John Cassian’s Response to Augustinianism

www.monergism.com ^ | Unknown | E. A. Costa

[bornacatholic]

The Biblical, Primitive Papacy: St. Peter & the "Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven": Scholarly Opinion (Mostly Protestant)
Matthew 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . (RSV)

Isaiah 22:20-22 In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, . . . and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

Revelation 3:7 [Christ describing Himself]:. . . the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens.

The power of the "keys," in the Hebrew mind, had to do with administrative authority and ecclesiastical discipline, and, in a broad sense, might be thought to encompass the use of excommunication, penitential decrees, a barring from the sacraments and lesser censures, and legislative and executive functions. Like the name Rock, this privilege was bestowed only upon St. Peter and no other disciple or Apostle. He was to become God's "vice-regent," so to speak. In the Old Testament, a steward was a man over a house (Genesis 43:19, 44:4, 1 Kings 4:6, 16:9, 18:3, 2 Kings 10:5 15:5 18:18, Isaiah 22:15). The steward was also called a "governor" in the Old Testament and has been described by commentators as a type of "prime minister."

In the New Testament, the two words often translated as "steward" are oikonomos (Luke 16:2-3, 1 Corinthians 4:1-2, Titus 1:7, 1 Peter 4:10), and epitropos (Matthew 20:8, Galatians 4:2). Several Protestant commentaries and dictionaries take the position that Christ is clearly hearkening back to Isaiah 22:15-22 when He makes this pronouncement, and that it has something to do with delegated authority in the Church He is establishing (in the same context). He applies the same language to Himself in Revelation 3:7 (cf. Job 12:14), so that his commission to Peter may be interpreted as an assignment of powers to the recipient in His stead, as a sort of authoritative representative or ambassador.

The "opening" and "shutting" (in Isaiah 22:2) appear to refer to a jurisdictional power which no one but the king (in the ancient kingdom of Judah) could override. Literally, it refers to the prime minister's prerogative to deny or allow entry to the palace, and access to the king. In Isaiah's time, this office was over three hundred years old, and is thought to have been derived by Solomon from the Egyptian model of palace functionary, or the Pharaoh's "vizier," who was second in command after the Pharaoh. This was exactly the office granted to Joseph in Egypt (Genesis 41:40-44, 45:8).

One can confidently conclude, therefore, that when Old Testament usage and the culture of the hearers is closely examined, the phrase keys of the kingdom of heaven must have great significance (for Peter and for the papacy) indeed, all the more so since Christ granted this honor only to St. Peter. The following commentary is all from Protestant scholars, with the exception of the final two selections:

---

[The steward is] the king's friend, or principal officer of the court (1 Kings 4:5; 18:3; 1 Chronicles 27:33, the king's counsellor) . . .

Keys are carried sometimes in the East hanging from the kerchief on the shoulder. But the phrase is rather figurative for sustaining the government on one's shoulders. Eliakim, as his name implies, is here plainly a type of the God-man Christ, the son of "David," of whom Isaiah (ch. 9:6) uses the same language as the former clause of this verse [and the government will be upon his shoulder].

(Jamieson, Robert, Andrew R. Fausset & David Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1961 [orig. 1864; Fausset and Brown were Anglicans, Brown Presbyterian], 536 -- on Isaiah 22:15,22)

In the . . . exercise of the power of the keys, in ecclesiastical discipline, the thought is of administrative authority (Is 22:22) with regard to the requirements of the household of faith. The use of censures, excommunication, and absolution is committed to the Church in every age, to be used under the guidance of the Spirit . . .

So Peter, in T.W. Manson's words, is to be 'God's vicegerent . . . The authority of Peter is an authority to declare what is right and wrong for the Christian community. His decisions will be confirmed by God' (The Sayings of Jesus, 1954, p.205).

(New Bible Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1962, 1018)

In accordance with Matthew's understanding of the kingdom of heaven (i.e., of God) as anywhere God reigns, the keys here represent authority in the Church.

(Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, ed. Allen C. Myers, Grabd Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, rev. ed., 1975, 622)

The phrase is almost certainly based on Is 22:22 where Shebna the steward is displaced by Eliakim and his authority is transferred to him. 'And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.' (This is applied directly to Jesus in Rev 3:7).

(New Bible Commentary, Guthrie, D. & J.A. Motyer, eds., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 3rd ed., 1970 [Reprinted, 1987, as The Eerdmans Bible Commentary], 837)

In the Old Testament a steward is a man who is 'over a house' (Gen 43:19, 44:4; Is 22:15, etc). In the New Testament there are two words translated steward: 'epitropos' (Mt 20:8; Gal 4:2), i.e. one to whose care or honour one has been entrusted, a curator, a guardian; and 'oikonomos' (Lk 16:2-3; 1 Cor 4:1-2; Titus 1:7; 1 Pet 4:10), i.e. a manager, a superintendent -- from 'oikos' ('house') and 'nemo' ('to dispense' or 'to manage'). The word is used to describe the function of delegated responsibility.

(New Bible Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1962, 1216)

For further references to the office of the steward in Old Testament times, see 1 Kings 4:6; 16:9; 18:3; 2 Kings 10:5; 15:5; 18:18, where the phrases used are "over the house," "steward," or "governor." In Isaiah 22:15, in the same passage to which our Lord apparently refers in Matt 16:19, Shebna, the soon-to-be deposed steward, is described in various translations as:

1) "Master of the palace" {Jerusalem Bible / New American Bible}
2) "In charge of the palace" {New International Version}
3) "Master of the household" {New Revised Standard Version}
4) "In charge of the royal household" {New American Standard Bible}
5) "Comptroller of the household" {Revised English Bible}
6) "Governor of the palace" {Moffatt}

As the robe and the baldric, mentioned in the preceding verse, were the ensigns of power and authority, so likewise was the key the mark of office, either sacred or civil. This mark of office was likewise among the Greeks, as here in Isaiah, borne on the shoulder. In allusion to the image of the key as the ensign of power, the unlimited extent of that power is expressed with great clearness as well as force by the sole and exclusive authority to open and shut. Our Saviour, therefore, has upon a similar occasion made use of a like manner of expression, Matt 16:19; and in Rev 3:7 has applied to himself the very words of the prophet.

(Adam Clarke, [Methodist], Commentary on the Bible, abridged ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1967 [orig. 1832], 581)

Eliakim stands in strong contrast to Shebna . . . Godward he is called 'my servant' (v.20; cf. 'this steward', v.15); manward, he will be 'a father' to his community (v.21) . . .

The opening words of v.22, with their echo of 9:6, emphasize the God-given responsibility that went with it [possession of the keys], to be used in the king's interests. The 'shutting' and 'opening' mean the power to make decisions which no one under the king could override. This is the background of the commission to Peter (cf. Mt 16:19) and to the church (cf. Mt 18:18).

(New Bible Commentary, Guthrie, D. & J.A. Motyer, eds., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 3rd ed., 1970 [Reprinted, 1987, as The Eerdmans Bible Commentary], 603)

Not only is Peter to have a leading role, but this role involves a daunting degree of authority (though not an authority which he alone carries, as may be seen from the repetition of the latter part of the verse in 18:18 with reference to the disciple group as a whole). The image of 'keys' (plural) perhaps suggests not so much the porter, who controls admission to the house, as the steward, who regulates its administration (cf. Is 22:22, in conjunction with 22:15). The issue then is not that of admission to the church . . . , but an authority derived from a 'delegation' of God's sovereignty.

(R.T. France; in Morris, Leon, Gen. ed., Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press / Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1985, vol. 1: Matthew, 256)

Just as in Isaiah 22:22 the Lord puts the keys of the house of David on the shoulders of his servant Eliakim, so does Jesus hand over to Peter the keys of the house of the kingdom of heaven and by the same stroke establishes him as his superintendent. There is a connection between the house of the Church, the construction of which has just been mentioned and of which Peter is the foundation, and the celestial house of which he receives the keys. The connection between these two images is the notion of God's people.

(Oscar Cullmann, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, Neuchatel: Delachaux & Niestle, 1952 French ed., 183-184)

The prime minister, more literally 'major-domo,' was the man called in Hebrew 'the one who is over the house,' a term borrowed from the Egyptian designation of the chief palace functionary . . .

The power of the key of the Davidic kingdom is the power to open and to shut, i.e., the prime minister's power to allow or refuse entrance to the palace, which involves access to the king . . . Peter might be portrayed as a type of prime minister in the kingdom that Jesus has come to proclaim . . . What else might this broader power of the keys include? It might include one or more of the following: baptismal discipline; post-baptismal or penitential discipline; excommunication; exclusion from the eucharist; the communication or refusal of knowledge; legislative powers; and the power of governing.

(Peter in the New Testament, Brown, Raymond E., Karl P. Donfried and John Reumann, editors, Minneapolis: Augsburg Pub. House/New York: Paulist Press, 1973, 96-97. Common statement by a panel of eleven Catholic and Lutheran scholars)

In biblical and Judaic usage handing over the keys does not mean appointment as a porter but carries the thought of full authorization (cf. Mt. 13:52; Rev. 3:7) . . . The implication is that Jesus takes away this authority from the scribes and grants it to Peter.

(J. Jeremias, in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Gerhard Kittel, abridgement of Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985, 440)

All these New Testament pictures and usages go back to a picture in Isaiah (Is 22:22) . . . Now the duty of Eliakim was to be the faithful steward of the house . . . So then what Jesus is saying to Peter is that in the days to come, he will be the steward of the Kingdom.

(William Barclay, Gospel of Matthew, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1975, vol. 2, 144-145)

Isa 22:15 ff. undoubtedly lies behind this saying . . . The keys are the symbol of authority . . . the same authority as that vested in the vizier, the master of the house, the chamberlain, of the royal household in ancient Israel. Eliakim is described as having the same authority in Isaiah.

(William F. Albright and C.S. Mann, Anchor Bible: Matthew, Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971, 196)

And what about the "keys of the kingdom"? . . . About 700 B.C. an oracle from God announced that this authority in the royal palace in Jerusalem was to be conferred on a man called Eliakim . . . (Isa. 22:22). So in the new community which Jesus was about to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward.

(F.F. Bruce, The Hard Sayings of Jesus, Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1983, 143-144)

The symbol of the keys, in the East, always implied power and authority, and the giving of the keys the transfer of that authority. Even in our day when we wish to honor a visitor of prominence we give him the keys of the city . . .

'The gift of the keys,' writes Lagrange, 'is, therefore, an investiture of power over all the house. The owner still keeps the sovereign power, but delegates its exercise to a major-domo . . . Christ has the keys of David (Rev 3:7); He gives St. Peter the keys. St. Peter's authority, therefore, is the authority of Jesus, which He ratifies in heaven' (Evangile selon S. Matthieu, 328).

(Bertrand Conway, The Question Box, New York: Paulist Press, 1929, 146)

By the time of Isaiah the office of the master of the palace was three centuries old and the highest of the royal administration which Solomon organized in full . . .

Solomon set up the office in imitation of the office of the Pharaoh's vizier. Unlike in Assyria and Babylon, where the master of the palace was a mere administrator of the king's household affairs, in Egypt as well as in Judah and Israel the master of the palace was the second in command after the king. In Egypt he reported every morning to the Pharaoh, received his instructions, and by ceremoniously opening the gates to the palace he let the official day begin for the Pharaoh's highest administrative offices. He was privy to all the major transactions of the Pharaoh's kingdom, all important documents had to have his seal, all other officials were subordinate to him, and he governed the whole land in the Pharaoh's absence. It was precisely this function which was exercised by Joseph whom the Pharaoh put in charge of his house (Gen 41:40), made the keeper of the royal seal and the ruler over the entire land of Egypt. Similarly, the master of the palace of the king of Israel headed the list of royal officials (2 Ki 18:18) and he alone appears with the king (1 Ki 18:3). The importance of the title is particularly apparent when Yotham [or, Jotham] assumes it in his capacity of regent of the kingdom during the final illness of his father King Ozias [or, Uzziah, or Azariah] (2 Ki 15:5).

(Stanley Jaki, The Keys of the Kingdom, Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1986, 27-28)

posted by Dave Armstrong at 4:15 PM

[HarleyD]

Augustine had difficulties reconciling the following verses:

Eze 18:31 "Cast away from you all your transgressions which you have committed and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! For why will you die, O house of Israel? (free will)

Eze 36:26 "Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. (God's sovereignty)

Augustine reasoned that if Ezekial 18 was correct on face value, that man could give themselves a new heart, that would make Ezekial 36 wrong. Why would God have to give us a new heart when we can do it? Therefore Augustine correctly reasoned that Ezekiel 18 must be interpreted in light of Ezekiel 36. God must give a person a new heart for man to be able to follow God's command. Pelagius said that Augustine was wrong essentially ignoring Ezekiel 36. Pelagius believed that God commands and it is up to man to carry out His will.

To complete Augustine's logic you have to conclude that when God states that He will give us a new heart and spirit and cause us to walk in His statues, He means just that. Since God is perfect, His "new heart and new spirit" gift to us will also be perfect.

You can post all sorts of "free will" verses just as I can post all sorts of "God's sovereignty" verses. However, you will never get past the Augustinian logic above. You will never be able to satisfactorily explain Ezekiel 36. All I'll ever here is "yeah but this verse over here says...".

OTOH, for Ezekiel 18 I would simply answer as Augustine would answer, that God commands what He wills and gives what He commands. He gives us a new heart and spirit as He states in Ezekiel 36 and then He commands us to use it as in Ezekiel 18. God promises that this new heart and spirit will allow us to walk in His statues man. It's all because of God's working. If God so empowers us, it will happen.

This is exactly the way He works with all your verses.

[RnMomof7]

Why did you end the citation of the Baptism where you did? Section 1257 goes on to say that God is not bound by the sacraments, so salvation could be possible without them, but that the church is bound by them. That completely changes the meaning.

So they are NECESSARY but they are not? I thought you were in law school ? Are they NECESSARY as they say or are they not?

[Campion]

So they are NECESSARY but they are not? I thought you were in law school ? Are they NECESSARY as they say or are they not?

Are you asking or prosecuting?

God can save apart from the sacraments, but the sacraments are the normative instrument of salvation he's given to his church. We are bound by his laws, but he is not bound by any law except when he binds himself.

[Campion]

There is only one place in scripture where someone "prayed" to the dead and that was Saul calling up Samuel to intercede for him before God.

Excuse me, but that's not right. Saul asked Samuel what he (Saul) should do. There was no mention of any intercession. Saul conjured up Samuel to tell his fortune, pure and simple, and that's the definition of necromancy. You're inventing Scripture to trash Catholics when you claim that Saul asked Samuel to intercede for him. He didn't.

[jude24]

So they are NECESSARY but they are not? I thought you were in law school ? Are they NECESSARY as they say or are they not?

Law school made me comfortable with internally contradictory propositions ;-).

[HarleyD]

I will concede that you're partly right. It was because the Lord wasn't answering Saul that Saul sought Samuel out (2 Sam 28). This isn't intercession. However, I would point out that Samuel chastises Saul for asking what will happen of him rather than the Lord. The point is that if your not right with the Lord, at least well enough to pray to Him, then there is no point in seeking anyone else out.

If you want to say I'm trashing the Catholics then fine.

[RnMomof7]

Law school made me comfortable with internally contradictory propositions ;-)

That is sad

[Campion]

However, I would point out that Samuel chastises Saul for asking what will happen of him rather than the Lord. The point is that if your not right with the Lord, at least well enough to pray to Him, then there is no point in seeking anyone else out.

That's a very different claim from "it's always wrong to talk to 'dead' people" or "talking to 'dead' people is necessarily necromancy". I don't object to your reformulation, at least not much.

If you think it's necessary to trash Catholics, I think that's too bad. But if you make up claims about what Scripture says that are at variance with the little leather Bible I keep in my desk drawer, don't be surprised if I call you on it.

[jude24]

You can't recognize a joke when you see it?

[HarleyD]

That's a very different claim from "it's always wrong to talk to 'dead' people" or "talking to 'dead' people is necessarily necromancy".

Sorry but perhaps I wasn't clear. It was wrong for Saul to seek help or advice from the dead Samuel. It use to be punishable by death. The Lord exacted that punishment. That was then. This is now I suppose.

Lest you think I'm picking on Catholics I would stress that I'm equally "vile" with many Protestants. I can tell you I'm not the brightest bulb around but I see little sensible reasoning among many Christians today especially Protestants. Thinking is a dying art replaced by our five senses.

As Ben Franklin once said, "The trouble with common sense is that it's not too common."

[RnMomof7]

You can't recognize a joke when you see it?

My father used to call that " kidding on the square".

I see so much compromise of your faith in your posts here that there was a ring of truth to your words.

[Campion]

It was wrong for Saul to seek help or advice from the dead Samuel.

Help no, advice, yes.

Fortunetelling is wrong. (Presumably I don't have to explain to you why it's wrong.) Conjuring up visions of anyone or demanding visions of anyone (Christ included) is also wrong.

(That's not to say that such visions don't happen. Demanding or expecting them, or trying to make them happen by some occultic means, is wrong.)

Conjuring up a vision of a dead person for the sake of fortunetelling is therefore wrong twice over. Consulting a witch for any purpose is wrong. Poor Saul: three strikes and he's out.

Merely communicating with (so-called) "dead" saints in glory is not wrong, because Jesus did it at the Transfiguration. Nor is one Christian asking another for help (help, not information or special gnosis) wrong.

[Campion]

Sola Ecclesia Romanus

Jude is going to change his tagline to "Only the church is a Roman"?

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Since I have only limited available time to FReep (and that, only recently), Jude's #29 will stand as my response to #28.

That said, Jude... are you aware that there's a major movie about Plymouth Brethren missionaries opening in 1,200 theaters this weekend?

"The End of the Spear" (a nice play on words in the title, I thought -- first Christians died by the spear, but then brought an end to its use) is a retelling of the (initially-martyred, later-successful) 1956 Elliot-Saint mission to the Auca Indians of Amazonian Ecuador, which eventually resulted in the mass conversion of what was arguably the most fratricidal tribe of native peoples in the world at the time (culminating in their general Christianization and the reduction of tribal homicide rates by some 90%). I believe that the screenplay in based upon the books Through Gates of Splendor and Aucas Downriver, two books which I enjoyed immensely in my youth (though I believe that the latter is now out of print).

I expect to catch it on DVD, as I don't think there's a showing available in my immediate area; but I thought I'd give you a heads-up. :-)

Best, OP

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Lest there be any misunderstanding, Lukaris was condemned by the Pan Orthodox Council at Jerusalem in 1672 as was Calvinism generally.

I am aware of that, certainly.

Though technically I believe (and here I offer correction humbly, and admit that I may be mistaken) that the Patriarch Cyril Lukaris, a much-beloved Anti-Turkish Patriot of the Greek Church, was never himself condemned; but rather, certain portions of his Confessions were rejected.

However, unless the 1672 Council is elevated to the status of the Seven General Councils, it seems to me that what we have here is a case of Dueling Patriarchs -- the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople has offered his Confessions; and the Patriarch of Jerusalem has, in council with largely Middle-Eastern Bishops (The decisions of the Council were only later transmitted to Great Russia, or am I mistaken?), rejected them -- long after the Ecumenical Patriarch was murdered by Turks, and thus unable to defend his Confessions.

This would seem, at least to me, to raise two questions:

• FIRST: UNLESS the 1672 Council holds an equal status to that of the Seven General Councils, does the Patriarch of Jerusalem with some assembled Middle-Eastern Bishops have the Ecclesial Authority to deny the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople his Pastoral Right to promulgate a non-binding pastoral teaching?

• AND SECONDLY: GIVEN THAT Bishop Saint Augustine of Hippo, in the days of the Pelagian Heresy, whose teachings on Original Sin and Absolute Predestination were far more stringent than that of John Calvin (remember that Saint Augustine believed that all those "Dying in the Womb" and all those "Dying in Infancy without Baptism" perished unto Hell, two positions which were utterly rejected by Saint John Calvin -- who believed in the Salvation of Dying Infants by Gratuitous Atonement), was in fact received by the Universal Christian Church (including both the West and also the East) as being Magisterial and Authoritative -- does a much later Eastern Orthodox Local Council have the Right to overthrow the teachings of Bishop Saint Augustine, whose Magisterial and Authoritative teachings the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople merely affirmed in a non-binding pastoral confession (indeed, like the Calvinists, in an even more modest formulation)?

  Which, incidentally, leads me to a third question (call it Question 2B): If GOD HIMSELF Inspired and Authorized the Infallible Scriptures of Daniel and Esther amongst the Jews in Exile in the Old Testament; and if (as it is surely true) that The Presbyters of Iona, the ancient Scottish forebears of modern Calvinism ("Geneva shakes hands with Iona across the gulf of a thousand years"; Wylie, History of the Scottish Nation) were founded by Greek Orthodox -- not Roman-Latin -- missionaries from Asia Minor according to Greek customs and Greek baptismal rites.... then how can the Eastern Orthodox presume that their Western step-children, upon throwing off the chains of Papist Domination, did not preserve and extend Augustinian Truths in the West? Granted, the Scottish Orthodox were cut off from their Founders in Greece and Asia Minor -- but that does not mean that we, while yet in Papist Exile, were cut off from the Enlightenment of the All-Holy Spirit. Perhaps we have something to add to Eastern Orthodoxy, as God added the Books of Daniel and Esther to the Canon of Israelite Scripture.

  Just a thought... just a thought...

But we regard works not as witnesses certifying our calling, but as being fruits in themselves, through which faith becomes efficacious, and as in themselves meriting, through the Divine promises, that each of the faithful may receive what is done through his own body, whether it is good or bad."

I don't have a great many problems with this quotation. We Protestants will also agree, with the Orthodox and the Bible, that "Faith without Works, is Dead."

Indeed, provided that our mutual conception of the relation between Works (which are indeed "fruits in themselves", I wholly agree) and Efficacious Faith are understood in the light of the Old Orthodox "Canon to Jesus":

Let my faith be reckoned in place of works, and seek not deeds which would justify me. But may my faith alone suffice instead of any deeds; may it answer for me, may it justify me, may it make me a partaker of Thine eternal glory. Let not Satan seize me and boast that he hath torn me from Thy hand and fold, O Word. But whether I will it or not, save me, O Christ my Savior. Go before me quickly, quickly, for I am perishing! Thou art my God from my mother's womb. Grant that I may love Thee, O Lord, as formerly I loved sin itself, and that I may work for Thee earnestly and without laziness, as I once worked for deceitful Satan..."
(From the Canon to Jesus in Old Orthodox Prayer Book, Priest Pimen Simon, Priest Theodore Jurewicz and Hieromonk German Ciuba, trans. and ed., pp. 150-151.)

...Then, in that case, I should have no objection whatsoever to Eastern Orthodox Theology on Faith and Works.

Indeed, I don't think that any Calvinist would object.

Best, OP

[Cronos]

Augustine was no "Crypto-Calvinist". Rather, Augustine was a Proto-Calvinist -- that is, he correctly maintained the Orthodox Doctrine of the Christian Church long before it was utterly corrupted by the Papal Supremacists of Rome.i>

And how come our Orthodox Christian brethern also have the same Christian beliefs as opposed to your philosophy?

Given that the (Eastern Orthodox) Ecclesial Organization, (Eastern Orthodox) Baptismal and Infant-Baptismal Rites, and (Augustinian) Predestinarian Doctrines of Orthodox Iona were preserved for a thousand years throughout the long dark centuries of bitter Roman Catholic suppression and domination until eventually reinforced and re-established by Knoxian Scottish Calvinism; and...

Some more fairy tales -- did the wee folks and hobgoblins preserve it?

Whatever our disagreements (and here, we Magisterial Protestants are willing to appeal to Orthodox Patristics and Orthodox Patriarchs and Orthodox Tradition in defense of our Theology), we Calvinists

Oh, you're willing to stoop down to let the Orthodox humbly join you in your ways?

Satanic Organization

Anything outside The Church is heretical and by extension Satanical. The Orthodox and Oriental Churches are part of the One Church -- many Protestants also believe in Christ's teachings without delusions but others don't.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

I am somewhat cowering as I dare ask - where in the Bible do you locate your authority to definitively rule on these doctrinal disagreements?

I do not "definitively rule" upon *any* doctrinal disagreement.

Rather, as a Lay Believer operating under the Authority of my Ordained Presbyters, I freely exercise my Layman's Right to Conscientous Reading of Scripture under the Appellate Authority bequeathed by Apostle Saint Timothy to All Believers without discrimination:

II TIMOTHY 3:16-17
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Being advised by Timothy that Scripture Alone can thoroughly furnish a Believer unto Perfect Understanding, I intend to continue reading Scripture and speaking my understanding (albeit under the Authority of my Ordained Presbyters, which is also of course commanded in Scripture).

Best, OP

[bornacatholic]

Being advised by Timothy that Scripture Alone can thoroughly furnish a Believer unto Perfect Understanding,

*Don't forgetthe teaching of our first Pope

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

*Sleep well, brother

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

No offense... Please re-format your post without the constant and ever-present Italics, then I'll read and respond.

Although, first see my #76 regarding Calvinist contacts with Orthodoxy. Thanks.

Best, OP