How to read the Bible: An Orthodox perspective

[The Merchant Republics]

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.

I'm taken to assume that the passage that refers to is talking more of irreligion or even people who profess Christianity but don't practice or believe in it. Wide and spacious in that most people don't put in what they should to their beliefs.

That said, it's only my particular interpretation.

[New Vaticana]

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.

Ah, I see now. Thanks!

[Distruzio]

Oh... it seems someone responded to this thread in a Zombie thread of mine. I'm sorry I missed the response, Nan, but here is my rebuttal in the appropriate thread.

Hello Again, Distruzio. Its been a long time since I have joined into one of these discussions. I'm rather looking forward to it.

Now you kindly provided some very good reasoning as to why Scripture should not be taken as the final authority in all matters relating to Christian doctrine. I would like to contribute to this discussion by providing what I hope will be an equally well reasoned argument that explains why it makes sense to believe in what you call "Sola Scriptura".

Now you start right off the bat by making a few comments that I find slightly offensive when you said:

Many consider the Protestants mere schismatics - not necessarily heretics. I however, struggle to maintain even this modicum of neutrality on the status of protestantism within Christianity and often give in to the temptation to label Protestants, by and large (with some exceptions of course) to be idolators. More specifically, bibliolators - worshippers of the Bible. They deny the authority of Christ and the Holy Spirit - they deny God and supplant him with themselves.

I'm honored that you felt that the comments I made some months ago to be of such high value as to be worth including as evidence to your point. But really, I think we could do with some clarification regarding this rather sensational notion that we protestants are willing to supplant our deity with the Bible. I think before reaching that radical conclusion, you have to consider why such value is placed on the Bible.

The Bible, as I am sure you are well aware, is believed by protestant Christians to be a divinely inspired message to mankind from God, written by the hands of God's most faithful disciples over the course of millennia, from Moses all the way to the disciples of Christ. The Bible is, without a doubt, the most exceptional collection of literary works ever assembled in human history. But that is not what makes this book so exceptional in the eyes of Protestants. The Bible is exceptional simply because we believe that through its texts, the sole means of connecting with God can be found. Our faith in the Bible is not simply driven by the exceptional status of this book. Everything that makes the Bible so important to protestants comes solely from God. We do not worship the Bible as you cynically suggest. The Bible is merely a tool that is "...profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in Righteousness."

We do not deny God. We simply believe that by following closely with the one religious manuscript that we know is the divinely inspired by God, we can best match and play our part in God's plan of salvation.

That's well and all, that you place such high value on the Bible, but that isn't the problem, necessarily, as I see it. The problem is that you place such a high value on the Bible and you place so low a value on everything else God created as well as the words of Jesus Himself, that you deny the divinity and perfection of Christ as well as the divinity and perfection of the Holy Spirit in doing so. You end up worshiping on the altar of ego-centrism. You replace God the trinity with God the duality - you and God alone via the Bible as your sole authority. This interpretation flies in the face of history, theology, and the words of God Himself.

Was the New Testament completed when Paul wrote this of Timothy? Of course it wasn't. Which in and of itself exempts the Holy Traditions, founded in the New Testament, from the assertion that "scripture alone will suffice." Indeed, the "scripture" Paul is writing about is the Old Testament, the Jewish texts. Further, were Paul writing against tradition, why would he cite non-OT oral tradition in the very same chapter?

Your claim that II Timothy 3:15-17 is simply debunked or does not apply because the scriptures were not yet completed and compiled does not hold much weight. Nor do your later assertions where you basically say that the value of the scriptures is diminished because they were not relied upon by the first Christians. This is true. The early church did not have the advantage of having the completed works of Christ's apostles and disciples in hand. But that does not mean that they were devoid of guidance from God. The Christians of this period had the advantage of having teachers who carried with them God's message. This is why scriptures were not so necessary during this period. Because the Apostles and the witnesses of Christ were readily available to dispense the teachings of Christ and to deal with any controversies or malpractice that may have arisen among the early churches during this period.

Indeed. Which is precisely what the historical Christian sects believe. The thing that draws Protestantism and sola scriptura into question is that you lot believe that God and Jesus trusted those men to deliver His message faithfully, but that the men the apostles trusted are not to be trusted as well. You essentially call Jesus a liar when he said the Gates of Hell would not stand against the Church that would be built upon Peter and the other apostles by adhering to the belief that the Church, and the men guiding the Church, went to hell in a handbasket. This is heresy according to historical Christianity and the pillar upon which I condemn Protestantism.

In regards to your argument that Paul was speaking of the Old Testament scriptures in II Timothy 3:15-17, I think you should remember that because Paul was divinely inspired by God to write these things down, and because God is omniscient and omnipotent, I think it is reasonable to suggest that Paul was not only speaking to the Christians of his lifetime. I believe that because the intricacies of our faith had been revealed to Paul by an all-knowing God, then there is a distinct possibility that God was speaking to all generations of Christians to come, Christians who would have all of the scriptures available to them, through Paul as well. Claiming otherwise would be paramount to stating that the Bible is not divinely inspired.

Quite true. I agree. However, I don't think that God would have inspired those words from Paul to be interpreted without context, which is what we are to recall repeatedly concerning Jesus' words.

In Conclusion, the sole reason I do not adhere to the practices provided for by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches is simply because I have seen no convincing evidence that these practices are authorized by divinely inspired works of God. I have seen no evidence that the leadership of either Church speaks with the authority of God.

You do not see them b/c you believe God to be a liar.

Now I would like to finish by questioning your motivations for being so adamant about this topic in the first place. I would contend that somewhere in your consciousness, you are aware of the fact that areas of your worship are not consistent with the Bible and, for that reason, you're trying to discredit the Bible so as to provide more justification for your denomination. Doing so weakens our religion as a whole.

Quite the contrary, actually. I'm specifically calling into question the idea that Protestantism could even be considered Christianity at all.

[Johz]

I think your post is fascinating, as most of your posts tend to be. Nonetheless, I have a few slight contributions.

Firstly, my own background and proviso: I come from the Anglican church, which is about as broad a spectrum of Protestant beliefs as you could hope to find. Nonetheless, I can scarcely hope to speak for any part of this branch of the Church, and only write as I have observed and interpreted.

Firstly, I would note that there is very little mention of the Holy Spirit in your post. Flicking briefly through Acts 1, it is clear that it was the Spirit which guided the early disciples, although they of course had at that time very little 'Church' to help the process. Surely any individual Christian's first point of call when faced with a decision is to pray and then listen?

Secondly, you do Protestants much wrong, albeit not too seriously. For a start, the Bible is simply used as a lens on any guidance from the Spirit - a tool for discernment, really. Admittedly, it is the greatest of all lenses, and the most widely used, and is also considered to be a route for God's Spirit to take, which can then lead to a strong reliance, as you describe.

(As an aside: does anyone else have that moment where you reread a post and think "Oh no, I'm a Charismatic"? )

[Distruzio]

I think your post is fascinating, as most of your posts tend to be.

Thank you!

Nonetheless, I have a few slight contributions.

Firstly, my own background and proviso: I come from the Anglican church, which is about as broad a spectrum of Protestant beliefs as you could hope to find. Nonetheless, I can scarcely hope to speak for any part of this branch of the Church, and only write as I have observed and interpreted.

Anglicans and Lutherans, among a sparse few other protestant sects, get a pass from me. You lot have it right. Our differences are relatively (not considering the theological ramifications of the philioque) minor.

Firstly, I would note that there is very little mention of the Holy Spirit in your post. Flicking briefly through Acts 1, it is clear that it was the Spirit which guided the early disciples, although they of course had at that time very little 'Church' to help the process. Surely any individual Christian's first point of call when faced with a decision is to pray and then listen?

Absolutely correct. I did fail to mention the Holy Spirit. This is purely an oversight on my part as I presumed the reader of the OP would know that the Holy Spirit guides the Church. I apologize.

Secondly, you do Protestants much wrong, albeit not too seriously. For a start, the Bible is simply used as a lens on any guidance from the Spirit - a tool for discernment, really. Admittedly, it is the greatest of all lenses, and the most widely used, and is also considered to be a route for God's Spirit to take, which can then lead to a strong reliance, as you describe.

I agree entirely.

[Dracone]

Im not one hundred percent sure if I understand what you mean... but...
I prefer to read God's word and then interpret it myself. In the Early days, right after the creation of the church, and when Jesus had just sacrificed himself for us, then yes it would be important to listen to the Church, because the Church would have a message directly (or nearly directly) from God to share. But by this point, there has been soooo much political play within the church, that people have twisted the meaning of God's word to suit their political ends. How do you know what was what God meant and what was simply what humans said God meant to use and manuver for political advantage? And yes, the Church did care about political advantage, look at what happened with the inquisition and during the middle ages/ renascence.

I do not identify myself with any particular religious group, save Christianity. I read the Bible, God's word, and try and figure out for myself what He meant.
For one thing, I know of several stances the Church has taken that I do not agree with. Ones that if you search the Bible, God never said a word about it one way or the other. Thats not to say He doesnt have an opinion, I know that He does, but He hasnt shared it with us

[Distruzio]

Im not one hundred percent sure if I understand what you mean... but...

Feel free to ask for clarification.

I prefer to read God's word and then interpret it myself.

That is exactly what I condemn in the OP.

In the Early days, right after the creation of the church, and when Jesus had just sacrificed himself for us, then yes it would be important to listen to the Church, because the Church would have a message directly (or nearly directly) from God to share. But by this point, there has been soooo much political play within the church, that people have twisted the meaning of God's word to suit their political ends. How do you know what was what God meant and what was simply what humans said God meant to use and manuver for political advantage? And yes, the Church did care about political advantage, look at what happened with the inquisition and during the middle ages/ renascence.

By adopting this perspective, you call Jesus a liar. He said the gates of hell would not stand against the Church. He also said that he would build that Church on the rock of faithful men. He also said he was the Head of that Church, and that it was his Bride. How could the church have been so compromised with the words of the most perfect being, with the words of God Himself, assuring us otherwise, that you would adopt such a position?

That's the bit I identify in the OP as heresy and what I call into question that qualifies you as fitting the description of a Christian. If you believe the Church went to hell in a handbasket, or was otherwise corrupted, then you are NOT Christian.

I do not identify myself with any particular religious group, save Christianity. I read the Bible, God's word, and try and figure out for myself what He meant.
For one thing, I know of several stances the Church has taken that I do not agree with. Ones that if you search the Bible, God never said a word about it one way or the other. Thats not to say He doesnt have an opinion, I know that He does, but He hasnt shared it with us

The Church wrote the Bible. It is not the only authoritative text in Christendom. Christianity is NOT found in the Bible. It is found in the Church.

[Dracone]

Im not one hundred percent sure if I understand what you mean... but...

Feel free to ask for clarification.

I prefer to read God's word and then interpret it myself.

That is exactly what I condemn in the OP.

In the Early days, right after the creation of the church, and when Jesus had just sacrificed himself for us, then yes it would be important to listen to the Church, because the Church would have a message directly (or nearly directly) from God to share. But by this point, there has been soooo much political play within the church, that people have twisted the meaning of God's word to suit their political ends. How do you know what was what God meant and what was simply what humans said God meant to use and manuver for political advantage? And yes, the Church did care about political advantage, look at what happened with the inquisition and during the middle ages/ renascence.

By adopting this perspective, you call Jesus a liar. He said the gates of hell would not stand against the Church. He also said that he would build that Church on the rock of faithful men. He also said he was the Head of that Church, and that it was his Bride. How could the church have been so compromised with the words of the most perfect being, with the words of God Himself, assuring us otherwise, that you would adopt such a position?

That's the bit I identify in the OP as heresy and what I call into question that qualifies you as fitting the description of a Christian. If you believe the Church went to hell in a handbasket, or was otherwise corrupted, then you are NOT Christian.

I do not identify myself with any particular religious group, save Christianity. I read the Bible, God's word, and try and figure out for myself what He meant.
For one thing, I know of several stances the Church has taken that I do not agree with. Ones that if you search the Bible, God never said a word about it one way or the other. Thats not to say He doesnt have an opinion, I know that He does, but He hasnt shared it with us

The Church wrote the Bible. It is not the only authoritative text in Christendom. Christianity is NOT found in the Bible. It is found in the Church.

Well, the thing is, just because it was originally good and just, doesnt mean it still is. I mean, look at the inquisition... I have a hard time beleiving that God wanted His followers to torture one another to death for political power, and to catch a few heretics. He already has eternal punishment awaiting those who do not truly beleive in Him, so why would He want us to torure people to get them to 'confess' when more often then not they were innocent?

However, the Bible was written by His disciples who personally knew Jesus, so we know beyond contestation that the words in it are true, or atleast if there are errors in it it is not in the words but in the translation (someone may have misinterpreted it, but if you read tthem in their original languages, then you know them to be true if that makes sense..?)

I just have a hard time trusting my soul to a group who as recently as 300 years ago was toruing people to death for no reason...

[Norsklow]

Most interesting indeed. I'm an Anglo Catholic - within CoE and within the embrace of the Blessed Virgin.

*reads on*

Jesus Christ - thou son of God - Have mercy on me - a sinner

[Nordengrund]

What is wrong with taking the Bible literally and finding out for yourself?

[Norsklow]

What is wrong with taking the Bible literally and finding out for yourself?

It don't work. At least not for me. You find layer after layer of complexities you did not imagine to exist.

Example - Isaiah. How do you understand Ariel, oh Ariel, the City of the Burning?

Likewise,Isaiah. How do you cope with 'My love had a vinyard' - an account of a homosexual affair between Isaiah and an ancient winegrower?

Likewise, you may compare the contemplation of Ezekiel on the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah.

You might then end up with 3 options.
1] totally reject all homosexuality and all homosexuals.
2] believe in a Christianity encompassing New family Values
3] believe that for the average human being,the sin of unnatural sexuality if it be sin is hardly the worst charge a Just God could find in a soul and believe that the mission of the Church is healing - not condemning.

In every instance, the meanings beyond the literal jump out.

[Nordengrund]

What is wrong with taking the Bible literally and finding out for yourself?

It don't work. At least not for me. You find layer after layer of complexities you did not imagine to exist.

Example - Isaiah. How do you understand Ariel, oh Ariel, the City of the Burning?

Likewise,Isaiah. How do you cope with 'My love had a vinyard' - an account of a homosexual affair between Isaiah and an ancient winegrower?

Likewise, you may compare the contemplation of Ezekiel on the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah.

You might then end up with 3 options.
1] totally reject all homosexuality and all homosexuals.
2] believe in a Christianity encompassing New family Values
3] believe that for the average human being,the sin of unnatural sexuality if it be sin is hardly the worst charge a Just God could find in a soul and believe that the mission of the Church is healing - not condemning.

In every instance, the meanings beyond the literal jump out.

But wasn't the Bible written before those people existed. It was written like that for a reason, how do you know these interpreters are not lying to you?

[Norsklow]

You've got me at a loss. What was written before which people existed?

[Nordengrund]

You've got me at a loss. What was written before which people existed?

The Bible before those who translated it.

[Norsklow]

Oh - erm, I do have enough smatterings of Greek and Hebrew to give me at least some confirmation that the translator was not simply turning 'Kyrios alitheos anesti' into 'thou shallt love Mary Magdalene will all thy might'.

But likewise, one may find it hard to find the Hebrew remark Ken Tov ( yes, good ) turned into And God saw that it was good.

[Nordengrund]

Oh - erm, I do have enough smatterings of Greek and Hebrew to give me at least some confirmation that the translator was not simply turning 'Kyrios alitheos anesti' into 'thou shallt love Mary Magdalene will all thy might'.

But likewise, one may find it hard to find the Hebrew remark Ken Tov ( yes, good ) turned into And God saw that it was good.

If you are not a literalist, then how should a Christian live, and how do you know?

Do not get me wrong, I respect your beliefs and still think you are going to Heaven, I am just trying to understand your opinion.

[Norsklow]

The Church has a Tradition of collective understanding which it has found right and good throughout the ages, one that accords with Scripture, and resonates in the human heart, a triple concordance.

Further, we have the positive injunction of the Trinity spoken on many occasions, and repeated by Mary God's Handmaiden at Medjugorje:
I require Mercy, not Justice or Sacrifice

It's nice,I suppose, to be thought of as going to Heaven, but there are days when I utterly feel crushed by the weight of my own sins, and feel I have no business there.

Those are the days where I pray as Bartimaeos the Tax Collector prayed.

Jesus Christ - thou Son of God - Have mercy on me - a sinner.

[Salandriagado]

What is wrong with taking the Bible literally and finding out for yourself?

The fact that you end up having to believing large numbers of completely contradictory things.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

My favorite, however, is Mark. He wrote in brusque and basic Greek. His lack of flair in writing style is exactly what makes his Gospel more personal, more gentle.

Mark was written for the Romans, btw. Matthew for the Jews, Luke for the rest of the Gentiles, and John, inspired by God as they all were, he wrote his Gospel for later Christians, his ultimate testimony of Jesus Christ.

[Distruzio]

Oh - erm, I do have enough smatterings of Greek and Hebrew to give me at least some confirmation that the translator was not simply turning 'Kyrios alitheos anesti' into 'thou shallt love Mary Magdalene will all thy might'.

But likewise, one may find it hard to find the Hebrew remark Ken Tov ( yes, good ) turned into And God saw that it was good.

If you are not a literalist, then how should a Christian live, and how do you know?

Do not get me wrong, I respect your beliefs and still think you are going to Heaven, I am just trying to understand your opinion.

The Church explains that, Nord. And the answer is, "with humility."

[Distruzio]

What is wrong with taking the Bible literally and finding out for yourself?

You should read the OP along with the supporting links in it.

[Nordengrund]

If you are not a literalist, then how should a Christian live, and how do you know?

Do not get me wrong, I respect your beliefs and still think you are going to Heaven, I am just trying to understand your opinion.

The Church explains that, Nord. And the answer is, "with humility."

How do you know the church is not deceiving you? The Bible is God's word, which means there are no flaws. It cannot lie to you.

[Norstal]

The Church explains that, Nord. And the answer is, "with humility."

How do you know the church is not deceiving you? The Bible is God's word, which means there are no flaws. It cannot lie to you.

And you can't deceive yourself?

[Norsklow]

Of course you can deceive yourself.
And the best weapon against Self Deception is arguably humility.

[Olivaero]

The Church explains that, Nord. And the answer is, "with humility."

How do you know the church is not deceiving you? The Bible is God's word, which means there are no flaws. It cannot lie to you.

Because Jesus said so. Believing the Bible and being a christian is believing in Jesus Christ and He said the church would stay true, so not believing that is tantamount to calling him a liar and not being a christian (believer in Christ).