Wasn’t the Bishop of Rome appointed by Apostolic succession as well? What happened there? He became corrupted. What is your assurance that it could not happen in the East?

If that would have happened, then Christ would be a liar when he promised that the gates of Hades would not prevail against His Church.

The Bishop of Rome changed doctrine and lost his apostolic succession and even more importantly..his ordination was invalid because his intention was to corrupt.

All Protestant churches theology comes from the corrupted theology of the Roman Catholic Church.

then I count you as a brother, whether or not you reciprocate.

I do count you as a brother in Christ.

I am sure that like all devout Protestants and Roman Catholics also, you will be in heaven someday.

I can’t box in the Holy Spirit and say that He doesn’t work with other Holy Trinity believing, Christ with two natures(God and man), believing Christians..

But with that being said there is a big difference between the Church and ecclesial communities or missionary outposts.

RegularJoe on December 17, 2008 at 4:32 PM

You’re a good person, able to convict without insulting.

Esthier on December 17, 2008 at 4:33 PM

“Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.” (Mar 10:18 NASB)

It is not that I am good, but that God is good, and that he offers his spirit to his Children. Remember the fruits of the spirit: “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.”

I won’t claim to always seeking to be filled with the spirit. All too often I fail, and you wouldn’t think me good on those days!

But I find that when I DO seek to be spirit filled (this is the result of prayer and meditation on the Word), my normally crabby, vindictive, impatient, tactless personality begins to give way to all of those fruits of the spirit. I begin to love people who judge me. I find I am inexplicably patient with people who seem to be purposely obtuse. I find that I have the ability far beyond my natural limits to be gentle. If I was a “good person”, I wouldn’t need the spirit to accomplish those things. But “with God, ALL things are possible”!

Oral tradition Apostolic succession of unwritten Holy Tradition is just not reliable enough.

Of course it is.

Therein lies the crux of our disagreement. As we depart ways on this point (and boy howdy, DO WE!!), many of the particulars of our religion diverge as well.

You think the Holy Spirit can preserve the accuracy of the Holy Scripture but you don’t think the Holy Spirit can preserve the accuracy of the unwritten Holy Tradition spoken of repeatedly in the Bible?

SaintOlaf on December 17, 2008 at 4:37 PM

I trust the Spirit of God. I do NOT trust men. Wasn’t the Bishop of Rome appointed by Apostolic succession as well? What happened there? He became corrupted. What is your assurance that it could not happen in the East? Please understand I’m not trying to offend, and I make no specific charge against anyone; I am just extremely skeptical of oral tradition.

I’ll give you the last word on this, unless we somehow get beyond the “is not” “is so” “is not” “is so” stage.

As my final word, let me just say this: if you believe that Jesus
* was God’s son
* was born of a virgin
* lived a sinless life
* died for the sins of man
* rose on the third day
* and through grace offers salvation to mankind;
and you accept his grace to satisfy the debt for your sins; then I count you as a brother, whether or not you reciprocate.

The Holy Spirit is not divided

My statement doesn’t imply that it is.

Oral tradition Apostolic succession of unwritten Holy Tradition is just not reliable enough.

Of course it is.

You think the Holy Spirit can preserve the accuracy of the Holy Scripture but you don’t think the Holy Spirit can preserve the accuracy of the unwritten Holy Tradition spoken of repeatedly in the Bible?

Each person interprets scripture according to, and through the matrix of their tradition.

I thought it was through the Holy Spirit, spiritual things being spiritually discerned and all.

Esthier on December 17, 2008 at 4:23 PM

Ideally, yes; but there are certain “derived” doctrines — i believe in “The Trinity”, for example, based upon scriptures that support it. It is taught to Christians as fact, usually long before it is supported by scripture; and as such could be viewed as ‘tradition’. Having accepted that doctrine, it becomes a part of my test of other interpretation. The Trinity, then, becomes part of my ‘world-view’ — the list of assumptions within which I understand scripture (or anything else, for that matter).

So there’s some truth in what Ollie is saying; but if we are diligent, our “traditions” will be well tested against scripture.

I thought it was through the Holy Spirit, spiritual things being spiritually discerned and all.

Esthier on December 17, 2008 at 4:23 PM

The Holy Spirit is not divided nor is the cause of division.

If one protestant church says the Holy Spirit inspired their interpretation of a particular scripture and another protestant church says the Holy Spirit inspired their interpretation of scripture that is the exact opposite of that…how could that be inspired by the Holy Spirit?

You’re forgetting the Scriptures that talk about how that process works..through Holy Synods of the Church.

The first Holy Synod was in the book of Acts. That is how Christ taught the Church to handle disputes of interpretations.

St. Peter acknowledged his view was heresy and moved on from it.

RegularJoe on December 17, 2008 at 4:32 PM

You’re a good person, able to convict without insulting.

Still, I think his attitude on this matter is needlessly divisive.

Esthier on December 17, 2008 at 4:21 PM

People could in good faith disagree whether he is being “confident” or “arrogant”. To know would take a knowledge of Ollie’s heart. I’ll leave that to someone else. ;o)

each person assumes the role of God in his or her interpretation of scripture.

SaintOlaf on December 17, 2008 at 4:12 PM

If you would have used the phrase “the role of priest” instead of “the role of God“, we could at least agree on that. “Priesthood of the believer” is indeed a Protestant doctrine.

I wish we could find more common ground, I really do. It was difficult for me that my Orthodox friend and I could not find sufficient common ground for him to be willing to pray and worship with me. But however sad that might make me, it doesn’t cause me to think I’m wrong. Oral tradition is just not reliable enough. Look what had happened with even the written rabbinical tradition between the time of the Pentateuch and Jesus!

John tells us that the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, as of the only begotten of the Father. THAT — God’s word — is pure. THAT has glory. Between oral traditions and the unfiltered word of God, I’ll take that word.

I will acknowledge that this comes with a tremendous responsibility. We are not permitted to bend the meaning of scripture to suit us. We are practicing heresy if we decide to chuck a little bit here or there because it isn’t socially acceptable. We must diligently study it, ready to jettison our existing notions — however comfortable we may be with them — should we discover them to be in conflict with the given Word. And we must accept that, in our humanity, our best effort to understand God will fall short.

Being a priest is an awesome responsibility, even if I am priest to only myself.

Of course you probably disagree with all of that, as is your right.

Each person interprets scripture according to, and through the matrix of their tradition.

I thought it was through the Holy Spirit, spiritual things being spiritually discerned and all.

Also, isn’t that what EVERYONE says, any time they assert ANYTHING to be true?

RegularJoe on December 17, 2008 at 4:01 PM

I suppose even if you assert that something is up for interpretation you’re saying that those who believe it isn’t are wrong.

Still, I think his attitude on this matter is needlessly divisive.

The opposite is also true: because Protestants will accept the traditions at MOST as “likely”, and only to the extent that they do not conflict with scripture — a tradition that we trace back to Jesus himself, though there was a lengthy apostasy in the mean-time — he will N-E-V-E-R place them above scripture.

Joe,

The fact is protestants have their own traditions and interpret scripture through the matrix of such traditions.

The gnostics and the heretics all quoted scripture to support their case.

The fact is scripture is not self interpreting.

Each person interprets scripture according to, and through the matrix of their tradition.

What matters in the end,(and how the Orthodox Church defeated the heretics) is that they can point to the tradition that they have received, that has been handed down to them without alteration from the Apostles.

That’s fine if Tom and I disagree about this.

He holds to to his tradition(a creed that originated 500 years ago that has no connection to the Apostles)..

And the Orthodox hold to their tradition that was passed down from the Apostles through apostolic Succession.

That’s how the argument is won.

You either hold the Faith of the Apostles or you don’t.

Luther and the protestant Protestors had zero connection to the Apostles, had no conversations with them, and their faith is a different faith than the faith of the Apostles.

The false doctrine of scripture alone is in fact, Tom’s biggest fallacy.

There is clearly demonstratable evidence that such a doctrine is a fallacy. The fact that all Protestant churches are divided on interpretations and have different baptisms prove this without a doubt.

They disagree with one another on interpretations and even the members of each congregation disagree with one another on interpretations.

In a way it’s like within each church there are millions of mini churches, and each person assumes the role of God in his or her interpretation of scripture.

RegularJoe on December 17, 2008 at 3:44 PM

Because Olaf is the one saying every other Christian is wrong except those that believe what he does.

Esthier on December 17, 2008 at 3:54 PM

Also, isn’t that what EVERYONE says, any time they assert ANYTHING to be true? If I assert that the sky is blue, then I am also asserting that the pink-sky faction is wrong. And when they assert that the sky is pink, they are also asserting that I’m wrong. The one is implied by the other. So I don’t begrudge him standing for what he believes, to the exclusion of what I believe; I just disagree.

RegularJoe on December 17, 2008 at 3:44 PM

Because Olaf is the one saying every other Christian is wrong except those that believe what he does.

Esthier on December 17, 2008 at 3:54 PM

Yeah; but I ignore that because I don’t accept Ollie’s authority on such matters. ;o)

I’m sorry, but I don’t see much difference. I’ve thought the point of fasting was to sacrifice of yourself. I don’t see how you do that with a full stomach.

When I’ve fasted, it was a full fast, nothing but water.

Esthier on December 17, 2008 at 3:43 PM

The difference between Protestant fasting and Orthodox fasting starts with motivation. Again, based second-hand on my friend’s explanation, Orthodox fasting is a matter of obedience and devotion.

Protestants differ on fasting, partly because the N.T. doesn’t really spell out the reason for it. Most Protestant fasting advocates I’ve spoken with agree that the purpose is to turn away from earthly things, and concentrate on spiritual ones — usually as a context for asking for God’s miraculous intervention in one way or another, but not necessarily.

One thing I’m pretty certain should NOT be the point of a fast is to demonstrate superior spirituality to others; as such, the fast (in my view) should be a very personal act, with the parameters chosen to fit the situation. For example, if I am going to be at work, I won’t be able to focus on the spiritual all day long. So I might full fast from 6:00 PM (after work) ’til 6:00 AM. Or I might fast for a weekend; but in such a case, to keep up my health, I would probably drink juice. None of that is to say that I fast often; I’m sure I should do so much more often than I do.

RegularJoe on December 17, 2008 at 3:44 PM

Because Olaf is the one saying every other Christian is wrong except those that believe what he does.

St Paul is clearly saying that monasticism is SUPERIOR to married life.

But where does he say that they’re compatible?

You’re right.

SaintOlaf on December 17, 2008 at 3:16 PM

How is that possible, me being a Protestant and all? (here’s where we find out if Ollie has any sense of humor AT ALL)

Kidding aside, I don’t know why you and Tom persist in quarreling with one another at the doctrinal level; your doctrinal differences are inevitable when you have the foundational issues you have. As long as St. Olaf reveres the tradition and “Apostolic Succession” as he does — a long-held tradition in much of the Christian world — he is N-E-V-E-R going to place the scriptures ahead of those things. The opposite is also true: because Protestants will accept the traditions at MOST as “likely”, and only to the extent that they do not conflict with scripture — a tradition that we trace back to Jesus himself, though there was a lengthy apostasy in the mean-time — he will N-E-V-E-R place them above scripture.

Given that you can’t hope to reach the same conclusion when starting with contradictory assumptions, it really is taking the Lord’s name in vain to engage in pointless bickering over His sacraments. If you wish to bicker, it should be on the basis of foundational issues. I don’t think you’re likely to get anywhere; but I’m quite sure you won’t the way you’re arguing now.

That’s hardly Cindy Sheehan fasting Esthier.

SaintOlaf on December 17, 2008 at 3:16 PM

I’m sorry, but I don’t see much difference. I’ve thought the point of fasting was to sacrifice of yourself. I don’t see how you do that with a full stomach.

When I’ve fasted, it was a full fast, nothing but water.

Fasting can include refusing to partake in only particular foods, or not partaking during daylight hours. The Orthodox church has MANY fasting days

You’re right.

Any Orthodox Christian who follows the Orthodox calander fasts between 45% to 65% of the year

That’s hardly Cindy Sheehan fasting Esthier.

Jesus Christ was a monastic and an ascetic.

Do you still think monasticism is a bad thing and a “punishment”?

This is just another example of you twisting scripture to prove your point and excluding things you don’t like.

The Scripture you quoted from the letter to the corinthians.

You butchered that scripture to prove your point.

You used it to claim that monsticism was inferior to a life devoted to fullfilling the passions, when in fact that scripture say the EXACT OPPOSITE.

St Paul is clearly saying that monasticism is SUPERIOR to married life.

He clearly says that without a doubt.

Just as you are butchering the scriptures, you’re butchering my positions and taking them out of context.

I think it’s interesting how clinging to this notion that sex is sinful distorts so much of your understanding.

tom on December 16, 2008 at 7:50 PM

First of all, that is not what I said.

Marriage is a HOLY SACRAMENT within the Church.(clearly based on your statemnet regarding “Transubstantiation” you do NOT understand what a sacrament is nor do you understand how apostolic succession is carried out from generation to generation and passed form Bishop to Bishop, thereby retaining the validity of Holy Sacraments).

You don’t understand it(and you reject scripture with your position) because your “church” does not have valid apostolic succession nor valid sacraments).

I was pointing out what God said the purpose of sex was in the beginning.

I was NOT condemning sex within marriage.

Sexual desire is not exstinguished within a marriage but is transmuted and SANCTIFIED within the Holy Sacrament of Marriage.
But it is CLEARLY OBVIOUS in Scripture that marriage is inferior to monasticism

Marriage is a temporary thing Tom, a temporary fix.

There is no marriage in Heaven.

Tom,

Jesus Christ did not just establish “disciples” like you claim.

HE established a CHURCH.

He established a Church, He said it would be one faith and one baptism..not 25,00 different denominations with different beliefs and different baptisms.

Jesus Christ established a CHURCH and promised that it would not be destroyed.

You are again twisting scripture by denying that.