Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
The AV (KJV) was translated with a number of principles in mind. One is that it was designed for public reading, which is one of the reasons why it comes alive when read out loud in a way that it perhaps doesn't for everyone when read silently. One of my friends who is a bit of a liturgical expert has pointed out that very few of our Scriptures and prayers were ever intended to be read silently -- and that indeed the practice of reading silently is a relatively late happening in human history.
Many Orthodox spiritual fathers emphasize the importance of reading the Scriptures and prayers of the Church out loud whenever possible.
Another thing is that since there was a lot of tension in England at the time, a high priority was placed on having as literal of an interpretation as possible. There are a few obvious Protestantisms in the AV, but they stick out like sore thumbs (at least for us Orthodox) and are easily taken into consideration. But for the most part, it was a "non-partisan" translation.
By contrast, the NIV is a consciously Protestant translation, and furthermore (like most modern translations) uses the principle of "dynamic equivalence," which introduces far more interpretation into translations than does a more literal translation. Many of the supposed archaisms and rhetorical devices in the AV are actually literal reproductions of the turns of phrase of the original languages.
Finally, for those Orthodox who pay attention to those things, the AV has a special place because the NT is based on the Byzantine text-type, and its translations of the "Apocryphal" books are directly from our LXX.
Of course the Theotokos was in need of a Savior just as we are. If anyone has stated the opposite, they certainly do not understand Orthodox (or Catholic) doctrine. Had she not been subject to the effects of the ancestral sin, she would never even have died.
With regard to Calvin, yes, he did apparently believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. As I recall, for him it was a simple as recognizing that she had been known as "the Virgin Mary" from the earliest times.
He rightly commented (again, as I recall) that had she not been ever-virgin, no-one would have given her the title of "the Virgin." To have been a virgin at some point in one's life is a universal phenomenon -- even conceiving in virginity would not be a reason to continue to refer to her as "the Virgin Mary" after her death.
Thanks, b-d, for the informative run-down on Jesus' most excellent hood. 8~)
Yes, FK, Kolokotronis is right that this is something key to understand if you want to get at the heart of understanding the differences.
As a Protestant, you actually have an advantage in understanding Orthodox writings on grace, since while Protestant conceptions of grace are narrowly focused on salvation (in an "absent or present" sense), they are relatively inchoate and non-specific. This is not at all a criticism of Protestantism -- overdefining things is not something we Orthodox always view as a good thing!
When you're done reading the excellent link that K gave you, let me know, and I'll give you a couple more! :-)
As one of the Orthodox participants, I'm a little disappointed that you still think that there are only two "sides" in this grand debate! If a few "free-will" Protestants (who are probably in the vast majority world-wide) would show up, we'd have even more sides!
Yes, absolutely.
Thus, I conclude that it is GOD that IS verifying the oral teachings, when properly identified, as coming from Him - for example, infant baptism. We do not believe that God will allow error to creep into the Church on doctrinal issues, ...
You may have already answered this in a post subsequent to the one I'm answering, but if not, then how can God keep error out without violating free will?
Sorry to correct you again, I presume you mean Luke's opinion, not Paul's...
LOL!!! And I'm sorry to be wrong again. :) I must have Paul on the brain or something.
Livy didn't follow Julius Caesar around! Yet, we (I should say, "they") absolutely rely on such accounts that have been passed down orally and by partial manuscripts.
Yes, if that is the best information available, there is no choice but to rely on it, or take nothing. We are fortunate enough to have superior information.
Have you needed to write down for posterity's sake how to use a fork? Some things don't NEED to be written.
I haven't, but it is equally true that oral teaching has led to different results in even this area. In restaurants, I have literally seen grown men pick up their forks like we would a hammer. It sure isn't very often, but I have seen it. :) So, if every school child in America had been issued a "fork manual" in school, then there would be less error.
The Bible can speak "for itself" to only a very limited degree. Otherwise, it requires interpretation - presumably by the community that WROTE it! That would be the Church, correct?
Well, that's a matter of interpretation. Remember who you're talking to. :)
The writings of Christians of the first 1000 years NEVER mention anything that you would consider a pillar of Protestantism, thus making YOUR interpretations novel. I find this interesting - that IF Protestant interpretations were true and what the Bible REALLY means, then why do we not find any Church Fathers subscribing to Sola Scriptura, or Sola Fide, or Positive Reprobation, or man has no free will?
Why should I expect Catholic leaders to espouse Protestant themes? That wouldn't make any sense. If they ever had in great volume, there never would have been a need for the Reformation. The themes are there in the Bible, but cannot come through in Catholic theology in order to protect what IS NOT in the Bible.
At some point, and ever since, the circulation of the Bible exceeded the reach of Catholicism. At that point, the Bible becomes useless to all who have it, but do not have Catholicism to tell them what it means. Do you think this is an efficient means of spreading the Good News? I sure don't. In Catholicism, the Bible, by itself, is a relatively worthless book.
I do believe that the faith was accurately taught through oral tradition at least for a while after Pentecost. But, since I don't believe that such correctness can be passed down infallibly, I don't believe that those extra-scriptural, oral teachings could have remained inerrant through the ages.
With God, nothing is impossible. Didn't God Himself say that?
Yes, God said that, but you are talking about cannibalism, which is contrary to God's word. Therefore, it is impossible for Jesus to have meant it in the literal sense. Any other sense involves a symbolic interpretation. Of course, in Catholicism, maybe "eat" and "flesh" do not mean "eat" and "flesh". I don't know how that "plain meaning" would be explained.
Then clearly, you believe that God ALSO causes men to commit sins. If you equate foreknowledge with foreordaining something, actively decreeing something, then you are saying that God is the author of sin. Remarkable.
No, I have always said that God actively causes what is good, like the writing of the Bible. God is not the author of evil. God knows what evil will happen as a result of His passing over the evildoers, but He is not responsible. I have been consistent. It is God's nature to be involved with good, and not His nature to be involved with evil.
FK: "I think that when God inspires, He does so 100% toward what He wants."
Yes, but He doesn't do it by directly interfering with the human writer.
If so, then the Bible is subject to error. Or, did the writers just "choose" to be perfect?
But if the Bible was THE WORD OF GOD as in Islam, the actual voice of God transcribed onto paper as Mohemmed claimed, then you had better take literally EVERY word!
I've heard you say this before. Why do you think this? God can't use allegory if He wants to? Why not? Maybe God knows it works! Your side is the only one to bring Islam into this. I have never talked about Islam, and I could not care less about Islam, nor any comparison of myself to it. I don't think it's right for YOU to slap a label on me, and then demand that I defend that label. That's ridiculous.
You have so soon forgotten or ignored what I have said on this. I never said that the Spirit only leads the hierarchy. I said in matters of doctrinal decisions, the Church only leads the hierarchy to make a definite proclamation, based on what the Church as a whole ALREADY BELIEVES. It would be impossible otherwise - God doesn't come to man individually and give false, contradictory teachings, like you say He does to you vs. Episcopalians or Lutherans.
No, I haven't forgotten. This is what I was talking about, matters of faith and Biblical interpretation. The "big stuff". I know you would say that you have individually prayed for guidance on such and such a matter and have gotten it.
However, it is new to me for you to say that the Church as a whole leads the hierarchy based on what the Church already believes. Can you look me in the eyes and tell me that if an honest poll was taken of the whole Church, that the majority would say that contraceptives should never be used? There is no way you can tell me that the hierarchy is in agreement with "the whole Church" on that one. It's possible that such a vote on abortion might even be very close. I actually think your hierarchy is way ahead of the whole Church on that.
You well know that I have never said that God gives false or contradictory teachings to anyone. I said that man misinterprets sometimes. And sometimes, even a majority of a whole denomination gets it wrong on important matters, such as the Episcopalians. (I really don't have much in common with them. :) Included with the group of all men who can misinterpret, I also place the Catholic hierarchy. Just as with the Episcopalians, even a majority of a faith can get it wrong.
I would question this assertion. There are numerous scriptural events which contradict this statement. For example, when Eli was told by Samuel that God was going to wipe out his house, Eli simply shrug and stated, "It is the Lord; let Him do what seems good to Him." (1 Sam 3). Or blessed Naomi who stated in her despair, "...for it is harder for me than for you, for the hand of the Lord has gone forth against me." (Ruth 1:13) And let's not forget Nebuchadnezzar testimony after his conversion that, "All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, but He does according to His will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of earth; and no one can ward off His hand or say to Him, "What have You done?" (Daniel 4:35)
None of these events sound like the Jews believing in free will to me. On the contrary, it sounds like the Jews believed that God was sovereign and fully controlled their lives. Today's Jew MIGHT believe in "free will" NOW but so what? It only confirms how wrong this doctrine is. Certainly you're not validating Christianity against today Judaism are you?
As Nebz stated, "...no one can ward off His hand or say to Him, "What have You done?" It is impossible to get around this truth.
I understand Mary was not excused from the penalties of Adam such as sorrow and death; but I believe the Church's position on Mary was that she was "free" from original sin which is a major point of the Immaculate Conception. In other words, she lived a perfect life. That would mean that if anyone lived a perfect life, following all laws and commandments of God, then it wouldn't matter. They would still need a Savior because of Adam. Is this correct?
anepsios - It means "sister son" and is used in Col:
I am sorry, but Jesus established the New Covenant OUTSIDE of Scripture. It was related later, after the events of Acts 15. The Old Testament does not relate anything about a New Covenant being already ACCOMPLISHED, only promised. No Sola Scriptura.
Regards
There are also lots of "excellent books" on the Gnostics version of the Gospel and there are also "excellent books" on Mithraism and its parallelism with Christianity. Also, there are other "excellent books" on the Isis Cult that preceded Christianity that talks about a risen god. For whatever your theological slant, there is a book out there that will "prove" whatever you want to your heart's desire.
Regards
I have been asking Silverlings to show me where the Old Testamant gives the Apostles authority to nullify the command of Circumcision - which would eliminate Sola Scriptura. But that aside, to your question. Recall that God writes His Law on EVERYONE'S heart. He also ORDINARILY chooses to draw people to Himself from within the visible Church. However, God is not bound to the visible Church's sacramental system - as Augustine argued vs. the Donatists. (sadly, he didn't make the connection regarding the absolute necessity of infant baptism). As a result, God calls people outside of His visible Church to become part of His Church, His people. The Church preaches a Gospel of Love, His one commandment. Those who love our executing this Law of Love given by our savior, for which by no other name comes salvation.
Even men such as St. Justin the Martyr (150 AD) saw in pagan philosophers a seed planted by the Logos - His abiding in them in an incomplete way as yet, a proto-Evangelium. Mysteriously, such men who follow the inclinations of the Logos, God's Wisdom, along with God's Spirit, Love, are united with the Body of Christ.
I have noted lately that I, too, am a bit frayed lately.
Regards
Yes, I have been reading about this very complicated area of theology lately. Latins believe in both as being present in the justified man.
Regards
I think I enjoy such one sentence questions better than the longer "pamplets" I have been writing lately!
All of my sins have been POTENTIALLY paid for - IF I ask the Lord's forgiveness after I sin, I know it will be forgiven due to Christ's unlimited and eternal work of His Passion and Death. We call Christ's work "objective redemption", which is good for all men. But we are commaned to repent of our sins, individually and personally. If we don't, Christ's work is not applied to us. Thus, our God-guided repentance is part of our "subjective redemption", our personal return to God.
Regards
You know, as a Catholic, that I agree with you here.
But we Catholics ALSO believe that we are called to cooperate with God's graces - "God does not save man without man" St. Augustine. Man CAN reject the Spirit.
Regards
I do not know if you have noticed, by I have stayed on the sidelines on that argument because I do not agree with "Christianity is unconnected to Judaism". I do not believe that Jesus preached ideas antithetical to Judaism, as He did not come to abrogate the Law but fulfill it.
Regards
No one has a right to nullify anything of God-including the Apostles. That right is reserved for God alone. God showed Peter and Paul, both, that circumcision meant nothing.
Circumcision to the Jews was suppose to be nothing more than an outward sign of an inward change, like baptism is to Christians. God was furious with the Jews who went through the rituals of circumcision and yet lived their lives like everyone else. He stated:
As 1000 rightly pointed out, this was part of the old covenant that God, Himself, tossed out. He is the ONLY one who can do so because He kept His end of the bargin. God brought in a NEW covenant and sealed His Spirit within us so that His people would be obedient. He told the apostles what He was doing and they relayed the message. The Bereans, who were more nobel than the Thessalonicans (Act 17) searched the scriptures (Old Testament) to see if what the Apostles were saying was correct, and they confirmed it based upon the scriptures.
The Church preaches a Gospel of Love, His one commandment.
With all due respect, this is not God's ONE commandment. You are to:
BTW, I like the contrast of preaching the "gospel of love" that you mention and my scripture passage from Jeremiah of how God's wrath with go out on the disobedient.
Free will is about man's will, not the intellect. God's doctrines do not concern man's DECISION to choose right or wrong, but what IS right or wrong.
So, if every school child in America had been issued a "fork manual" in school, then there would be less error.
OR, they could have been better taught as a "youth" by their "Mother", the Church - if I may continue the parallelism.
Well, that's a matter of interpretation. Remember who you're talking to. :)
Can we agree that God wrote the Bible through men and their own latent abilities and knowledge?
Why should I expect Catholic leaders to espouse Protestant themes?
There was no "Protestant" themes, that is my point!!! Sola Fide is an idea, it is not something patented and trademarked by Protestantism that could only be utilized by its "inventor"! IF the idea was found in Scripture and believed by the Church as legitimate development, we would have seen something, don't you think? We are talking about men who had MEMORIZED the Bible, for heaven's sake! These guys LIVED Scriptures and were aware of it. But we don't find any sort of concept of what would LATER be called Protestantism. This is telling, to me, that the Protestant pillars were innovations, never thought of before.
At some point, and ever since, the circulation of the Bible exceeded the reach of Catholicism. At that point, the Bible becomes useless to all who have it, but do not have Catholicism to tell them what it means.
Not useless, but a source of heresy, unfortunately. Today in the Latin Rites Liturgical Lectionary, we read about the Eunich who asks Philip for interpretation: "How can I know without it being explained?"
Do you think this is an efficient means of spreading the Good News?
You mean passing out bibles and let others figure it out? No. Faith comes through hearing, not reading.
In Catholicism, the Bible, by itself, is a relatively worthless book.
I never said that. Catholics, though, have been taught a particular paradigm in understanding God's revelation - which comes through Tradition and Scriptures. Thus, a man certainly can take the Bible and read it - as long as they remember the paradigm, the totality of revelation. Certain things are to be understood a certain way, such as verses that talk about Christ's subordination to the Father... We realize that Jesus and the Father are equal outside of the Godhead.
I don't believe that such correctness can be passed down infallibly, I don't believe that those extra-scriptural, oral teachings could have remained inerrant through the ages.
Two things to remind you of...first, we believe God guides His Church so that it can REMAIN the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth. Secondly, the "oral" tradition DID get written down - by the Church Fathers or the Liturgy that we celebrate. It is not a 2000 year old telephone game.
Yes, God said that, but you are talking about cannibalism, which is contrary to God's word. Therefore, it is impossible for Jesus to have meant it in the literal sense. Any other sense involves a symbolic interpretation. Of course, in Catholicism, maybe "eat" and "flesh" do not mean "eat" and "flesh". I don't know how that "plain meaning" would be explained.
Jesus is offering His sacramental flesh. We do not deny the symbolic interpretation. But neither do we deny the literal sense. Christ's glorified flesh, as the bread from the miracle immediately preceding the John 6 Discourse, was miraculously enough to feed the crowd - just as Christ's flesh is enough to feed the world. The Bread of Life that He gives for the world is His flesh (Jn 6:51) If you look at the Greek Version that follows, you will be convinced that Christ meant a literal sense. Chewing with teeth? Tearing flesh, as in animal eating? No, this is something more than "chewing on the Word of God in thought".
FK, this is something that ONLY the Spirit can enable us to comprehend. It is not something that can be explained and understood with the man of the flesh:
"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:44
"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life." John 6:63
This is not geometry, but a mystery that only God can reveal within us...
God is not the author of evil. God knows what evil will happen as a result of His passing over the evildoers, but He is not responsible.
Yes, you have said that, but then you contradict yourself when you say that man cannot choose good. If man has no free will to choose between good and evil, then God must do everything - you clearly say that man does not cooperate AT ALL. Thus, God, not man, is responsible for the good AND the bad that is done.
IF a person can ONLY do one thing, HOW is he responsible for not doing the other? Cannot a man rightly ask God "What do you expect? You FORCED me to choose evil! I cannot choose good! How can you then judge me, if I do what I was made to do?" Ask yourself honestly these questions - would God be righteous if man CANNOT but do one thing - sin - but is COMMANDED to do good that HE cannot do?
If so, then the Bible is subject to error. Or, did the writers just "choose" to be perfect?
Hardly. You are forgetting God's foreknowledge and His ability to instill within a particular man the proper knowledge and ability to present HIS - GOD'S - inerrant word, whether it be in parable, allegory, novel, narrative, history, myth, or whatever literal genre He decides to present.
I have never talked about Islam, and I could not care less about Islam, nor any comparison of myself to it. I don't think it's right for YOU to slap a label on me, and then demand that I defend that label. That's ridiculous.
I apologize if I have offended you. Islam takes a literal interpretation to EVERY WORD of the Koran because God Himself has supposedly SAID it, not through a medium, like in the Judeo-Christian tradition... If a Christian takes a literal interpretation of every word of the Bible as if God spoke it, then we forget that God wrote the Bible for men of different eras, with man's take mixed in. A Holy War has a different meaning then it did for the Jews of 4000 years ago! Do we continue Paul's "law" of women not speaking in Church or having their heads covered? Fundamentalism, whether Islam or Christian, is very inflexible and is usually the cause of much suffering among the people who have to deal with their adherents. It is not God's intention that the People of God cause suffering among other people!
Can you look me in the eyes and tell me that if an honest poll was taken of the whole Church, that the majority would say that contraceptives should never be used?
The majority of advisors to Pope Paul VI suggested to him in the early 1960's that the Catholic Church ALSO follow the lead of every other Protestant community and do away with the absolute use of condoms, allowing it in limited actions. The Spirit guided the Pope to go against this "poll" and say NO! Humanae Vitae, the so-called "birth control" encyclical of the 1960's, caused a HUGE stir in the American Catholic churches. Unfortuantely, the bishops were often part of the dissent! This is a fine example on how God works to maintain the teachings of the Church given by the Apostles, even in the face of popular whims of society. The Church is built on a Rock.
It is THIS teaching that the Church looks back upon, not the whims of Catholics TODAY! If the Church has "always believed, everywhere and from all time" a particular idea or concept, it must have been given by the Holy Spirit. Man is a fickle creature. It is impossible that he hold to a particular idea or concept for any length of time unless God is guiding him... Such things we call "universal principles".
I said that man misinterprets sometimes.
I agree. But God didn't desire that we be left in the dark. He gave us the Church to be the pillar and foundation of the truth. God desires that all men be saved AND COME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH! He gives us this ability through a God-guided Church, which consists of heirarchy AND the people within it. Even we, the lay, have a "sense of the faithful" that the Spirit guides within us. But this sense does not include merely one particular society or one era. The Church is timeless and transcendant to time, since its Head is also. We are united to the saints of ALL ages. Thus, the "sense of the faithful" expands to all time, all places. Because we have a screwed up generation here in America doesn't mean that the "sense of the faithful" is void.
Regards
Oh, and I recall that the early Church also recognized that, as well...
Regards
First of all, there is a difference between Catholic and Orthodox teaching on this matter, and for the Orthodox, it is a critical distinction. The Orthodox belief is still one that the vast majority of Protestants would disagree with, but I will try to briefly explain it. Keep in mind also that it only came to be articulated in detail in response to what we felt was an incorrect teaching by Catholicism.
As I said to FK, Orthodox teachings on the Theotokos have generally been part of the "inner tradition" of the Church, and not a part of dogma or kerygma. We find no reason to disagree with these traditional understandings, but as with so many things the Orthodox Church does not declare any of them to be dogmas, with two exceptions.
The first dogma is the Virgin Birth, and I think we would agree with that. It was decreed by the 1st Ecumenical Council The fact that in the Creed, she is titled the Virgin Mary reflects the long-standing belief in her ever-virginity (ditto for Calvin), but it is not spelled out as such.
The second dogma is that she has the title of Theotokos, or the "bringer forth of God" or "birth-giver of God." This was declared by the 3rd Ecumenical Council in response to Nestorianism. The Church detected (correctly as it turned out) that because Nestorius would only call her the Christokos (the bringer-forth of Christ), that Nestorius was denying that Christ was fully God and fully man in one person.
If he was the latter, then we cannot be afraid to call her the "birth-giver of God", or even the "mother of God" (although this latter term is little used in Orthodoxy, primarily because it is easy to extrapolate, wrongly, that we believe that she is the mother of the Trinity, or that she has an eternal relationship with Christ that preceded the Incarnation.)
Getting back to the original issue, the Orthodox Church has never taught that Mary was free from original sin. Part of this is because we view original sin and its effects differently. We believe that the ancestral sin of Adam brought death and corruption into the world, and with it the tendency to sin. We'll have to discuss "for that all have sinned" sometime, and why the KJV got the translation right by choosing that particular construction rather than "because all have sinned."
We do not believe that the effects of the ancestral sin include automatic damnation -- that from the moment of conception a human being is worthy of hell-fire and everlasting punishment because of inheriting the moral guilt of Adam.
What this means is that we believe that Mary was born exactly the same as we were -- with the effects of ancestral sin (corruption, death, and the inclination to sin) just as we are born with them.
We *do* believe that she lived a morally guiltless life, and that this made her a worthy vessel for bearing Christ. This is why she is held up as the exemplar of what it means to be a Christian -- a model for all in her purity and dedication to God.
If anything, this perhaps makes the Orthodox view of her more exalted than does the Catholic view from a human point of view. She did what she did with the same tools at her disposal as we have at ours. Had she been super-charged with special grace at conception and born free from original sin in addition, she could hardly be a model for us since the deck was stacked for her, could she?
An interesting point is that the Eastern tradition is clear that Mary died. On the 15th of August we commemorate her repose, not her Assumption (there are hints of an Assumption in our tradition, but it is not spelled out terribly clearly in the services). This is critical for us, since it showed that she fully had the effects of the ancestral sin in her -- she grew old and died. Only because of Christ's death and Resurrection is her own resurrection possible. As you would guess from logical extrapolation, there emerged in the Catholic world a teaching (not at all universal) that takes it to the logical conclusion -- that she couldn't have died, and was just taken up into heaven without dying. How could she have died if she was free of original sin and lived a morally sinless life as well? But the clarity of the Eastern tradition prevented this from being incorporated into the Catholic dogma of the Assumption. Apparently Pope Pius did believe that she didn't die.
Anyway, that's probably more than you wanted to know, and it certainly is something that you would disagree with, understandably, as a Protestant. There is no direct Scriptural evidence for any of this. It is part of the oral tradition of the Church. I'm pinging a couple of the other Orthodox to see if they would state any of this differently.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.