It is a matter of interpretation, and – no – God does not give us a 'manual' as much as He tells us what the Truth is and, more importantly, brings us hope through Good News.
The Bible tells us nothing as to how we should worship God, other than the Lord's Prayer. It tells us to be merciful and pure in heart, but it doesn't tell us how to accomplish that. It doesn't even tell us to read the Bible, but to listen.
Worse, from the Bible alone you will not get a clear understanding of the Holy Trinity or the dual nature of Christ, our Lord. In fact, relying on the NT alone, you are very likely to develop a belief closer to docetism then orthodoxy.
But again I do not accept a monopoly on the language.
Fair enough. However, there is no such thing as a perfect translation. It's not whether a translation is inferior, but what degree of inferiority is acceptable.
It is simply not plausible that the Greek can only be read and interpreted to fully support the Apostolic view, or views
Reformation was intended to correct corruption, not the theology of the Church. The theology was born out of Luther's attempt to understand" theology in German (which was severly underdeveloped as a literary language at that time), using faulty sources, such as TR, and a Greek lexicon.
Even some of the misleading conclusions of +Augustine can be traced to his faulty understanding of the Greek language. Faulty reading leads to faulty comprehension, FK.
But let's clarify one thing: the Orthodox do not believe we get our Faith from Greek. Faith comes from God. Our interpretation of God's faith comes from the Holy Tradition, namely Scripture, liturgical life steeped in Scripture, and Seven Ecumenical Councils defined by Scripture.
The Elect HAVE already been forgiven.
Provided they also forgive.
it makes no sense to conclude "therefore the only thing to do is use Greek"
No, of course, not. Greek should be used as our litmus test, making sure our comprehension is the same as that in the original language — which becomes a long and arduous process very few are willing to take.
The Protestants want to go it alone, but very few will go to the lengths needed to master and read everything and all. The Orthodox and Catholic don't have to. The Church has addressed all the issues one could possible think of, and made them available to those who need to know.
Once again, if Greek is the only way, then Christianity is not a revealed faith but rather a secret faith.
There is some seed of truth in that, since not all who believe have had a "revelation" in the prophetic or apostolic sense.
Many people believed because they were "amazed" as the NT says. That's hardly a "revelation". What +Paul claims he experienced on the way to Damascus is a revelation, which revealed Christ [sic] in him. So, it is, in a way a religion of secret gnosis that was revealed only to the Apostles, while the "multitudes" were told parables.
The Bible tells us nothing as to how we should worship God, other than the Lord’s Prayer. It tells us to be merciful and pure in heart, but it doesn’t tell us how to accomplish that. It doesn’t even tell us to read the Bible, but to listen.
= = =
I don’t think it’s quite accurate to assert that the Bible says 0.000% about how to worship God.
I think there’s plenty of Scriptural support for worshipping God
1. WHOLEHEARTEDLY
2. WITH ABANDON e.g. David etc.
3. IN SPIRIT AND IN TRUTH
4. NOT IN THE FLESH
5. There’s some measure of evidence that God likes spontaneity at least some of the time—David being one example.
6. With songs, spiritual songs.
7. in tongues—singing with understanding and without
I wouldn't go that far:
wor·ship ... n.
1. a. The reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, an idol, or a sacred object.
b. The ceremonies, prayers, or other religious forms by which this love is expressed. [FOD]
You noted that Jesus gave us some help with letter "b". But what about "a"? If we worship God we must love God. The Bible is packed with how to do that, perhaps most simply through obedience. The ceremonies, etc. should come from that. Being merciful and pure in heart also comes from loving God. We are given tons of examples. Love God and these things will come.
It doesn't even tell us to read the Bible, but to listen.
What? The Bible teaches us to love, learn and know the scriptures (word of God). That CAN be done by listening alone, but it obviously encourages those who can read to do so for themselves. I thought your Church specifically teaches that the laity should read their Bibles. That wasn't made up, it came from the scriptures. 2 Tim. 3:16-17 talks about the scriptures being for the "man of God". Who are "men of God"?
Worse, from the Bible alone you will not get a clear understanding of the Holy Trinity or the dual nature of Christ, our Lord. In fact, relying on the NT alone, you are very likely to develop a belief closer to docetism then orthodoxy.
I see the foundation for the Trinity and dual nature being very strong in scripture, even if they wouldn't necessarily be obvious on a first reading. Further study would clearly reveal both, and obviously has, since we agree with you without Tradition.
I don't know much about docetism, but here is the first paragraph from Wiki:
In Christianity, Docetism (... "to seem") is the belief that Jesus' physical body was an illusion, as was his crucifixion; that is, Jesus only seemed to have a physical body and to physically die, but in reality he was incorporeal, a pure spirit, and hence could not physically die. This belief treats the sentence "the Word was made Flesh" (John 1:14) as merely figurative. Docetism has historically been regarded as heretical by most Christian theologians[1].
I seriously doubt anyone comes away with this from a free reading. From this description it seems that Jesus was a hoax. It is an interpretation based on an agenda NOT supported by the actual scripture. It assumes myth, which the free reader is not led to. With obvious exceptions, you have to admit that the general tone of the Bible is matter of fact, and literal.
Reformation was intended to correct corruption, not the theology of the Church.
In this case, they were inseparable. The first must have concluded with the second. Luther saw corruption and knew that this was not the way of the Apostles. "Why is this happening?", he must have said to himself. He must have concluded that the corruption went beyond mere individuals into something deeper, etc. Would the Orthodox Church (as a whole) have allowed and supported such corruption then or now? I'll bet you'd say "no". But apparently the Church that Luther knew (as a whole), did. That's huge.
FK: "The Elect HAVE already been forgiven."
Provided they also forgive.
And they will, all of them, whoever they are. Forgiveness is part of perseverance, and God promises that the elect will persevere, each and every one. He loses none given Him, by any means whatsoever. Therefore, I don't think "provided" is the right word. You are right that the elect must forgive. But this is guaranteed, it is an asterisk, "Biblically speaking". This doesn't mean we ignore it at all. Other scripture teaches much against that. We just put faith in what God has promised and follow Him.
Greek should be used as our litmus test, making sure our comprehension is the same as that in the original language — which becomes a long and arduous process very few are willing to take. The Protestants want to go it alone, but very few will go to the lengths needed to master and read everything and all. The Orthodox and Catholic don't have to. The Church has addressed all the issues one could possible think of, and made them available to those who need to know.
I'm not sure of what you are saying. All of our sides have always had Greek scholars. Translations and interpretations have been debated for centuries on all sides. We just trust different guys. How are Protestants "going it alone", except that we are not under the authority of the Apostolic Church?