Certainly our "Jo" is by no means "average". :) ...... But here we have an honest disagreement. Even in the English, as Quix has said, the Gospel message is clear. You are absolutely right to say that correct discernment is critical. However, what would you say the source of discernment is? Is it the free will brains that God gave us and then respected so much not to tamper with? Or, does God grace us with discernment, on a continual basis? IF God is truly in control, then there will be no false impressions about the Gospel for those God intends to receive it, in any language and at any time. Eyes to see and ears to hear.
[continuing:] The fallacy is not really glaringly obvious, but may even seem trivial. However, the concepts derived from such fine differences actually may lead him astray.
For many theological points this is true. Some rely on a body of men for resolution, and some rely on the Holy Spirit. Of course, individuals who rely on the Spirit don't get it right every time, just as individuals who claim authority by the pronouncement of men don't get it right every time. God's Church as a whole has nonetheless been preserved and united on the core truths.
What I am talking about are subtle nuances that are not obvious. Thus, Jesus says "be therefore perfect..." but He is really saying become (future tense) therefore perfect..." Or, in the Lord's Prayer we read "forgive us as we forgive ..." instead of "forgive as we have forgiven ..." The Greek version is in perfect harmony with the verses that follow, namely that "you must forgive in order for the Father to forgive you..." The order of what must take place first is crucial in formulating the faith.
But what is your conclusion about "subtle nuances"? Are understanding of these required to be Christian? I don't think so. In subsequent posts to yours here, I have covered the "tense" issue and how we interpret based on different paradigms. I see God as giving His children an instruction manual on how to live a Godly life VERSUS God making some kind of a "sales pitch" in print. Fundamentally, this is still a matter of interpretation.
I am sure that the Greek you have been taught is in full harmony with whatever conclusion you need it to be in harmony with. It is simply not plausible that the Greek can only be read and interpreted to fully support the Apostolic view, or views. I can and do appreciate that YOU read it a certain way and believe it is correct. No problem. But again I do not accept a monopoly on the language. Too many impossible things would have to be true if the monopoly was true.
[continuing:] Thus, I had a Protestant on one of these threads tell me that that was a lot of hot air because we have already been forgiven!
The Elect HAVE already been forgiven. Today is the day we remember what made that happen.
Take for instance even the English language. vengeance used to mean a slightly different thing than it does today. reading KJV English is not conducive to clear comprehension because it is an outdated language. Concepts change, and so do words. Thus, in order to be able to read the NT and fully understand it without going to lexicons and following someone else's interpretation, it is imperative to read it and comprehend it in Greek.
NO, there is no "Thus ...". :) Your conclusion does not follow the premise. While some concepts and word usages certainly do change, it makes no sense to conclude "therefore the only thing to do is use Greek". No, as most non-Greek-speaking Christians of all stripes, you must admit, have concluded, the thing to do is put together a translation that is faithful and usable by the people of the (then) modern day. Except for Orthodoxy, this is what has been done (I think) pretty much from before the time of the schism.
Once again, if Greek is the only way, then Christianity is not a revealed faith but rather a secret faith. That makes no sense to me since there are, and have been plenty of Reformers who are fluent in Greek. I could study nothing else for the next ten years and be better off, but it wouldn't change my theology.
In the meantime, I wish everyone a blessed and joyous Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who trampled death by death. And we sing “Your death, O Lord, we proclaim! Hallelujah. Glory to Thee! And your Resurrection we confess! Hallelujah! Glory to Thee!”
we have an honest disagreement. Even in the English, as Quix has said, the Gospel message is clear
Obviously, not clear enough for us not have disagreements. :) The examples are too numerous to list, but consider only representative few. Such as the Roman Catholic (and very few Orthodox) reading of Peter's commission with the keys. Or the Protestant interpretation of +Paul's gospel (although technically not part of the Gospels) is radically different from the way the Church understood him (officially) almost from the start.
You are absolutely right to say that correct discernment is critical. However, what would you say the source of discernment is?
God of course! But our discernment is clouded by the human fall.
Is it the free will brains that God gave us and then respected so much not to tamper with? Or, does God grace us with discernment, on a continual basis?
Catholics and Orthodox will answer: both!. He gave us reason so that we may discern, and freedom so that we may choose, which He respects by His own decision, out of love.
IF God is truly in control, then there will be no false impressions about the Gospel for those God intends to receive it, in any language and at any time. Eyes to see and ears to hear.
But that presupposes that there are actually people who discern God's Word perfectly. We (and I think I can speak on behalf of our Catholic brothers as well) do not believe that any man is capable of perfectly understanding God's Word, but that the (One Holy Catholic and Apostolic) Church collectively contains the correctness and fullness of our Faith.
Some rely on a body of men for resolution, and some rely on the Holy Spirit
Actually, we rely on the a body of men who were commissioned by the Holy Spirit (the Apostles and their successors); others rely on their personal opinion (understanding) as being that of the Holy Spirit. It is clear where traps of narcissism can be discerned.
Of course, individuals who rely on the Spirit don't get it right every time, just as individuals who claim authority by the pronouncement of men don't get it right every time
Show me one of the Seven Ecumenical Councils to be in error. What we Orthodox consider infallible are the Scriptures, the Divine Liturgy (which pronounces the Scriptures), and the Ecumenical Councils, which are based on Scriptures. The three constitute what we call the Holy Tradition, not the tradition(s) of men.
That is certainly true of the Apostolic Churches and "mainline" Trinitarian Protestants.
However, the problem is what is "core truth". Some will say that all who consider Jesus their Savior believe in "core truth" and therefore represent the Church.
Such all-inclusive generalizations certainly do not define the Church because "Christ" in many of these assemblies is not the same, although they may refer to the Biblical Jesus.
Within a ocuple of centuries the Church found it absolutely necessary to define Who Christ is in order to establish what "core truth" is.
Faced with growing and newly emerging heresies, the Church was forced to define just what Christian "core truths" are. From those proclaiamtions (of the ecumenical Councils) we believe that (1) He is the Hypo-stasis (lit. sub-stance) of the Holy Trinity, one in nature (essence), that is — divine, with the Father and the Spirit; (2) that all Three Hypostases differ in the Divine Economy but are fully equal and indistinguishable in their divinity, one God, indivisible, simple, not compound.
Furthermore we also define that Jesus is the eternal Word of God, Who took on flesh and Human nature and was born of a Virgin; that He is fully God and fully Man; two natures, and two wills, unconfused, in one Person.
These nuances are not obvious from just reading the Bible. Closer scrutiny tells us that the devil is in the details, no pun intended, as some truly satanic cults have arisen from those who call on Jesus as their "savior".
Needless to say, all the various congregations calling on Jesus' name do not share these "core truths".
But what is your conclusion about "subtle nuances"? Are understanding of these required to be Christian?
Yes, most definitely.
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.