How to read the Bible: An Orthodox perspective

[Distruzio]

I see no problem with it, personally. I've never actually done it either.

I do know that it should be done in the correct mindset, lest it becomes divination. Where the reader expects the Word to speak to him about the days events. Protestants do this. They'll open the Bible to a random page each day and let their eyes settle on the first passage their inclined to and keep that passage in mind throughout the day, looking for God's signs that He has noticed their supreme devotion and ability to infallibly interpret His Word at random. If that sounds outlandish, it's b/c it is.

With all of that in mind, I cannot honestly comment on the correctness of your action, NV. Paying attention in Church is difficult enough without all the external distractions the world offers. Reading the Bible, even sections of it, alone without a Priest or other Christian to help and holding those sections in mind seems even more difficult. I suppose there are writings about such difficulties from the Church fathers as they explored the monastic life. Perhaps you could start there? Consulting the minds of men whose writings represent the timeless Mind of the Church has helped me greatly in my Christian life. Maybe it could help you as well, brother?

It seems divining was the intention of the practice. Odd that I got it in Catholic school, because divination is apparently condemned. Whether or not it is, though, it didn't help me and made me more confused; and if you think it sounds very difficult to do or outlandish, then I don't think I should continue trying. I'll look up some of the Church fathers' writings; do you have any in mind in particular?

Well, I should be more clear. When I say that performing the act should "be done in the correct mindset," I mean to say that, if you pick a passage to contemplate, you should consider how that passage applies to you and your experiences. The Protestant does not do this. He contemplates how the passage can be applied to the world around him - that is the condemned bit.

The Bible is an exchange between you and God that keeps you humble. It is not a declaration from God to you to increase your hubris.

Church fathers on divination.

Catholic encyclopedia on divination.

[Lincoltshire]

Do Orthodox Christians have their own method of reading? Forgive me, I though that it was relatively straightforward.

[Distruzio]

Do Orthodox Christians have their own method of reading? Forgive me, I though that it was relatively straightforward.

Surprisingly so, it would seem from some of the responses in this thread. We kinda do it correctly.

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

In theory, it's just that - some are going to be saved, some aren't. And because God is omniscient and has laid out His own plan, this is the (quite obvious) result of that.

In practice, diehard Calvinists turn it into double predestination - ie., people are going to Hell because of whatever sinful act they're into at the time. This view is ignorant of other acts of God in the Bible; for example, the criminal that is saved on the cross. Or, an even better example for those that dig deeper into the New Testament, Saul/Paul. To say that a person is going to Hell because of their present action ignores both the depravity doctrine also in Calvinism and the timing of God's plan in the Bible.

Ummmm, double predestination has nothing to do with some idea of people are going to hell because of whatever sinful act they are into at the time..... double predestination is the doctrine that the saved are elected to salvation and the reprobate are elected to hell. That is ones final state was predetermined by God (either before or after willing the fall, depending on the type of 'lapsarian Calvinist soterlogy) Later conversions, even "Deathbed" conversions are perfectly fine with double predestination.

... which is what I said in the first sentence of what you quoted.

I've seen "limited election" used with a much more neutral connotation than "double predestination," which is why I associate the terms that way. They're theoretically the same term, but I've seen the latter used when condemning those that are quick to judge.

tl;dr I feel application of the "limited election" portion of Calvin's doctrine leaves room for Protestants to judge, which I count as negative. Yes, it's fundamental, but arguing that the elect is limited or that some will be damned no matter what is damaging to the faith. I had a lengthy discussion with a (very attractive >.>) Calvinist girl on this very subject.

EDIT: tl;dr Would you tell a new churchgoer, or even someone you were trying to convert, that it's possible that they cannot be saved? Why?

[Tekania]

Ummmm, double predestination has nothing to do with some idea of people are going to hell because of whatever sinful act they are into at the time..... double predestination is the doctrine that the saved are elected to salvation and the reprobate are elected to hell. That is ones final state was predetermined by God (either before or after willing the fall, depending on the type of 'lapsarian Calvinist soterlogy) Later conversions, even "Deathbed" conversions are perfectly fine with double predestination.

... which is what I said in the first sentence of what you quoted.

I've seen "limited election" used with a much more neutral connotation than "double predestination," which is why I associate the terms that way. They're theoretically the same term, but I've seen the latter used when condemning those that are quick to judge.

tl;dr I feel application of the "limited election" portion of Calvin's doctrine leaves room for Protestants to judge, which I count as negative. Yes, it's fundamental, but arguing that the elect is limited or that some will be damned no matter what is damaging to the faith. I had a lengthy discussion with a (very attractive >.>) Calvinist girl on this very subject.

EDIT: tl;dr Would you tell a new churchgoer, or even someone you were trying to convert, that it's possible that they cannot be saved? Why?

No, but that is because Calvinistic soterology is primarily dealing with the concept of someones final/eternal state without regard to time. Judgement may be made in terms of consideration of someones actions which may bring temporal questions to their eternal state, but that is, as I've seen it in PCA and PCUSA churches, only used for the purpose of correction (church discipline), and not a statement on ones final state.
Censure or excommunication is not a statement of ones final state, it's a statement that visible sin is showing in ones life and the ultimate goal is repentance.

I will agree though that I have met those who supposedly hold to a Calvinistic soterology who do not really understand Calvinistic soterology at all, and frankly for those people I fault their elders.

[Galloism]

See, there is a rather large presumption here: that the "worldwide church" (or the orthodox, catholic, etc churches) is the church of God.

The Bible itself tells us that Satan "transforms himself into an angel of light" (becoming a false beacon as it were).

Combine this with the foretold great apostasy (which was already occurring as the apostle John was near his end), and we can't be certain that Christ is at the head of any church.

Presuming that he is, though, how do you determine which church? They all say wildly different things. There must be some metric.

Ah, gnosticism. How I cherish thee. Really, Gallo. What you have just presented is a oft touted critique of the Church that the condemned Gnostic sects bring to bare. Unfortunately, it all comes down to a choice in faith. The Gnostics can and do make just as many claims to apostolic tradition as we do. They do not, however, claim the same heritage via the Patriarchal Consensus that we do, nor could they, being condemned as heretics.

(yes, I am quite familiar with the gnostic sects and once, in my misotheist days, considered adopting their language to accuse the Church of heresy)

As for choosing the correct Church, I rather think that of those Ive previously mentioned, it all comes down to personal relationship with God. For me, it was almost as though I was made for the Orthodox Church. Even as I tried each of the others (and Protestant churches immediately following my conversion), I knew within weeks whether I was fit for the church I visited. Taking communion at first visit with the Episcopalians seemed wrong even before I did it, and I was immediately stricken with food poisoning an hour later. The Anglicans, while beautiful and fantastic, did not satisfy - especially after I met with the local Bishop to ask about the Church. So on and so forth.

I could go on about how each church within the Church (and without) failed to satisfy me, but the gist is simply that, for me, the Orthodox express the fullness of the Truth.

Each member of the Church says similar things, not so wildly separate. Each approached the Truth in a unique way - we Orthodox are more mystical and personal. The Romans are more legalistic and structured. The Anglicans more relational and statist. The Lutherans are more bible centric and structured. Etc etc. Each point towards the Truth, that cannot be denied. The Protestants, however, as I have implied routinely, don't point at the Truth (which itself implies a constant desire and inability to ultimately achieve) but, rather, expressly state that they possess the Truth. Each Protestant sect says the same thing - they have it correct where everyone else is incorrect. That is heresy, through and through.

Each member of the Church avoids this pitfall of exclusivity by stating clearly (in various ways) that there are those that the Church does not have that God has, and there are those the Church has that God does not. In modern vernacular, its a shoulder shrug and an invitation to join us in finding out where the Protestant points and wags a finger at your failure to see.

Actually, if one goes by the Bible (which, most don't, Protestant and otherwise), it really is that there is one true belief system and all the others are false.

Matt 24:24 states that:

"For there will arise false christs, and false prophets, and they will show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the chosen ones."

Combined with John 4:24, that you must worship God in spirit and truth, it shows a moral imperative on Christians to seek and find the truth and avoid being deceived by very convincing falsehoods.

Jesus also spoke about those who, professing to serve God, and perhaps even performed wonderous things, but were not really serving him.

"Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.

Consequently, if one religion teaches that the soul is immortal and another teaches that the soul dies, only one has the truth.

If one teaches the trinity and another doesn't, only one has the truth.

If one teaches that there should be a clergy/laity separation, and another teaches that such divisions are inappropriate, only one can be correct.

Etc, etc.

Edit: also, gnostic. I Lol'd.

[Distruzio]

True enough, Gallo. However that doesn't alter the fact that the members of the Church I have described do not differ substantially in doctrine (save for the filioque) but in approach to pursuit of the Truth.

[Seleucas]

In theory, it's just that - some are going to be saved, some aren't. And because God is omniscient and has laid out His own plan, this is the (quite obvious) result of that.

In practice, diehard Calvinists turn it into double predestination - ie., people are going to Hell because of whatever sinful act they're into at the time. This view is ignorant of other acts of God in the Bible; for example, the criminal that is saved on the cross. Or, an even better example for those that dig deeper into the New Testament, Saul/Paul. To say that a person is going to Hell because of their present action ignores both the depravity doctrine also in Calvinism and the timing of God's plan in the Bible.

Ummmm, double predestination has nothing to do with some idea of people are going to hell because of whatever sinful act they are into at the time..... double predestination is the doctrine that the saved are elected to salvation and the reprobate are elected to hell. That is ones final state was predetermined by God (either before or after willing the fall, depending on the type of 'lapsarian Calvinist soterlogy) Later conversions, even "Deathbed" conversions are perfectly fine with double predestination.

Exactly. Succinctly, God has already decided whether you are going to Heaven and Hell before you can actually do anything, before you are even born; you cannot choose, since there is no free will, all has been preordained by God.

[Galloism]

True enough, Gallo. However that doesn't alter the fact that the members of the Church I have described do not differ substantially in doctrine (save for the filioque) but in approach to pursuit of the Truth.

True enough, but there are more churches in existence than the ones you described.

Here's a handy list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

[Tekania]

True enough, Gallo. However that doesn't alter the fact that the members of the Church I have described do not differ substantially in doctrine (save for the filioque) but in approach to pursuit of the Truth.

True enough, but there are more churches in existence than the ones you described.

Here's a handy list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

Not all Christians consider all others who claim to be Christian, Christian. His list encompasses those groups which the Orthodox churches generally consider to be in either full or partial communion.

[The Archregimancy]

True enough, but there are more churches in existence than the ones you described.

Here's a handy list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

Not all Christians consider all others who claim to be Christian, Christian. His list encompasses those groups which the Orthodox churches generally consider to be in either full or partial communion.

It would perhaps be more accurate to state that his list encompasses those groups which the Orthodox church* generally considers to be heterodox rather than heretical**.

*because there is only one Orthodox Church, not multiple 'Orthodox churches'; though it comprises several autocephalous branches, they all recognise each other's canonicity, and are in full communion.

**because the Orthodox Church isn't in 'full or partial communion' with any non-Orthodox Church; with the possible exception of the Orthodox and Coptic Popes of Alexandria, who mutually recognise some of their sacraments.

[Galloism]

True enough, but there are more churches in existence than the ones you described.

Here's a handy list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

Not all Christians consider all others who claim to be Christian, Christian. His list encompasses those groups which the Orthodox churches generally consider to be in either full or partial communion.

His big post here is that the Bible cannot be read or understood without the guidance of the church.

In a sense, if one is to believe in the Bible, I agree. The Bible specifically states that ones "must not forsake the gathering of ourselves together". Going to church is implicitly required there.

However, I see no reason why we would limit "going to church" to mean "orthodox and small subset of churches". Indeed, the "church" referenced in the Bible (or "congregation", as some translations put it) must be the organization of God on earth. The problem is, there are literally thousands of different churches with massively different beliefs.

I reject his notion that one must, with no apparent cause, choose from within his little subset of churches as the "Church of God" divinely authorized to ignore scripture (which, all the ones in his list do, to some extent or another) and replace it with their own teachings.

This is what I challenge - why is the set he's specifically pointed out "the" list? I reject his list as "the" list to choose from.

If he has some... authority, shall we say, for divining that list, I want to see it.

[Tekania]

Not all Christians consider all others who claim to be Christian, Christian. His list encompasses those groups which the Orthodox churches generally consider to be in either full or partial communion.

His big post here is that the Bible cannot be read or understood without the guidance of the church.

In a sense, if one is to believe in the Bible, I agree. The Bible specifically states that ones "must not forsake the gathering of ourselves together". Going to church is implicitly required there.

However, I see no reason why we would limit "going to church" to mean "orthodox and small subset of churches". Indeed, the "church" referenced in the Bible (or "congregation", as some translations put it) must be the organization of God on earth. The problem is, there are literally thousands of different churches with massively different beliefs.

I reject his notion that one must, with no apparent cause, choose from within his little subset of churches as the "Church of God" divinely authorized to ignore scripture (which, all the ones in his list do, to some extent or another) and replace it with their own teachings.

This is what I challenge - why is the set he's specifically pointed out "the" list? I reject his list as "the" list to choose from.

If he has some... authority, shall we say, for divining that list, I want to see it.

I'm not saying I necessary agree with his theology, merely stating what it is, as those "thousands of different churches with vastly different beliefs" are not in communion according to his theology, and therefore are not valid churches. The validity is being defined by a theological idea (doctrine) of apostolic succession, which the vast majority churches you're attempting to reference cannot lay claim upon under his understanding of that doctrine.

[Galloism]

His big post here is that the Bible cannot be read or understood without the guidance of the church.

In a sense, if one is to believe in the Bible, I agree. The Bible specifically states that ones "must not forsake the gathering of ourselves together". Going to church is implicitly required there.

However, I see no reason why we would limit "going to church" to mean "orthodox and small subset of churches". Indeed, the "church" referenced in the Bible (or "congregation", as some translations put it) must be the organization of God on earth. The problem is, there are literally thousands of different churches with massively different beliefs.

I reject his notion that one must, with no apparent cause, choose from within his little subset of churches as the "Church of God" divinely authorized to ignore scripture (which, all the ones in his list do, to some extent or another) and replace it with their own teachings.

This is what I challenge - why is the set he's specifically pointed out "the" list? I reject his list as "the" list to choose from.

If he has some... authority, shall we say, for divining that list, I want to see it.

I'm not saying I necessary agree with his theology, merely stating what it is, as those "thousands of different churches with vastly different beliefs" are not in communion according to his theology, and therefore are not valid churches. The validity is being defined by a theological idea (doctrine) of apostolic succession, which the vast majority churches you're attempting to reference cannot lay claim upon under his understanding of that doctrine.

True, but apostolic succession is a doctrine of the Orthodox and Catholic churches, and not a biblical teaching.

Thus, the reason for accepting only his small subset of churches is that one must already accept a doctrine of the given church so as to exclude other churches.

It's putting the cart before the horse is what I am saying.

"In order to know Orthodoxy is true, you must first accept Orthodoxy."

[Tekania]

I'm not saying I necessary agree with his theology, merely stating what it is, as those "thousands of different churches with vastly different beliefs" are not in communion according to his theology, and therefore are not valid churches. The validity is being defined by a theological idea (doctrine) of apostolic succession, which the vast majority churches you're attempting to reference cannot lay claim upon under his understanding of that doctrine.

True, but apostolic succession is a doctrine of the Orthodox and Catholic churches, and not a biblical teaching.

Thus, the reason for accepting only his small subset of churches is that one must already accept a doctrine of the given church so as to exclude other churches.

It's putting the cart before the horse is what I am saying.

"In order to know Orthodoxy is true, you must first accept Orthodoxy."

Yes that's correct. But that itself does not alter anything. The same could be applied to scripture.

[Galloism]

True, but apostolic succession is a doctrine of the Orthodox and Catholic churches, and not a biblical teaching.

Thus, the reason for accepting only his small subset of churches is that one must already accept a doctrine of the given church so as to exclude other churches.

It's putting the cart before the horse is what I am saying.

"In order to know Orthodoxy is true, you must first accept Orthodoxy."

Yes that's correct. But that itself does not alter anything. The same could be applied to scripture.

To a certain extent, yes.

[Tekania]

Yes that's correct. But that itself does not alter anything. The same could be applied to scripture.

To a certain extent, yes.

Not even to an certain extent, there was a period of nearly 300 years between Christ's time and the actually formation of a New Testament, where the contents of which were passed via tradition. Event then there were contests to what accounted for official and authoritative writings which was why a counsel was put together in the first place to officially formulate and constitute this scripture.

[Galloism]

To a certain extent, yes.

Not even to an certain extent, there was a period of nearly 300 years between Christ's time and the actually formation of a New Testament, where the contents of which were passed via tradition. Event then there were contests to what accounted for official and authoritative writings which was why a counsel was put together in the first place to officially formulate and constitute this scripture.

You, of course, refer to the Council of Nicea (well, Wiki sayeth that there was not an "official cannon" until 393, but by that point, the matter was considered already established, and that the canon was likely mostly established by the middle of the third century, read here if you're interested), and you are mostly correct.

However, the contents were not passed via tradition, unless you mean "by tradition" to mean "copied over and over again from text to text", as IIRC, there is at least one partial copy of matthew, in Greek, that dates back to the first century in our possession today.

There's no reason to assume the other texts were not in written form and copied over and over again.


However, in the sense of "what is valid and what is not", yes, many manuscripts did not make the cut.

[The Archregimancy]

True, but apostolic succession is a doctrine of the Orthodox and Catholic churches, and not a biblical teaching.

Thus, the reason for accepting only his small subset of churches is that one must already accept a doctrine of the given church so as to exclude other churches.

A small subset that happens to include a fairly large majority of Christians.

Cumulatively, the Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Oriental Orthodox and Church of the East - the largest/oldest churches recognising the principle of apostolic succession - make up some 80% of Christians.

No doubt we could immediately counter that popularity is not necessarily reliable guide to truth, which is fair enough, and we should also draw a distinction between 'churches' and 'Christians'; but stating that the churches in Distruzio's list consist of only a 'small subset' is perhaps slightly demographically misleading here, or at least potentially slightly unclear.

It's perhaps a matter of perspective.

[Galloism]

True, but apostolic succession is a doctrine of the Orthodox and Catholic churches, and not a biblical teaching.

Thus, the reason for accepting only his small subset of churches is that one must already accept a doctrine of the given church so as to exclude other churches.

A small subset that happens to include a fairly large majority of Christians.

Cumulatively, the Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Oriental Orthodox and Church of the East - the largest/oldest churches recognising the principle of apostolic succession - make up some 80% of Christians.

No doubt we could immediately counter that popularity is not necessarily reliable guide to truth, which is fair enough, and we should also draw a distinction between 'churches' and 'Christians'; but stating that the churches in Distruzio's list consist of only a 'small subset' is perhaps slightly demographically misleading here, or at least potentially slightly unclear.

It's perhaps a matter of perspective.

I meant as a matter of selection rather than a matter of demographics. You are correct in my usage of the word "churches" rather than "Christians". When one is... nonaffiliated, there are a vast number of different churches, all with different beliefs. As a matter of selection, those few churches (and I use few as a matter of selection) is a very small subset of available religious beliefs.

Indeed, you are correct that the vast majority of Christians fall into those categories, and I did not intend to imply otherwise.

You are also correct that numbers do not imply correctness.

EDIT: As an aside, if the Bible is true and to be followed, vast numbers imply the opposite of correctness. It states in no uncertain terms that few are the ones to be saved and that most are taking the "broad and spacious" way to leads off into destruction.

[The Archregimancy]

True, but apostolic succession is a doctrine of the Orthodox and Catholic churches, and not a biblical teaching.

I offer this as a non-theological historical note, just in case people find it useful for reference. I am making no specific argument for or against the doctrine of a specific denomination (while recognising that many will assume a bias), merely offering a historical note on the development of the Apostolic Succession.

The concept of a single bishop within the Apostolic Succession for each urban Christian community didn't develop immediately within Christianity, but the two core concepts were fairly well established by the rule of the Emperor Trajan (98-117AD).

The earliest known reference to the Apostolic Succession as underlying the authority of Christian ministry comes in the First Epistle of Clement (it's misnamed; the 'second epistle' is neither an epistle nor by Clement), written in c.96 AD. The epistle is universally regarded as authentic, and its author accepted as the Clement usually named fourth in the list of Bishops of Rome; though Clement himself almost certainly didn't see himself as the single monarchical leader of the Roman Christian community, and his use of the word 'bishop' may not entirely coincide with the later accepted meaning. We know virtually nothing reliable about Clement other than what's contained in the epistle. The epistle was written as advice to the church in Corinth (which enjoyed close relations with Rome at the time), which had recently ejected its leaders, and had replaced them with individuals who didn't enjoy the Apostolic Succession.

Chapter 42 reads: "Now, the Gospel was given to the Apostles for us by the Lord Jesus Christ; and Jesus Christ was sent from God. That is to say, Christ received His Commission from God, and the Apostles theirs from Christ ... so thereafter, when the Apostles had been given their instructions, and all their doubts had been set at rest by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead, they set out in the full assurance of the Holy Spirit to proclaim the coming of God's kingdom. And as they went through the territories and townships preaching, they appointed their first converts ... to be bishops and deacons for the believers of the future (this was in no way an innovation, for bishops and deacons had already been spoken of in Scripture long before that; there is a text that says, I will confirm their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith)*

Chapter 43 elaborates slightly, and then Chapter 44 reads: "Similarly, our Apostles knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be dissensions over the title of bishop. In their full foreknowledge of this, therefore, they proceeded to appoint the ministers I spoke of, and they went on to add an instruction that if these should fall asleep, other accredited persons should succeed them in their office. In view of this, we cannot think it right for these men now to be ejected from their ministry, when, after being commissioned by the Apostles (or by other reputable persons at a later date) with the full consent of the Church, they have since been serving Christ's flock in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested way, and earning everybody's approval over so long a period of time. It will undoubtedly be no light offence on our part, if we take their bishopric away from men who have been performing its duties with this impeccable devotion".

So here we have a developed concept of Apostolic Succession by the close of the 1st century, but not necessarily a developed concept of monarchical episcopacy.


The earliest verifiable development in writing of the latter concept comes in the seven epistles of Ignatius of Antioch, written while under arrest, and being taken from Antioch to Rome for his execution under Trajan (so 98-117, as above, though we don't know the precise year). Ignatius - who was Bish unlike Clement, doesn't argue that the Apostolic Succession legitimises ecclesiastical authority, instead seeing it as a commission directly from God.

Chapter 10 of his Epistle to the Magnesians contains a typical exhortation to ecclesiastical obedience: "Be as submissive to the bishop and to one another as Jesus Christ was to His Father, and as the Apostles were to Christ and the Father; so that there may be complete unity, in the flesh as well as in the spirit".

Ignatius also refers to other individuals as 'bishop', most notably Polycarp of Smyrna, to whom his seventh epistle was directed. We'll return to Polycarp in a second.

So in Ignatius we have a developed concept of monarchical episcopacy, but not a developed concept of Apostolic Succession.

These would combine fairly rapidly thereafter to form the concept of monarchical episcopacy justified by the Apostolic Succession.

There is, however, only one historical individual whom we can demonstrate with any degree of independent attestation by historical figures who held his bishopric by virtue of his connection with an apostle. This is Polycarp of Smyrna, who was bishop of that city when Ignatius was passing through (so c.98-c.117 AD); Polycarp was executed for his Christianity in his 80s, in c.150-160AD. Polycarp's student Irenaeus of Lyons (c.130-c.202AD) records that his teacher knew John the Apostle in his youth, and further records several anecdotes passed on by Polycarp about the Apostle; Tertullian (c.160-c.225 AD) held that Polycarp was appointed bishop of Smyrna specifically because of his connection to John. However, this is not noted by Irenaeus, who was in a better position to know.

In counterpoint, it's worth noting that Polycarp doesn't mention his connection to John in his only surviving epistle, nor is it mentioned in Ignatius' epistles to Polycarp or his epistle to Smyrna (which admonishes the city's Christians to obey Polycarp), and is only indirectly alluded to in the epistle from Smyrna to Philomelium which describes Polycarp's trial and death (where his status as a living witness to the Apostolic age is noted).

I'm relying on my Penguin Classics edition of Early Christian Writings for dating and specifics of all of the above, though this website may also prove useful for those who don't have immediate access to the same book: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/


* A perhaps biased translation of the latter part of the Septuagint text of Isaiah 40:17; both the Orthodox and Catholic churches would hold there are better scriptural justifications for Apostolic Succession.

[Tekania]

Not even to an certain extent, there was a period of nearly 300 years between Christ's time and the actually formation of a New Testament, where the contents of which were passed via tradition. Event then there were contests to what accounted for official and authoritative writings which was why a counsel was put together in the first place to officially formulate and constitute this scripture.

You, of course, refer to the Council of Nicea (well, Wiki sayeth that there was not an "official cannon" until 393, but by that point, the matter was considered already established, and that the canon was likely mostly established by the middle of the third century, read here if you're interested), and you are mostly correct.

However, the contents were not passed via tradition, unless you mean "by tradition" to mean "copied over and over again from text to text", as IIRC, there is at least one partial copy of matthew, in Greek, that dates back to the first century in our possession today.

There's no reason to assume the other texts were not in written form and copied over and over again.


However, in the sense of "what is valid and what is not", yes, many manuscripts did not make the cut.

What constituted manuscripts was by a concept of apostolic tradition in terms of devising authoritativeness prior to the determination by ecumenical councils to formulate an official canon. Mind you, I'm not arguing in favor of "Holy Tradition" nor "Apostolic Tradition" here, being Presbyterian and thus a descendent of Calvin's system of Reformation theology, I do not myself support it. But merely having been a student of systematic theology posit from their perspective their support for their own system. It's fairly moot to argue with someone against an element of "Holy Tradition" as they call it, based upon a doctrinal position they already state they don't support.

[Dyakovo]

Do Orthodox Christians have their own method of reading? Forgive me, I though that it was relatively straightforward.

Surprisingly so, it would seem from some of the responses in this thread. We kinda do it correctly.

I've never considered "having someone else do it for me" to be the correct way to read.

[Galloism]

Surprisingly so, it would seem from some of the responses in this thread. We kinda do it correctly.

I've never considered "having someone else to it for me" to be the correct way to read.

"If there isn't a movie about it, it's not worth knowing, right?"

[Dyakovo]

I've never considered "having someone else do it for me" to be the correct way to read.

"If there isn't a movie about it, it's not worth knowing, right?"

Not even remotely accurate.