is weird enough to not even use that argument. Based solely on the absurdities of what they believe we can safely say that they wrong instead of saying it's some kind of novelty.
False equivocation. The word isn't there but the concept is. Since you're the one who always likes to talk about "muh church fathers" I'm sure you can find a church father who talks about the distinction between essence and energies.
In every way. From the scripture and the distinction between presbyters and bishops, which are synonymous terms in the bible, yeah it's an innovation.
Good argument. reelee mad mee tink
What do you mean by studied it in the original? Also, what do you mean by apostolic christian?
No
I have faith in Tradition. I can look to that and see how God has guided His church for assurance. Now, the way I define Tradition is different to that of a ordodox and papist.
no
And protestants are king of that
I agree, you need help from the Spirit. Now, this is something I don't think the catholic church has or the orthodox church has since from my own study, they lack that consistency you speak of.
Yes.
How bout actually reading it sometime and taking it in context as a way of knowing what it's about? Completely insane, I know.
Jay Dyer makes a similar argument against Roman Catholicism. If the Pope alone is infallible then who infallibly interprets the Pope? It just moves the "problem" back one step. Orthodox are content to say the Holy Spirit guides the Church.
How can you check with falsehoods if you don't know what the truth is? By what standard are you juding the consitency of it?
Many people are consistent with the Prosperity Gospel; is that the true message?
Jesus said to be the Truth, and he did establish a church here.
I was fundamental baptist before; but reasoning through this logic eventually made me look for proper authority or else I became my own God in judging was is "truth" or not.
There has to be a last link in the chain user; we beleive the Holy Spirit Guides the church in picking the Pope as well.
Those arguments don't seem similar at all. Time is known by change, and if God is unchanging, then it only makes sense he is eternal. We know the word of God is perfect, and that nothing is to be added or removed from it. The only authority should come from the word of God, not of man.
I think this is a "teachable moment" since this is a perfect example of how not to answer that objection. Here's how you should respond
So if I study the historical context, can I interpret it correctly?
The reason this is the correct response is it will force the papist to stop being disingenuous and show their true objection, since to say yes would be to have no argument against sola scriptura. What they need when making this argument is for it to be impossible for anyone but the pope to correctly interpret scripture. Otherwise, there's no reason why you need their magisterium. When arguing with Roman Catholics, always try to see past their salesmanship to the used car they're trying to sell.
Here's another good example of something ugly being dressed up as something appealing. Read behind the lines, look beyond the rhetoric and see the logical conclusion of what he's really saying. What ugly, mangled used car is he actually trying to sell? He's saying that the text of scripture is not relevant to the meaning of scripture. That's why he talks about the need of an "objective authority" (magisterium), since if the text is what tells us the meaning of scripture, scripture itself would serve as the judge of interpretations, not popes and councils.
The same way a mathematician know he's wrong even though he has never hwld the Number Two in his hand.
No, the answer is that actual clergy actually study the historical context. The used car of the papists is the Pope, not the Church. Feel free to misinterpret things freely and spread historical lies though.
Protestants are ruled by midiatic nominalism. Which is, by definition, not coherent. Give me a break.
Just because you spell and sound the word Love the same way Christ did, does not mean you see Love the same way He does. Word (Logos) does not mean a set of letters or sounds.
Actual Christians and you are speaking two completely different languages here, even though we've read the same book, because you're a nominalist who thinks the numbers in the Bible are just quantities.
I meant the complete opposite from what you did.
I don't believe the Holy Spirit stops man from misinterpretation, partial or full, any more than he does when I get a mathematical equation right or wrong.
The Holy Spirit is not only present in Theological studies, but He is in every single interaction with the Logos there is. He doesn't pull the off and on switch autistically so I get to put the burden of proof in part on Him when discussing Theology.
Stop denouncing Him in your daily life.
According to John 16:13 (quoted earlier), He will guide us into all truth. And in 1 Corinthians 2:12 the word of God says "we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God."
And I would then ask how it is that this is not enough for the man of God to be made perfect, when given the word of God. He is in fact made perfect (meaning complete), throughly furnished unto ALL good works, which includes but is not even limited to all doctrine. All he needs is the Scripture and the Holy Spirit who is the Spirit of truth in John 16:13. We are made kings and priests and the Lord is our only high priest.
Genuinely learning God's word is always going to be hard. That's why it's best to look at the interlinear of every cherrypicked verse you see. Just because God's word will always be preserved, that doesn't mean it's going to be the easiest interpretation to access.