But I checked and you guys fully recognize him as a Saint. His feast day is even on my birthday! He HAS to be OK. :)
BTW, among Latins and Orthodox, are there any Saints that one side recognizes that the other doesn't?
An even better example is the compound misunderstanding of the filioque by Protestants.
In truth, I wasn't aware that there was a disagreement between the Latins and Protestants on filioque (but I am no expert on the subject). What is it?
I don’t know if there was any teaching in Hebrew, but Christ and likely at least some of the Apostles certainly knew it.
As proof, I was thinking of Christ teaching in the Synagogue when He was 12. I figure that must have been in Hebrew.
[Greek is] the language God chose, FK, not English, not German, not Latin or French or Swedish.
And my response is "why is that"? Is it simply because that was the language that was "there" at the time, which both Jew and Gentile could reasonably understand? OR, is there something inherently superior to the Greek language itself? Maybe this is way off base, but it entered my mind that in international aviation, English is required of all pilots (via ICAO) because it is considered the most precise language, not Greek. Obviously there was no English in Jesus' time, but God knew it was coming, He invented it. So, that led me to think that there really was no "magic" to the Greek, and that God would transmit His word through all languages, both then current and yet to be invented.
FK: “Careful translation is a must of course, but God knew how many of His children were going to grow up knowing the original Greek, i.e. not many as a total number. God either sufficiently accounted for that, or it was not His intention to reveal His word to all of His children. By your standards, it would clearly be true that the vast majority of believers do not have reasonable access to His word.”
Here’s the problem with your reasoning. Non-Greek/Aramaic/Syriac/Slavonic speakers will indeed have a problem with understanding the scriptures because in every single other language into which the NT has been translated, the translators had a particular theological or political axe to grind, not because God caused a problem but because men decided that they knew better what God meant in scripture than those men who spoke and lived the language it was written in.
Well there's the whole thing. Our difference is in whether God actively controls how those translations are made and what their content is. If He does control, then the substance of the intended message is preserved, and such a copy will indeed include everything a Christian NEEDS to know. If He does not, then all the errors in the world could get in and it's a free for all in terms of accuracy. We would then only have men to trust on what to believe. The Reformed view God as being very "hands-on".
Everyone who wants to know The Truth of The Faith has access to God’s word. It may just be a bit more difficult for some than for others, but in all honesty, FK, in Calvin’s theology, the Elect don’t need that access and the damned are lost anyway.
In Calvin's theology, the elect absolutely need access to God's word, be it in oral or written form. Otherwise, we would have to claim an irrational faith, and we do not. Just as God ordained THAT the elect would be saved, He also ordained the method of salvation.
That just means he was holy, not infallible. Don't go getting all Latin on me FK!
"BTW, among Latins and Orthodox, are there any Saints that one side recognizes that the other doesn't?"
Likely hundreds.
"In truth, I wasn't aware that there was a disagreement between the Latins and Protestants on filioque (but I am no expert on the subject). What is it?"
Long story short, the Latins now accept that the eternal origin of the HS is exclusively the Father. The original raison d'etre for the filioque was to avoid Arian claims that Christ was "less" than the Father and so it was argued that the HS "proceeded from" or had His origin in BOTH the Father and the Son. This seems to still be the theology of most Protestants to the extent its even thought about at all. Its heresy. My suspicion is that if it were thought about, those Protestants would come around, though.
"As proof, I was thinking of Christ teaching in the Synagogue when He was 12. I figure that must have been in Hebrew."
Highly unlikely. People didn't speak Hebrew then. More likely it was Aramaic or Greek.
Responding to my comment that God chose Geek for the NT, you responded:
"And my response is "why is that"?"
I told you, Greeks are bad people and God wanted them to have every advantage!
"...is there something inherently superior to the Greek language itself?"
You ask a Greek a question like that? Ελλα, βραι παιδακι μου!
"So, that led me to think that there really was no "magic" to the Greek, and that God would transmit His word through all languages, both then current and yet to be invented."
But the fact is that the translations we have are all over the lot and those heterodox translations lead to very very different theologies.
"In Calvin's theology, the elect absolutely need access to God's word, be it in oral or written form. Otherwise, we would have to claim an irrational faith, and we do not."
Why would you have to claim an irrational faith if your access to "God's word" (I assume you don't mean Ο Λογος) is not limited to oral and written transmission? Scripture isn't magic, FK. It tells us how to live so we can fulfill our created process. Orthodox believe that is that we all attain theosis; you folks believe that it is eternal salvation for the elect, eternal damnation for the rest, but in either event, the Bible tells us how to conduct ourselves. If Orthodoxy also teaches that through iconography, liturgical life, etc., does that make Orthodoxy "irrational"?