Eastern orthodoxy has been seen in history as a fringe of Christianity; though by their name they claim the true and mainstream faith of history. As a Baptist many of my critiques towards this massive and secretive society have already been made of sacramental institutions of Lutheranism, Anglicanism and of course Roman Catholicism. The Orthodox Church is typically a mystery in the sense that throughout history it has played both the ultimate villain and the ultimate victim. The attacks from the Orthodox Church can only be rivaled by the attacks to the Orthodox churches. The tradition is a combination of Catholicism, Middle East culture, Platonism and New Testament Christianity. I think we must first understand the truth of the orthodoxy history in order to truly reveal the nature of this religious creature.
Orthodox tradition: The Eastern Orthodox Church must be understood by it’s tradition if it can be understood at all we shall view it all.
On the positive end:
Eastern orthodoxy prefers to draw and stay faithful to a more ancient form of Christianity than the Roman Catholic counter parts. Greeks Worship in Greek the language of the New Testament. They practice immersion as their form of baptism. With the exception of a few important verses they were able to preserve the New Testament to near perfection. The orthodox held most of the original apostolic churches from which the Apostles did their missions in the first century. The orthodox also are governed in a system focuses on the college of all major bishops with no one pope and typically the national churches are independent of each other. The Eastern orthodox have also taken great pains to keep their faith against some of the most dangerous forces in history whether it be, Roman Catholics (crusades and inquisition), Islam, or Communism.
On the negative side
Eastern orthodoxy is in many ways a Roman Catholic system. It is a sacramental church, it is a state church. It has pagan roots and persecutes New Testament Christianity. Eastern orthodoxy claims both the Antioch and Alexandrine tradition. Yet the Church lost it’s Antioch descendents to the sway of Alexandrines long ago.
The Alexandrine church is of a dubious origin. They claim Mark as their apostle and yet have little if any historical link or testimony. It appears more likely that the city just had few nominal Christians from Israel and later formed the Alexandrine school. The Alexandrine school was a group of neo-platonic philosophers who had adopted the Christian worldview. In the first century they had already had a Jewish neo-platonic philosopher named “Philo”. This school was started by a man named Clement of Alexandria. Clement proclaim Christianity to be the true gnosticism. Clement began a process of interpretation known as allegory. Whereby, he would reinterpret problematic passages. Of course all these interpretations would conform the text to his neo-platonic philosophy.
Then came the next schoolmaster Origen; Origen would continue the process called syncretism, whereby an alternative religion would conform to the mainstream religion of the country. The Alexandrine texts of scriptures were not surprisingly filled with verse cut out of them. In fact the 2 major manuscripts codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus disagree with each other in over 3,000 places! The Alexandrine church was the birth place for the majority of heresies concerning the doctrine of God. Origen was hailed as a hero for some actions, like defending the faith against an unbeliever named Celsus. However, Origen would wander into heretical waters over and over again. Such as: universalism, the salvation of the Devil, subordinationist, reincarnation etc.
The Alexandrine School would argue with the school of Antioch. Antioch took the scriptures more literally. Specifically there was a great deal of argument over the nature of Christ. The Alexandrine School stressed the heresy of apollynarianism. They believed that Christ was God but not full in his humanity. The antiochans fought to keep a balanced view yet eventually there was a Bishop by the name of Nestorius. The Alexandrines sent spies to find a way to trip up the Bishop. Finally they found an opening when Nestorious would insist that the Lyric of hymn refer to Mary as the Mother of Christ as opposed to the Mother of God. This was so Mary would not be look upon as an idol mother of God. Yet the bishop Cyril accused him of preaching two Christ (human and deity). Nestorius denied this and tried to explain this, however he used a bad metaphor in a letter to Cyril describing the flesh and deity as married. Based upon this one bad illustration Cyril conspired with Rome and had Nestorius branded a heretic and kick out of Constantinople. Nestorius recanted his illustration to no avail. However his followers would take the gospel eastward and spread missionaries to Arabia, India, Mongolia and China.
The Alexandrines would then control the Eastern Church from there. They would also squelch all dissenters. One New Testament Church that felt the wrath of the east was the Paulicans. The Paulicans were name sop because of there stress upon Pauline theology and emulation of Paul as a missionary. (Pastors would name themselves after missionaries in Paul’s journeys; congregations would name themselves after churches founded by Paul)
But the Eastern orthodox churches would have to suffer for their deeds. God allowed them to be persecuted by the Muslims and then the Catholics. Then by the Muslims again and finally by the Communist. (Though the Egyptian Coptic, and other orthodox have been persecuted by Islamic terrorist). Today many Russian orthodox, as well as other orthodox starting to regain some political control. They are using their political capitol on persecuting the spread of Evangelical Christianity. (go figure.)
Theological issues:
A. God who?
The three most commonly accepted distortions of God among the orthodox are the subordination of the Word and the Holy Spirit to the father. The whole of Christianity has always accepted a submission of the Son and Spirit to the Father, Yet the Godhead has always been equal in recognition of the fact that there is one God. There a verse (the only text difference from the Byzantine and received text) which clearly illustrates this equality.
1Jo 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
Yet the East typically rejects this leading into paganism.
Deu 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Eph 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all
While there may be three persons in the godhead there is only one God or being.
B. What authority?
The Orthodox consider the Bible to be not authoritative over the church but one of many traditions within the church. Tradition is the ruling factor behind the Eastern religion. Not only do the orthodox not base their religion upon the Bible but they do not base upon the teachings of the Church fathers either. You will be hard pressed to ever find a systematic theology published among them. The orthodox religion uses some scripture, history, bishops and the ecumenical creeds. But it will not change since it takes all the Bishops simultaneously to do so.
The Bible teaches otherwise. Traditions can not take the place of scripture.
Mat 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Tit 1:13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;
Tit 1:14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.
C. The Canon issue
While the Eastern Church had great grasp of the New Testament it had little understanding of the OT. In fact, different nations have different canons of the OT. It is loosly based on the LXX yet it adds even more to the canon. This mixed of man’s word and God’s Word is disgraceful causes a massive confusion. This separates Christianity from its Jewish roots. The preservation of the OT canon of scripture is clearly the responsibility of the Jews.
Rom 3:2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
Rom 9:3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
Rom 9:4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
Rom 9:5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
The Jews have preserved the Old Testament in the Masoretic text. The OT text of the Reformation.
D. The issue of Sin
Eastern orthodoxy has been most excepting of an idea based on the teacher/monk Pelagius. Pelagianism denies the doctrine of original sin. It argues that Man is basically good based on being created in the image of God. It assumes that men could theoretically become perfect, though we are weak to the temptations of the devil.
Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
1Jo 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
Rom 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
Rom 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Rom 3:13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
Rom 3:14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
Rom 3:15 Their feet are swift to shed blood:
Rom 3:16 Destruction and misery are in their ways:
Rom 3:17 And the way of peace have they not known:
Rom 3:18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.
Rom 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
The Bible is very clear on this issue, all mankind is born in sin. Therefore we must approach God as sinners in need of a savior.
E. Godliness or God complex
2Pe 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
This is the proof text used for the Eastern orthodox doctrine of Deification. Now typically, the Eastern ministers do not teach that through the process of sacraments we become god-like. However this passage is focused only on our moral godliness, our nature doesn’t change outside of that.
2Pe 1:5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;
2Pe 1:6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;
2Pe 1:7 And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.
2Pe 1:8 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
We may in our glorification become more god-like in nature, but this life has no such promises. Then again other groups have used this passage to insist on deification.
Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
Joh 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
However if look at the context, the subject is the title of God and not the nature.
Joh 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
The Jews are arguing that Jesus is not allowed to proclaim himself the Messiah. This is a ludicrous charge since Isaiah proclaimed the Deity of the Messiah.
Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Also if we look at the passage Jesus quotes it indicates the title of deity and not the nature.
Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
Psa 82:7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
Psa 82:8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.
How do gods die like men? Answer: they were kings who claimed the authority of God.
We can not God through rituals. The only means is by the grace of Christ in our hearts.
Heb 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
Heb 10:2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
Heb 10:3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
Heb 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
Heb 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
Heb 10:6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
Heb 10:7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
Heb 10:8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
Heb 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
Heb 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Heb 10:11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
Col 2:10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
Col 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
Col 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
Col 2:15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
Col 2:18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
Col 2:19 And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.
Col 2:20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
Col 2:21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
Col 2:22 Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?
Col 2:23 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body: not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.
If the Old Testament sacrifices had so little power. How could earthly elements make you deity?
F. Eastern orthodox idol
Exo 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
Exo 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
Exo 20:6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
The eastern orthodox have a similar practice to the Roman Catholics in which they make images of the saints and appear as if to worship them. They however argue that the only images they use are two dimensional and therefore not graven, So they conclude they do not commit idolatry.
Deu 4:15 Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the LORD spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire:
Deu 4:16 Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female,
Deu 4:17 The likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air,
Deu 4:18 The likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth:
Deu 4:19 And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven.
While the sun moon and stars are three-dimensional objects the ancient eye can only perceive them in two-dimensions.
Besides it is senseless to believe the difference between good and evil lies in the differences between a picture and a statue.
Some argue that this was simply the Old Testament
1Jo 5:21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.
Another point to be made is regarding the nature of idolatry. Idolatry is involved with actions not the acknowledgement of another God.
Mat 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
Act 10:25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.
Act 10:26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.
Rev 19:10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
Lev 10:1 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not.
Lev 10:2 And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.
Lev 10:3 Then Moses said unto Aaron, This is it that the LORD spake, saying, I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me, and before all the people I will be glorified. And Aaron held his peace.
Mat 6:13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
If you were raised in this tradition, you must remember that we are a part of the family of God by Faith.
Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
Remember the Bible's clear teaching that faith in Christ is the only way to Heaven.
Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
In Christ,
Matt
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
248 comments:
1 – 200 of 248 Newer› Newest»Somehow when I tried to leave a comment for this piece it sent me to the sola scriptura piece. Therefore my comment somehow got put over there.
Anyhow, what were you smoking before you wrote this piece? Seriously, is this a joke?
You couldn't have read any church history, or the early church fathers themselves. So little of what you say has any historical accuracy.
Have you read about the Nestorian controversy? You couldn't have.
I'm not even Eastern Orthodox, but everyone deserves fair treatment.
I'm going to start following your blog for pure comedy now.
A self appointed pastor?!!
Sheessh!!
Dear costrowski,
I understand that you disagree with the article.
But what you have demonstrated is pure pseudo-intellectuallism.
You challenge my scholarship with 0evidence.
I notticed that you did not even have a rational reason to disagree with me.
Taunting may make you feel better about yourself, but to those who want the truth, you are a waste of free internet space.
I will be honest.
This article is polemic, although I feel was actually quite fair on several points of Orthodox history.
I also rushed this article. So if you could correct me, I would appreciate it.
But please don't just sit there with ad hominem garbage.
correct me with
A. scripture
B. a logic argument
C. A historical fact
Otherwise you are just embarassing yourself.
in Christ,
Matt
A self appointed pastor?!!
Sheessh!!
I never have claimed to be a self appointed pastor.
I was licensed and later ordained as Southern Baptist minister through Valley View Church. I was a youthminister and served in about a dozen differing types of ministry.
Under the conviction of the Holy Spirit, I have started a congregation which is essentially independant baptist. You can look up the churches confession of faith here on this site.
I was then voted in as pastor of Freedom Baptist Church.
We don't worship idols. We worship God (and God only). Go read the Seventh Ecumenical Council and dig until you actually understand the issues. Don't just read a Baptist book about it. Here's what Dr. Schaff said about it and the caricature of it that Gibbon bequeathed to us.
"Gibbon thus describes the Seventh Ecumenical Council of the Christian Church: “The decrees were framed by the president and ratified by the acclamations and subscriptions of three hundred and fifty bishops. They unanimously pronounced that the worship of images is agreeable to Scripture and reason, to the Fathers and councils of the Church; but they hesitated whether that worship be relative or direct; whether the godhead and the figure of Christ be entitled to the same mode of adoration. Worship is “relative” or “absolute,” what Gibbon means by “direct” would be hard to say.
And this has been read as history, and has passed as such in the estimation of the overwhelming majority of educated English-speaking people for several generations, and yet it is a statement as full of absolute and inexcusable errors as the passage in another part of the same work which the late Bishop Lightfoot so unmercifully exposed, and which the most recent editor, Bury, has taken pains to correct.
I do not know whether it is worth while to do so, but perhaps it may be as well to state, that whatever may be his opinion of the truths of the conclusions arrived at by the council, no impartial reader can fail to recognize the profound learning of the assembly, the singular acumen displayed in the arguments employed, and the remarkable freedom from what Gibbon and many others would consider “superstition.” So radical is this that Gibbon would have noticed it had he read the acts of the synod he is criticizing (which we have good reason for believing that he never did). There he would have found the Patriarch declaring that at that time the venerable images worked no miracles, a statement that would be made by no prelate of the Latin or Greek Church to-day, even in the light of the nineteenth century."
LOL
Ok, thanks for the zingers. When I came across this piece on your blog I thought it might be something interesting to read. However, I came across so many errors so quickly that it put me in a laughing mood. I’ll point out a few to begin with, but I don’t intend to get into a lengthy debate. I guess I owe you an apology for the ad hominems. I wrote a few sentences when I was laughing and in a good mood. I guess the person on the receiving end has no way of knowing about my jocular mood. Therefore I really do apologize.
With that said I don’t see how anyone can read my few lines and think that I’m posing as an intellectual or psuedo-intellectual. Whatever someone on the internet thinks I am, I could care less.
Now let me start critiquing your piece a little bit. Your very first sentence says:
“Eastern orthodoxy has been seen truly as a fringe of Christianity”
Seen by whom? After reading on a little bit the thought popped into my head, rightly or wrongly, that you’re coming from the view of Baptist located in the American south who’s judging history through this lens, not just the theological viewpoint, but the cultural one as well, yet sadly without even realizing the lofty status you’re giving to your cultural viewpoint. You commented that I gave “0 evidence” yet you give no evidence of any historical view which considers the Eastern Orthodox a fringe group.
You then proceed in the 4th line to call the EO’s a “secretive society”. They are no more secretive than any other denomination. Actually there’s nothing secretive about them at all. Again, I had to wonder what personal knowledge, or research have you done. Rightly or wrongly, at this point 2 more thoughts came to mind. One is that there probably are no Orthodox churches anywhere near you in the south therefore you have little or no personal experience with them at all. Secondly, you’re seeing the eastern European culture prominent in the EO’s and confusing it for secretive since it’s foreign to you. Certainly for the first millennium of Christianity no one considered the EO’s fringe or secretive.
At this point I have to point out that I’m just telling you what I was thinking as I was originally reading your piece. I want to treat you and the EO’s with the proper respect, which everyone deserves.
You then proceed to state:
The Orthodox Church is typically a mystery in the sense that throughout history it has played both the ultimate villain and the ultimate victim.
The thought came to my mind “they played”? This seemed to me to be an awkward choice of words. It seems as though you’re saying that the EO’s orchestrated historical events in a sometimes masochistic but usually Machiavellian way.
...continued...
...continued...
You then say:
“The tradition is an awkward combination of Catholicism, Middle East culture, Platonism and New Testament Christianity.”
Nothing surprising here except your choice of words. The center of eastern orthodoxy is and always has been in Eastern Europe, North Africa, the Near and Middle East and India. Tell me what religion or denomination has no influences on it from its surrounding culture. As for Catholicism and NT Christianity, whatever merits your theological viewpoints may or may not have I don’t think there’s any renowned scholar who would argue that the early church was not the single united church of the first millennium comprised of what we today call the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church. Of course one would have to include the Oriental Orthodox who were united up till the Council of Chalcedon as well.
Still near the very beginning of your article you state:
“They Worship in Greek the language of the New Testament.”
Leaving aside the ethnic Greek Orthodox Church the question comes to mind, do all the ethic national Churches singularly use Koine NT Greek in their liturgy? (Your piece certainly doesn’t make provisions for the different ethnic Orthodox Churches.) Well my answer is - not in my experience. I’ve been to a Serbian Orthodox Church and they used the Serbian language in their liturgy. I also have personal knowledge of Slavic Orthodox Churches using Old Church Slavonic. I quickly checked for verification to show you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Slavonic_language
and this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_Orthodox
As for the Coptic Orthodox Church which uses the Coptic language and the various other languages of North Africa:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coptic_orthodox
Here’s verification of the Armenia language used by the Armenian Apostolic (Orthodox) Church:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Apostolic_Church
As for the Syriac Orthodox Church here’s verification of the Syriac language ( a dialect of Aramaic) and other local languages used in their liturgy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syriac_Orthodox_Church
Here’s verification of the Malankara Orthodox Church using various Indian languages in their liturgy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Orthodox
I think that’s more than enough to prove my point, but I will also say that I also have personal experience of the Orthodox liturgy being celebrated in English as well.
Now, here’s why I don’t intend on continuing a debate with you. I took more than two full pages, originally typed on Microsoft Word, to counter that which you wrote and takes up only one third of a page on Microsoft Word. I can’t imagine how lengthy this critique would be in order to be thorough.
I apologize for the personal attacks – but I haven’t even passed the very beginning of the article and I’ve documented over two pages of errors and baseless accusations
Dont waste your time here. This guy's an idiot.
[“Eastern orthodoxy has been seen truly as a fringe of Christianity”
Seen by whom? After reading on a little bit the thought popped into my head, rightly or wrongly, that you’re coming from the view of Baptist located in the American south who’s judging history through this lens, not just the theological viewpoint, but the cultural one as well, yet sadly without even realizing the lofty status you’re giving to your cultural viewpoint. You commented that I gave “0 evidence” yet you give no evidence of any historical view which considers the Eastern Orthodox a fringe group.]
Don't get all anal. I was not making athrological judgement. I was making a political historical analysis. While the eastern church has survived a while they always seemed to get beaten up the Catholics and muslims ad te communists. You guys are like the bad news bears. mean I could understand if you guys we pascifist. But know the eastern church is always getting punked out. I just felt kinda sorry for ya!
"You then proceed in the 4th line to call the EO’s a “secretive society”. They are no more secretive than any other denomination."
Actually this word slipped as I was meditating on the Russian orthodox who survived communism.
Gee I think someone has a guilty cnscience!
"One is that there probably are no Orthodox churches anywhere near you in the south therefore you have little or no personal experience with them at all."
If you want to be seen as accurate and not a bigot.
Kentucky is midsouth.
Secondly, I once Attended a night service at St. Michael's of Antioch in Louisville KY.
If you read my blog you will find that I have critiqued every major christian denomination. It's nothing personal trust me.
"The thought came to my mind “they played”? This seemed to me to be an awkward choice of words."
Oh come on!!!
it's a figue of speech. Gee, you try to get literary and they throw the book at ya!
"Tell me what religion or denomination has no influences on it from its surrounding culture."
ok it seems to me like there is a high sensitivity here.
criticism is criticism. it may be negative but I am not trying to get that personal.
"As for Catholicism and NT Christianity, whatever merits your theological viewpoints may or may not have I don’t think there’s any renowned scholar who would argue that the early church was not the single united church of the first millennium comprised of what we today call the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church."
Yeah, I disagree.
The only unity achieve among chirstianity was by the sword of the Roman Empire.
From a political perspective multitudes of people whoclaimed to follow Jesus wereconstantly percute murder raped and exiled.
And by the way the east was physically pick on by the catholics before the ad millenium.
“They Worship in Greek the language of the New Testament.”
Leaving aside the ethnic Greek Orthodox Church the question comes to mind, do all the ethic national Churches singularly use Koine NT Greek in their liturgy? (Your piece certainly doesn’t make provisions for the different ethnic Orthodox Churches.) Well my answer is - not in my experience. I’ve been to a Serbian Orthodox Church and they used the Serbian language in their liturgy."
OOOOOOOOOOk, Fine only the Greek Orthodox would worship in the original language of the New Testament.
I hope your happy!
"I apologize for the personal attacks – but I haven’t even passed the very beginning of the article and I’ve documented over two pages of errors and baseless accusations"
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Does baby need a bottle?
Seriously you didn't even get to anything about the gospel.
" Nicene said...
Dont waste your time here. This guy's an idiot."
read galatians 5:20,1cor. 5:11
hatred and slander are not godly.
I could be everything you call me and yet if you truly represent christ, you have no right to treat me as such.
I have not seen any efforts to understand the scriptures which I have used. Could the Lord be touching your conscience?
BTW,
I have done a little editing.
Pastor Matt,
After I offered you a full apology you still continue with the insults and barbs.
1. “Don’t get all anal.”
2. “You guys are like the bad news bears.”
3. “Gee I think someone has a guilty conscience.”
4. “If you want to be seen... not as a bigot”
5. “OK it seems to me there is a high sensitivity here”
6. “Does baby need a bottle”
Then amazingly you turn around and say to Nicene:
“Hatred and slander are not godly. I could be everything you call me and yet if you truly represent Christ, you have no right to treat me as such”.
Absolutely amazing!!
What word applies here?
You said:
“You guys are like the bad news bears. mean. I could understand if you guys we pacifist” (sic).
I told you once all ready- I’m not Eastern Orthodox, never have been, nor will I ever be.
This is the same kind of accuracy displayed in your piece.
You seem to agree with all or nearly all of the criticisms I gave regarding your article, yet you still have a mocking attitude after I offered you a full apology for my insults.
I don't get it.
I didn't get to the theology because as I said before, in my opinion your article is so bad that I had to spend over two pages correcting only about 20 short lines or so.
The rest of the treatment you gave to the history of eastern orthodox would take even much more than that!
And that's the easy stuff which a quick look at history books would confirm.
Biblical exigesis would extend this to a book.
Take a look at how much you agreed with my criticisms of just the beginning of your article.
No hard feelings. I was just looking for something interesting to read. If you're looking for a battle, then try someone else, maybe Jay Dyer. He seems to enjoy it.
First of all remember when you talk about peole from the south, like you did and others have, it is very offensive and bigoted.
Secondly this little dance about your criticism is annoying.
If you are really not a pseudo-intellectual, then you will have the intellectual power to give a concise criticism. At least give the main points. Now I have no problem if you have not been to college, so don't take this the wrong way. But anyone who has, knows how to critique a book or article. When you don't do it you waste my tme reading it.
another point is that hardly any specific historical facts are really challenged. he only legitamite critique was that not all eastern orthodox use a greek liturgy. I just assumed because of Rome's policy with Latin.
BUtif no fact is really debated then what can I do?
It is interesting that no scripture has thus far been explained.
The fact that no one has a scriptural problem with this article is a severe indictment against this religion.
"We don't worship idols. We worship God (and God only). Go read the Seventh Ecumenical Council and dig until you actually understand the issues. Don't just read a Baptist book about it. Here's what Dr. Schaff said about it and the caricature of it that Gibbon bequeathed to us."
It may be true that many orthodox do not mean to worship idols and that there religion does not interpret what they do as idol worship.
However in order to have lawful standards we must judeg not by interpretation but by action. The standard to discern action is the Holy Bible.
idolatry is a sin.
20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth: 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me; 20:6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
Exodus 20:4-6
idols of people are still idols
4:15 Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day [that] the LORD spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire: 4:16 Lest ye corrupt [yourselves], and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female, 4:17 The likeness of any beast that [is] on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air, 4:18 The likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that [is] in the waters beneath the earth: 4:19 And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, [even] all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven. 4:20 But the LORD hath taken you, and brought you forth out of the iron furnace, [even] out of Egypt, to be unto him a people of inheritance, as [ye are] this day.
Deuteronomy 4:15-20
images are idols too.
26:30 And I will destroy your high places, and cut down your sun-images, and cast your dead bodies upon the bodies of your idols; and my soul shall abhor you.
Leviticus 26:30
33:50 And the LORD spake unto Moses in the plains of Moab by Jordan [near] Jericho, saying, 33:51 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye are passed over Jordan into the land of Canaan; 33:52 Then ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their pictures, and destroy all their molten images, and quite pluck down all their high places:
Numbers 33:50-52
The New Testament also teaches we should stay away from idols.
5:21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.
1 John 5:21
We are not too glorify anyone other than God.
6:13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
Why do you not follow the Holy word of God?
God loves you and he doesn't want you to bedefiled by demons.
32:16 They provoked him to jealousy with strange [gods], with abominations provoked they him to anger. 32:17 They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new [gods that] came newly up, whom your fathers feared not.
Deuteronomy 32:16-17
You don't have to listen to me. But listen to God's word. He loves you and isjealous for your devotion.
You want a concise critique, well here it is.
You begin the article in nearly complete error describing the Eastern Orthodox, proceed to a telling of history which is just as bad, then finish with a shotgun approach of biblical passages, most of which have little or no bearing on the issue.
Moving on to the comments, you seem to agree with my over 2 page long critique, yet you then continue with insults.
Dude, believe me, I'll put up my intellectual firepower against yours any day. That's what I'm in the process of exposing now to all of the 2 readers of your blog.
Regarding my mentioning of not many Orthodox churches in the south, how in the world can anyone take that as bigoted? For example, I don't have much experience with the Amish culture where I live. Am I bigoted against myself. According to the principles of your logic I am.
These comments are serving to expose the sloppy research and lack of care you gave to your whole piece.
You're right that I haven't gotten to the theological issues. You gave such a shotgun approach and sloppy treatment that it's not worth it.
On top of that I believe I have a basic understanding of Eastern Orthodoxy, but I'm not EO and I prefer to let them explain themselves.
Once again, you agree with the critque I gave, yet you are the one who is getting anal and pissy. Re-read the comments. Ask your 2 readers to do the same.
If I'm annoying to you good. You're the one who'se consistently being beligerent, not me. As long as you think you can deflect my critiques with ad hominems I'll continue to give you the rope. You're the one who'se putting it around your neck. Ask others to compare what I wrote and what you wrote.
Maybe once you behave decently I might proceed with a critique which avoids ad hominems and documents my claims. Until then, I'll continue to be amused by your inability to conduct a reasonable, thoughtful dialogue and write one sentence without a spelling error.
Deeper Truth,
Thanks for the compliments. The best we may be able to do with this PASTOR is to let him expose himself.
Let's pray for him and his flock that this PASTOR doesn't lead his herd as in Mark 5:13.
I don't allow DT for very long not simply because is theology is blasphemous or that He has been striving do nothing but undermine and call me names, or the fact that he refuses to communicate like an adult; but instead tries to act as if my blog is for him to preach his message and his hatred of me. DT finally lost his right to be on my blog when he thought he could swear at me. This is a christian blog.
Christians don't want to advertise cuss words over the internet.
DT has no ability to even act spiritual and has never even come close to apologizing. So he is band.
"You want a concise critique, well here it is.
You begin the article in nearly complete error describing the Eastern Orthodox, proceed to a telling of history which is just as bad, then finish with a shotgun approach of biblical passages, most of which have little or no bearing on the issue."
"F" If this were academic you wouldget an "F"
Why?
Because you have still been incapable to site an example.
"You begin the article in nearly complete error describing the Eastern Orthodox"
Still you have not listed a single fact that is error. This is getting stupid. If 100% of everything I said was a factual error. Then you should list that.
Earlier you did have a complaint that I said EO was secretive. I retorted that I was thinking of Russian Orthodox who secretly existed in Russia for a century.
I also this a description, not a real disagreement over histrical fact.
Name a historical fact that you believe i have slandered.
And also you might want to have a reason.
For instance earlier you pointed out that not all EO speak greek. I pointed this out as a positive fact!!!!!!
And by the way at the time of the split greek was the language of the eastern roman empire.
"Regarding my mentioning of not many Orthodox churches in the south, how in the world can anyone take that as bigoted? For example, I don't have much experience with the Amish culture where I live. Am I bigoted against myself. According to the principles of your logic I am."
False.
You know what you know about yourself. You do not know what anyone else knows. you assume that I did not have experience or knowledge because of where I come from.
This is very offensive my home should never enter into a theological discussion unless I bring it to the discussion.
When you say "from the South" you are speaking about ethnicity. Not only do I find that offensive but many of us "in the south" are offended by that remark.
I am getting after you in hopes that you woud be better than your friend DT who repeated calls me a klu klux klan member since I am from KY.
"Dude, believe me, I'll put up my intellectual firepower against yours any day. That's what I'm in the process of exposing now to all of the 2 readers of your blog."
This is immature. I am talking about your motivation. I frankly don't care how educated you are, or I am.
I write these articles as a ministry of truth. I want to talk about God and his holy Word.
You still think it is about winnning arguments or howeducated you can look.
Honstly you can have a doctorate and still be a fool. You can have status a still burn in Hell.
I brought up my credentials only when you challenged me and maybe I shouldn't have. Because my desire is that people have access to the true gospel.
This leads me to the real question.
Costrowski do you believe that You will really mak it to heaven?
IfGod were to ask you what right do you have to enter into MY Kingdom, what would you reply?
Let me begin by reminding you once again that I offered you a full apology in my second post. In your response to my second post and in your following posts, you never acknowledged the full apology, but continued with sneering comments and insults. In the midst of your insults to me you tell Nicene that “hatred and slander are not godly”, then you continue personally insulting me, while at the same time claiming to uphold Christian standards against Deeper Truth. This is base hypocrisy by any standard.
You still have never acknowledged my full apology.
Again regarding Deeper Truth you said:
“Christians don't want to advertise cuss words over the internet.”,
yet personal insults flow freely from you. You have so far demonstrated that your brand of Christianity does not acknowledge apologies and is completely comfortable with relentlessly spewing personal insults over the internet, as long as you don’t use cuss words.
Simply Amazing!
Furthermore you said about Deeper Truth:
“DT has no ability to even act spiritual and has never even come close to apologizing. So he is band (sic).”
This is the exact behavior you have demonstrated. READ your posts! His posts in this section didn’t spew nearly as much as you have. Yet where is your apology?
Moving along, you expressed indignation when I said,
“...therefore you have little or no personal experience with them...(E.O’s)”
Yet amazingly after you expressed your outrage with insults you confirm my thoughts with this:
“I once Attended (sic) a night service at St. Michael's of Antioch in Louisville KY.”
This “once” certainly qualifies under my previously expressed thoughts that you have little or no experience with them. There’s no way around this. Therefore your accusations of bigotry towards the south have no merit whatsoever.
I suppose you will attempt to now say that you didn’t accept my full apology because of this supposed bigotry, but as I have shown above this accusation is completely without merit. I can continue to expose this sloppy reasoning regarding bigotry but I’ll leave it at that – unless provoked.
You then say:
“Because you have still been incapable to site (sic) an example.”
You’ve got to be kidding!!!! I spent two pages citing examples of your errors, all of with which you seem to agree. Astounding!!
Yes, I’ve ignored your attempts to take the focus off of your article and behavior. I intend to keep this focused. No shotgun approach from me.
Originally I never intended to leave further comments, but the base nature of your comments has certainly engaged me. Perhaps if you demonstrate civility and an ability to interact thoughfully with my critique I will consider moving forward to the next section of your piece.
There’s much more I can say about your explanations and protestations but I’ll leave it at that for now.
To Deeper Truth,
I don't know anything about PASTOR Matt. I look at this whole exchange in 2 ways.
1. I can help bring focus, clarity and civility to his blog and hopefully him personally.
2. If #1 isn't accomplished then I'll continue to let him expose himself.
This whole back and forth is so clear cut that surely whatever followers he has have to see:
1. the lack of care he gives to the subject at hand
2. the hypocrisy of his mixture of incivility and claims to uphold Christian standards.
Keep watching. We'll see what happens
To Deeper Truth again,
Whether PASTOR Matt is evil or not I don't know. I look at him as a man struggling just as you or I struggle, but perhaps with different particular issues.
To Deeper Truth,
Maybe you're right. Our dear PASTOR has certainly not given any evidence contrary to your charges, but I'll continue to try to have a positive effect on either him or those who read his blog.
I'm waiting to see how he responds to my last comments before I proceed with further critiques of his piece on EO.
Stay tuned DT because my critiques will get even better, if we can get past dear PASTOR's behaviour.
costrowski,
you did not answer my question.
If you were to die tonight and lets just imagine that the Lord were to ask you what right you have to enter into his kingdomwhat would your answer be.
On what basisdo you have to be saved?
pardon me, but slipping in five word apologies in the midst of a barrage of insults and argument does not seem very genuine.
especillay when you agre to me being "EVIL". Which I suppose must be negated because you keep mockingly referring to me as "good pastor".
At the end of the day you are still stuck in the trivial.
Let's deal with real question like salvation, God, the Bible.
DT may be too abusive for me to leave on my blog but at least he has gotten to the point.
It seems you simply want to sidestep these issues to complain about how I am evil and a hypocrite and uninformed yada yada.
These things don't atter. what matters is:
1. Do you Believe the gospel of Christ?
2. What is that gospel?
Why is you version right and or my version wrong?
"The best we may be able to do with this PASTOR is to let him expose himself."
Only my wife should be allowed to see me expose myself.
But seriously, what do you think I am hiding?
It's all here.
"Stay tuned DT because my critiques will get even better, if we can get past dear PASTOR's behaviour."
I am reminded of the martyrs plea "How long, O Lord?"
Let me give a correction.
It is not my beliefe that the LXX was written in the 5th century A.D.
I am stating the fact that our Oldest manuscript of it is the 5th cetury manuscriptof codex Vaticanus.
Secondly since you are such superior scholar's you are well aware of Origen's Hexapla which gives us evidence that our current manuscript of the LXX is a version modified by several and most likely Origen.
"My version is handed directly from Christ and preserved by the infallible church he created. Yours is a false gospel codified by sinful men and authorized by an apostate king whose wife converted to Catholicism. "
blah blah blah the question was for costrowski who has yet to "expose his own beliefs to the blog.
"Our answer would be that, according to His Sanctifying grace, we have been cleansed of mortal sin and have cooperated with actuals graces and the Holy Spirit that He placed within us to work His will.
Thus, through His will, working in us, we have become justified through him through works, which complete our faith..."
1. we see that DT assumes that costrowski can not answer for himself.
2.So first, Jesus gave a grace or "gift". Which pays for some sin.
Then, there are gifts that you have to cooperate with. So you can't just recieve them you cooperate with them... sounds like the OBama bailout!
Then you have to cooperate with the Holy Spirit.
3.all is said and done they become "justified/righteous"
through Jesus and then again through their works to "complete our Faith"
4. And then once this faith is complete. I guess the church will ascend to the fires of purgatory and eventually be prayed through to heaven after a few hundred thousand years. If the holy Roman Empire is correct.
I am sorry but I need to be saved. I do't just need a discount. Rituals do not justify evil.
"that's nonsense and you know it. Significant parts of the LXX have even been found among the dead sea scrolls."
1.That sounds a little odd. Since the Dead Sea scrolls is a Hebrew and maybe aramaic document.
2. Still doesn't prove your contention because it is not a complete manuscript. A fragment could just testify to one book etc.
But cite your source and I'll lok it up later.
"All of this is a cleverly devised diversion from the fact that the KJV (a translation from the Latin Vulgate) is authorized by no one that can even claim to have the apostolic authority to do so."
talk about unscholarly!
Hate to burst your bubble. But while the translators may have consulted the Vulgate among 14 other sources of ancient manuscripts. Any freshman Bible college student knows The The King James Version was translated from the Hebrew Masretic and the Textus Receptus.
Plus, if Anglican and catholic style Bishops are not mentioned in the scripture, then their blessing doesn't matter.
"Notice he does not address James 2:22...skips over it completly."
Because you very well know I have an entire blog/article on the passage that I encourage reader's to check out.
"Does James teach works based Salvation?"
"PASTOR doesn't lead his herd as in Mark 5:13."
In this slam, I think it is safe to assume that you have called my church either demons or pigs.
Blaming me for everything aside. I know you don't know me and you are just typing on a keyboard. But do you really feel that this would not hur my feelings?
God judge you for actions. "every idle word"
Do you truly believe that the Holy Spirit really wanted you to say such things to me. If I am a heretic as you think. Is this the witness that you have to show me.
Is this from your God?
Is this hatred that is being shown Godly.DT I know you are oing to have a snide comment for this. But i hope you can askyourself. Is your hatred of me truly Godly? DO you really think such comments are God's way of bringing me to a holier place?
Even if you retort that I am a pig that you can not cast pearls. Whatever happened to Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord?
Sure I can get angry too, and God deals wth me.
But if I am an unbeliever who needs God's grace, are you really offering it?
If not are you really pleasing God? Does the Holy Spirit greive when you do this?
I feel convicted when I do.
Is the Holy Spirit convicting you?
How do ou know that God is in you heart?
PASTOR,
You said:
Earlier you did have a complaint that I said EO was secretive. I retorted that I was thinking of Russian Orthodox who secretly existed in Russia for a century.
I also this a description, not a real disagreement over histrical fact.
Previously I pointed out the misleading nature of your calling the EO's secretive if all you meant is that they were being persecuted.
In addition to that, at no time during communist rule in the USSR did the communists ever shut down all of the openly EO churches and seminaries. They were serverley persecuted, but they existed openly.
On top of that you said they existed secretly for a century. Again this isn't true. Stalin severly persecuted them for maybe 20 years or so. Then he realized how intertwined orthodoxy was with Russian culture. This is when he rehabilitated the Russian Orthodox Church and used it for his own nationalist goals.
All more historical facts you got wrong or slandered. Add them to the 2 pages of historical facts I previously documented.
Denying what I have pointed out doesn't make it go away. These aren't mere disagreements over descriptions as you claim. These are examples of historical facts you got wrong.
PASTOR,
You said:
For instance earlier you pointed out that not all EO speak greek. I pointed this out as a positive fact!!!!!!
And by the way at the time of the split greek was the language of the eastern roman empire.
Wow! You used 6 exclamation marks. Pretty emphatic! Too bad you got it wrong. I never said anything about "speaking Greek". Don't corrupt what either you first wrote or what I pointed out. You wrote about the EO's "worshipping in Greek". This is the mistake I pointed out.
Nice try, but it failed.
Even IF (that's IF) all of the Eastern Roman Empire Churches used Greek exclusively in their liturgies (which they didn't) you never distinguised between the Churches in and those outside of the empire. Nor did you distinguish between the liturgical language used during the time of the Eastern Roman Empire from that used in EO Churches today.
Nice try, but you got it all wrong and you know it.
So far I've only critiqued under 20 lines of your article and it's taken me over 3 pages now to document your errors.
Are you beginning to see just how bad your article is?
PASTOR,
You said:
you did not answer my question.
I all ready told you that I'm staying very focused on the article and comments. I plan on proceeding in an orderly fashion through your article. As for now, to anwer your question will only serve to distract from what your article claims and my critique of it.
If you conduct yourself in a civil and thoughtful manner we'll get to your question much quicker.
PASTOR,
I never said you were evil. I only pointed out that I don't know you and so I'll assume that you're struggling just like everyone else. I then proceeded to point out that you're not demonstrating any Christian charity in your comments. This is why I said "maybe you're evil". For you to isolate the "maybe" clause from the rest of what I said is just another example of your sloppy reasoning, mischaracterizations, and lack of Christian charity.
Further, I have been capitalizing PASTOR and writing GOOD PASTOR to remind you of the qualities which the office you claim requires. These same qualities you have not lived up to in these comments. This is evident by your constant insults and mischaracterizations of what I wrote in order to ignore my apology and to never offer an apology back.
I've thoroughly demonstrated that all the insults which you have accused me of making are completely false.
PASTOR,
You wrote:
At the end of the day you are still stuck in the trivial.
and
These things don't atter.(sic)
How can you accuse me of being stuck in the trivial and dealing with things that don't matter when you are the one who wrote the article?
I'm pointing out the enormous amount of errors in the material which apparently you thought was important enough to write about.
How is it that when confronted by a very clear logical demonstration, coupled with documentation of your errors that now you turn and call these issues, which you yourself chose to write about and to defend, trivial?
Absolutely mind boggling!!
PASTOR,
You wrote:
"Why is you (sic) version right and or my version wrong?"
Another example of your sloppy thinking. When did I either say or imply that your interpretation of the gospel is wrong?
I never criticized your theology. I chose not to yet identify my own religious affiliation because of your demonstrations of insults, mischaracterizations and evasions.
I realized very quickly that the revelation of my religious affiliation would give you the opportunity to shift your focus from your article and comments.
I'm doing my best to keep you focused.
PASTOR,
You said:
"But seriously, what do you think I am hiding?
It's all here."
I'm exposing your lack of attention, respect and of Christian charity toward others and their culture. Regardless of what you or I think about EO's they deserve to be accurately represented; not slandered and then call the slanderous statements trivial and meaningless.
You are right about one thing. It's all here. All of your sub-Christian demonstrations.
PASTOR,
You said:
"I am reminded of the martyrs plea "How long, O Lord?""
That's up to you. I'm very clearly and logically proceeding to demonstrate my accusations. Your mischaracterizations and evasions only serve to drag this out.
Your behaviour will determine how this goes. I'm not losing my focus.
PASTOR,
You said:
"In this slam, I think it is safe to assume that you have called my church either demons or pigs."
Another example of your sloppy thinking or mischaracterizations. You know I previously wrote that I don't know you except by what you have written in these comments. It's because of your sub-Christian behaviour that I wrote that we should pray that you're "NOT" leading a group (herd, flock, etc.) off of a cliff.
This should be very clear, except when you have an agenda to take things out of context and cast aspersions - but it's not working.
Once again, I've clearly demonstrated every one of your accusations to be completely false. After these demonstrations you move on to the next accusation without an apology. These are just some of the sub-Christian examples of your behavior which I'm exposing. This is why I capitalize PASTOR or write GOOD PASTOR.
GOOD PASTOR,
You wrote:
"Blaming me for everything aside. I know you don't know me and you are just typing on a keyboard. But do you really feel that this would not hur (sic) my feelings?
God judge you for actions. "every idle word"
Do you truly believe that the Holy Spirit really wanted you to say such things to me."
I've clearly demonstrated all of your accusations to be completely without merit.
If what I said hurt you, maybe it's the Holy Spirit speaking through your conscience to you in order to improve your behavior.
I've done nothing wrong towards you after my full apology. You absolutely cannot say the same to me. How can you not apply the same principles to yourself? This is another example of your sub-Christian behavior which I said we should pray to be corrected.
GOOD PASTOR,
You said:
"If I am a heretic as you think. Is this the witness that you have to show me."
Another example of your sloppy thinking and casting of aspersions. I never called you, nor implied that you are a heretic. I've only pointed to and documented your lack of respect and Christian charity for people (me and EO's and historical facts).
Yes, this is the witness of the gospel I'm showing you. I've acted fully within the bounds of the gospel by offering you a full apology, treating you fairly, fully documenting my claims, and then finally exposing your sub-Christian behavior.
This is a powerful witness and you should pray over the meaning of this experience and how it relates to your behavior.
To Deeper Truth,
Don't think I'm ignoring you. There's so much I'd like to say, but I realized very early on that I have to carefully guard against giving any opportunity to run from the purpose of these comments. That's why I'm doing my best to keep this as focused as possible on PASTOR's article about EO's.
I appreciate your nice comments. I really do. I also promise to check out your blog soon.
To AlyoshaK,
Also didn't mean to ignore your post. I hope to see more of your comments on this blog about this particular article. If you have been keeping up with this I'd like to know what you think of my own treatment of Orthodoxy. I hope you feel that I've been respectful.
To PASTOR,
Maybe with some decent thoughtful Christian behavior on your part we can proceed to the next 20 lines of your article.
To Deeper Truth,
You said:
"Cos,
Let me congratulate you on your well constructed arguments. Civil discourse and debate are so much more pleasant when one is driven by constructive dialogue. I invite you to check out my blog and offer your thoughts from time to time."
Thanks again for the nice comments. I really do think the use of civil discourse with arguments that are well constructed with respect to facts and persons is one way to honor God. He gave us our minds and blessed us with whatever intelligence we have. It's our duty to steward that intelligence wisely and constructively.
As far as James 2 and DT goes.
The Only "tactic" that is being used is by DT.
He knows I wrote an article on this passage because he commented on it. He wants me to give a short and less explained answer. Hoping to make a slam on it, since it will be breif.
But if you really desire truth you will not be lazy and read the expanded article for yourself.
But to give a concise answer.
a. Scholars agree that the epistle of James was one of the earliest New Testament Writings.
b. The early gospels were jewish writings focused upon Christ as the Jewish Messiah. This is why we see emphases on th gospel of the kingdom.
C. The epistle of James is focused on the subject of right religion.
D. read James 1:26-27
E. The use of the terms justification and faith are not being here used to describe either the salvation of God or final judgement.
F. They are meant to describe behavior among men in terms of religion. justify as in "to justify or show yourself to be righteous among men" and faith as in "confession and trust in the gospel."
This is shown to be the case also becuase James discusses Abraham being imputed righteousness in verse 2:23
Previously in verse 21 Abraham was said to be justified by works by offering Isaac. However according to the Chronology of Genesis. Abraham was justified by faith alone decades before he was justified by works.
James is clearly trying to teach that works are the proof of salvation and not the cause.
look again at James 2:23"scriture was fulfilled"
and you thought you had them fooled.
"These are examples of historical facts you got wrong."
First of it's a non-sequitor. I was not making a factual statment I was making a descriptive remark. If you describe someone as mean, it is an opinion. It is up to interpretation and should know better.
Speaking of historical fact.
Stalin was a butcher who murdered at least 20 million people. The commmunist did not respect the orthodox values. They were strict atheist. They did respect The Orthodox hiearchy bribing them with the Czars hidden treasure.
"Let's pray for him and his flock that this PASTOR doesn't lead his herd as in Mark 5:13."
5:13 And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand;) and were choked in the sea.
Mark 5:13
Can you tell me that you did not know what you are saying.
You complain that I did not except your apology?
When you right these kinds of things it is obvious that you do not have a repentant heart. It brings to question whether the Holy Spirit convicts your heart.
Now in the case of DT. He can call me any name under the sun. He can even curse and swear. He does this without hesitating because as matter of fact the Holy Spirit isn't in his heart.
If it were he would feel guilty.
I feel guilty if I really say something hateful.
"Again regarding Deeper Truth you said:
“Christians don't want to advertise cuss words over the internet.”,
yet personal insults flow freely from you."
To say you have a bias towards me and against DT is an understatement. you condone his name calling and his use of swears by the fact that you will never ever correct him.
" I never said anything about "speaking Greek". Don't corrupt what either you first wrote or what I pointed out. You wrote about the EO's "worshipping in Greek". "
let me enlighten you, speaking can mean worshippng especially when we are talking about liturgy.
"I never criticized your theology. I chose not to yet identify my own religious affiliation because of your demonstrations of insults, mischaracterizations and evasions."
First, this a theology blog, not English literature.
You do not identify yourself because you are scared.
It's not easy eing me.
I sit here on a computer and give my views no matter how controversial to the world for people to slander.
You're not up for it. You like that wide gate were you can make insults and stay on the offensive.
You don't want to be me. To go and try to live life as people. Go on the internet and make insults about you and blaspheme yu on your own blog. It takes a little more than what ou ave inside.
I preach these things not to be popular or rich. (obviously!)
So why do I?
Maybe because it is the truth and God put a burning desire in my heart to tell people the truth So that they may find and Heaven which they don't deserve in stead of a Hell that has been waitng to burn them.
I gotta go.
"It is your beliefs that send people to hell. The SATANIC doctrine Sola Fide that teaches the lie that one can sin all they want and still get to heaven. "
First of all if Sola Fide were of Satan who is the God of this world and the author of False religion, then why do only conservative protestants hold to such views. Why do all the satanist agree with you DT?
Also it's catholicism that teaches that God forgives evil as long as we conitinue in worship and tithing. This explains why the mafia is excepted in the "church".
"The SATANIC lie that says an infallible church cannot interpret it's own infallible scriptures. "
I don't know of any infallible church. But if your talking about your Roman empire group, then you can intepret all your cardinal laws and coucils that you want. But the infallible Word of God did not came from you. The Jews preserved the Masoretic text and the East and Reformers preserved the Textus Receptus.
"The SATANIC lie that says the Mother of God is no more than a surrogate that God used then threw away."
God had no beginning He is eternal. Jesus had a mother named Mary. Jesus saved her sin filled soul along with all other believers from their sins by dying on the cross.
"The SATANIC lie that Jesus lied in Matthew 16 and John 6."
Jesus built the New Testament church upon the Rock which is the revelation of God which says the Jesus is the Christ the Son of the living God.
"John 6:33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. 6:34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst."
Jesus himself is the Bread of Life. We don't call cardbord tasting wafers "God". and go without gettig thirsty or hungry.
If the mass could make people never thirst or hunger why do we have the catholic picnic?
"Your religion is straight from the devil. Sorry for being so blunt but that's just the way it is."
"12:24 But when the Pharisees heard [it], they said, This [fellow] doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils. 12:25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: 12:26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?"
I do not see devils being cast out when Pope John Paull II prayed with the Dalai Lama and witch doctors.
DT I hope you are just ignorant. Because you can not call God's teachings such things and think you willl recieve his approval.
Pastor Matt Singleton,
Once again you think your accusations and portrayals of the Eastern Orthodox Church are only descriptions which no one can disprove. This is absolute nonsense as I've previously shown. Now I'll move on to your latest comments.
You said:
Stalin was a butcher who murdered at least 20 million people. The commmunist did not respect the orthodox values. They were strict atheist. They did respect The Orthodox hiearchy bribing them with the Czars hidden treasure.
Once again either you don't understand what I wrote or you are twisting it, or both. I never said that Stalin respected the Orthodox Church. I said he rehabilitated it for nationalist purposes.
Here's some quotes from wikipedia for documentation:
"Actions toward particular religions, however, were determined by State interests, and most organized religions WERE NEVER OUTLAWED".
and
"After Nazi Germany's attack on the Soviet Union in 1941, Joseph Stalin revived the Russian Orthodox Church[30] to intensify patriotic support for the war effort."
Of course this issue is much more complex than these two quotes show, but I think it's a good idea to keep this simple. Nevertheless, they prove my point - AGAIN.
Once again, I got my facts, and if you prefer - descriptions, correct while your facts are very often wrong and misleading at best.
Finally, what are you referring to when you accuse the Russian Orthodox hierarchy of accepting bribes. Maybe this is true, but I'm not aware of it. If you make this accusation you should back it up. Don't bear false witness! This is no description. It is either a historical fact or not.
Keep in mind your own pleadings in regards to our display of right behavior before God.
PASTOR,
You said:
"Can you tell me that you did not know what you are saying.
You complain that I did not except your apology?"
I explained this in a previous post, even though it needed no explanation. Once again you ignore what I write and then wrecklessly proceed to your next uninformed statement.
You show no reason to believe that you read what I wrote regarding this or many other things.
This is one of the ways you show disrespect for people, not to mention your outrageous behavior.
PASTOR,
Before judging Deeper Truth you should examine your own outrageous behavior, which I have so often pointed out to you.
See the log in your own eye first.
GOOD PASTOR said:
"I feel guilty if I really say something hateful."
I guess this earlier list of your behavior doesn't qualify according to your "feelings":
1. anal
2. bad news bears
3. guilty conscience
4. bigot
5. high sensitivity
6. baby
PASTOR said:
"To say you have a bias towards me and against DT is an understatement. you condone his name calling and his use of swears by the fact that you will never ever correct him."
I have not demonstrated a bias towards you. I have been thoroughly documenting your errors as I said I would. This is not bias.
I said previouly that I'm not ignoring Deeper Truth, just trying to keep these comments focused.
Also, I never condoned his insults. I only pointed out that the GOOD PASTOR's outrageous behavior did not give reason to believe otherwise.
This is the another example of your mischaracterizing things - in this case my comments.
Pay attention to what I write!!
Pastor said:
"let me enlighten you, speaking can mean worshippng especially when we are talking about liturgy."
I responded to this in a previous comment. You again just ignored it. PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT I WRITE!!
The official language (Greek) of the empire does not equal the language of the liturgy of the empire and the Churches outside the empire.
You can't just keep rehashing the same ideas which I previously refuted. This is what's dragging this out. I won't let you get away with it. I will continue to point out your errors.
Pay attention to what I write and we can proceed. Then I'll answer your question when we finish with the purpose of the comments regarding this article.
Pastor said:
"this a theology blog, not English literature."
You chose the topic so you only have yourself to blame. We would have proceeded far more quickly if you would have paid attention to what I wrote and acted in the fashion which the office you claim calls for.
As I have been repeatedly saying, I'm keeping this focused. I have only referenced your points in your own article.
Another accusation without merit.
THE GOOD PASTOR said:
" you are scared."
In your latest round of responses your behavior improved - until now.
Rise to the level of behavior that a pastor should display.
Again: PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT I WRITE!
I have all ready explained to you the reason why I haven't revealed my religious affiliation. Your behavior has shown that you're looking for any distraction from your own article. We're dealing with your article here. My theology will come after your article. It's up to you how soon that will be.
GOOD PASTOR said:
"It's not easy eing (sic) me.
I sit here on a computer and give my views no matter how controversial to the world for people to slander."
What have I slandered?
I've been documenting your errors and then you call this slander?
Another example of your mischaracterizations and insults. You have just called me a slander without ever having provided any evidence. Don't bear false witness!
It will be far easier being you if you show some care and accuracy in what you read and write.
GOOD PASTOR said:
"You're not up for it. You like that wide gate were you can make insults and stay on the offensive.
You don't want to be me. To go and try to live life as people. Go on the internet and make insults about you and blaspheme yu on your own blog. It takes a little more than what ou ave inside."
You continue to demonstrate sub-Christian behavior. You accuse me of insulting you, but I have documented everything I have said. Then in the midst of accusing me of insulting you, you insult me.
Don't you see your own behavior? This is the behavior of a hypocrite; and no that's not an unfounded insult. It's an accurate description of your behavior displayed above.
Rise above it GOOD PASTOR! Display some civil behavior and some thoughtful responses and it will be much easier "being you". Then we will get to my theology sooner.
GOOD PASTOR said:
"It takes a little more than what ou ave (sic) inside."
I'm displaying what I have on the inside and I think it's holding up much better than the stuff which you are displaying. I also believe that you are realizing that.
My comments are here alongside yours for all to see and to decide for themselves who is displaying the better stuff.
PASTOR said:
"I preach these things not to be popular or rich. (obviously!)"
"So why do I?
Maybe because it is the truth and God put a burning desire in my heart to tell people the truth..."
I have thoroughly demonstrated that you have not been writing the truth. You agreed to that earlier. If you have something else in mind don't make that comment in a reply to the things I have said to which it does not apply.
Finally, don't try to pass off the notion that what you have written is somehow inspired by God. You have seen your own errors. God does not err. If you have a burning desire for the truth then portray my comments and the subject of your article accurately.
Pastor,
Your behavior has improved - but only slightly and still far below someone who calls themself a pastor. Then it regressed.
Let's have an intelligent discussion about your article. No more insults from you. Stay focused on your article.
Thoughtfullness, attentiveness and civility are gifts from God. Honor him through the use of these gifts.
I'll await your comments before deciding whether or not I have to deal with a new barrage from you, or proceed with the article.
To Deeper Truth,
You said:
"Oh, I hear you Cos. However, trying to reach Matt with logic and reason and-most of all- Scripture and history, is a waste of time. He is about as willfully blind a person as you will ever see."
I think the pastor is actually beginning to see what I've been pointing out. He won't admit it explicitly, but you can see it in his comments.
Persistance, Focus & Baby Steps
To Deeper Truth,
You said:
"Matt CANNOT behave like a Christian because he ISN'T one."
I'm not going to judge whether he is or not, but as I said before, I think he is beginning to see his own sub-Christian behavior.
"So why do I?
Maybe because it is the truth and God put a burning desire in my heart to tell people the truth..."
"Finally, don't try to pass off the notion that what you have written is somehow inspired by God."
A burning desire and a inspired message are two diferent things.
Inspiration in a New Testament Church teaching is a word for word message. Aburning desire is a strong feeling.
So you are slandering me. As a matter of observational fact.
By the way it may be fun to try to identify typist errors in my writing.
You may not be aware but it is a cheap shot, due to the fact that I am using a worn out keyboard which sometimes misses my types.
So if you could skip over that.
Louisville was hit by a flood last week. The main computer was flooded so I have less access to computers.
"I will openly conceded[sic] that you have progressed far further than have I in the virtue of patience."
costrowski is unable to nottice typos if they are made by anyone else than yours truly.
"Pastor,
Your behavior has improved - but only slightly and still far below someone who calls themself a pastor. Then it regressed."
Here you are trying to give readers the impression that I want you to call me Pastor.
I am a pastor to those who attend services with Freedom Baptist Church.
However, I never intended for you to refer to me as Pastor.
I have never, as far as I know, pastored you.
I offer you teachings and the chance for discussion. You are not under covenant nor do you worship along side me. I have no proof that you even believe in Biblical Christianity nor do I percieve any fruits of t spirit.
My Only Authority is the scriptures. Which you seem to not desire to discuss. These should be followed by all mankind. They are not becaue the world does not respect the Lordship of Christ.
"Matt follows the Bible???
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA hahahahahaha"
Gee why do you have the movie copywritten demonic laugh... hmmmn...
"Matthew 16
John 6
Romans 2
Phillipians 2
1 John 2
Revelation 12
to name a few....."
Sorry, but I strongly believe in all of them!
I guess I am going to have to check with you to tell me what in the Bible I am supposed to doubt.
Oh, I just remebered according to the council of Trent I am not supposed to read the book. So I guess I am not supposed to believe any of it like you and justr run round burning bible.
Too bad I lve in a free country where I am legally allowed to be born-again.
"By the way. Do you agree with Martin Lucifer's assesment that Jesus committed adultery at least 3 times?
You are a demon....like him."
Sorry, I don't know anyone named Martin Lucifer.
I know of a man in history named Martin Luther. I don't remember anything written by him declaring this.
I know that my Savior Jesus Christ never committed adultery or any sin for that matter.
Does your jesus of the RCC fornicate?
If I were like martin luther, then why did I critic him in my article "Lutheran losses"?
I am not ademon because I have a physical body.
Some believe that Demon are the ghost of the nephilum. But I am not that tall. My brother is 6'3''
so I will ask him when he gets home from Bible colege.
"Rise above it GOOD PASTOR! Display some civil behavior and some thoughtful responses and it will be much easier "being you". Then we will get to my theology sooner."
First of all as Jesus said "no one is good but God alone"(general translation)
I find this paricularly offensive and ask that you refrain from repeating it.
By allowing you to continue on my blog I have been civil.
Who says your theology is in such high demand? You don't seem to think much of it; since you do not desire to reveal it.
"You accuse me of insulting you, but I have documented everything I have said."
False.
The Bible Smack web blog has documented everything you said. You never took responsibility for your comment regarding my church as a herd of swine.
"You continue to demonstrate sub-Christian behavior."
Well, what is your standard of Christianity?
Is based on the Bible, the RCC, EOC,TBN, Dog the Bount hunter?
IF you can't tell me what you believe in. You have no write to hold me to any standard; since you can not even admit to the existence of one.
"Your behavior has improved - but only slightly and still far below someone who calls themself a pastor. Then it regressed."
Who are you to judge me? you are in the position of a guest. You have zero authority. and you feel that this will convince me about may behavior which once again is none of your business.
You never hired me. You don't go to my church. You never saved my soul. You are not one of my parents. Essentially you think that you can dictate my basic behavior to me.
I find that extremely uncooth.
If you want a model for behavior you should go to the Bible.
Psalm 15 "A gentle answer turns away wrath but a harsh word stirs up anger"(NIV)
In search of a proper epistemology of truth a scholastic theologian came up with a method we call today "Occam's razor"
The argument was that complexity stores up falsehood while simplicity is based upon truth.
The purpose of this article was a critic of the Eastern othdox faith from a strictly biblical standard.
Costrowski you have reared a staunch polemic against this article.
I asked for specific facts refuting my article.
You argued about the choice of the word "secretive". Then you vented over whether greek liturgy is used univesally among the Greek Orthodox.
Now let me give you an example of why this bears no merit.
Alyoshak appears to idenify themself as EO. do they have anything o say about your claims?
No.
Because they know that what you are claiming is not worth arguing.
You are trying to nail me for speaking in a generality. Yet you are no different. Here is an example.
"As for Catholicism and NT Christianity, whatever merits your theological viewpoints may or may not have I don’t think there’s any renowned scholar who would argue that the early church was not the single united church of the first millennium comprised of what we today call the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church."
Many reknowned Secular scholars claim that gnosticism had a strongholds in early Christianity and that Catholicism was a later development.
New Agers have a similar approach seeing Christ as a pagan Jew leading his people to a Nw Age Truth.
Some Baptist scholars point to the encroaching Roman Empire as making a counterfeit religion of the early middle ages.
Adventist scholars make an emphases of this argument pointing to the destruction of early Jewish customs in 1st century Christianity.
Yet you want to make a weeping general statement based upon your school of thought. You are clearly guilty of what you accuse me of.
All this has been a fascade.
You are keeping your argumens at arms length in order to avoid essntial questions. Not simply classifiedas theology.
But questions of spirituality morality and faith.
Your ongoing back-peddling and redirections of the subject can only be acknowledged as a fear.
A fear concerning you position before God.
There is only one possible sacrifice that will satisfy the one true God concerning your own sinful evils in this life.
This is the propitiation of the Son of God Jesus Christ.
Will you hold on His awesome gift. Or do you not undersand the guilt of your sin and trust in what you think are righteous deeds?
John 3:18
Mr. Singleton,
I'm going to prove once again that your accusations have no merit.
Your comment said:
"So why do I?
Maybe because it is the truth and God put a burning desire in my heart to tell people the truth..."
"Finally, don't try to pass off the notion that what you have written is somehow inspired by God."
"A burning desire and a inspired message are two diferent things.
Inspiration in a New Testament Church teaching is a word for word message. Aburning desire is a strong feeling."
"So you are slandering me. As a matter of observational fact."
I purposely included the phrase "somehow inspired" to preemtively negate precisely your accustion. It should be obvious that I was pointing out the potential disconnect between your feelings and God. I didn't want there to be any implied confusion about this.
Therefore no slander.
Mr. Singleton,
You have flung far too many accusations my way. Do you really want me to keep a running tally along with the date of the post which contains the refutation?
This shouldn't be necessary. I won't do it if you stop the accusations.
Mr. Singleton,
You wrote:
"By the way it may be fun to try to identify typist errors in my writing...So if you could skip over that."
No problem. I hope to steer a more civil course. I hope you do as well.
Mr. Singleton,
You said:
"costrowski is unable to nottice typos if they are made by anyone else than yours truly."
In a previous comment I explained that I was purposely restricting my interactions with Deeper Truth. I said then and I say again that there's so much more that I would like to say, but I saw long ago that this is the best way to keep these comments as focused as possible.
Another accusation refuted.
Mr. Singleton,
You wrote:
"Here you are trying to give readers the impression that I want you to call me Pastor."
I previously explained my reasons for writing "PASTOR, GOOD PASTOR, etc".
Another accusation refuted.
If you noticed I'm now addressing you as Mr. Singleton since you seem to have requested it. I will continue to address you this way for this latest round of comments. Hopefully in your next round you will display a familiarity with my comments and a continued civil behavior.
Mr. Singleton,
You said:
"My Only Authority is the scriptures. Which you seem to not desire to discuss."
How many times have I addressed this? Since you placed theology at the end of your article I'm also placing theology at the end in the order of my comments. This is why I keep saying it will only take as long as you make it take for me to get to that subject.
Your responses display very little familiarity with what I write.
Another accusation refuted.
Mr. Singleton,
You wrote:
"You are not under covenant"
Another accusation. Why are you judging me? You don't even know what I believe.
Remember Matthew 7:1
Mr. Singleton,
You wrote:
"First of all as Jesus said "no one is good but God alone"(general translation)
I find this paricularly offensive and ask that you refrain from repeating it."
Do you really want me to list all of the places where the bible calls men "good"? Here's just one example why it's ok to call people good - Matthew 22:10.
Jesus was making the lesser point that all good things come from God and the greater point that there is only one who is truly good in and of himself and He is that one (trinity).
Another accusation (implicit charge of blasphemy) refuted.
Mr. Singleton,
You wrote:
"By allowing you to continue on my blog I have been civil."
Do you seriously believe you can possibly disregard every Christian standard of behavior yet still call your behavior civil all because you allow my comments to remain on your blog?
This is incredible!
Mr. Singleton,
You wrote:
"Who says your theology is in such high demand? You don't seem to think much of it; since you do not desire to reveal it."
When did I ever say or imply that my theology was in such high demand. I have only referred to my theology up to now in response to your constant demands for my theology. You have place my theology in demand - not me. Do you want me to embarrass you by listing all of your own demands for my theology?
Again you show little evidence of reading what I wrote. I explained many times how I have attempted to keep the focus on your article, in which the theology comes last.
Another accusation refuted.
Mr. Singleton,
You wrote:
""You accuse me of insulting you, but I have documented everything I have said."
False.
The Bible Smack web blog has documented everything you said. You never took responsibility for your comment regarding my church as a herd of swine."
This comment makes no sense. What's false? I have documented all of my critiques in the comments which I wrote.
Here's what I said in reference to you, your flock and Mark 5:13:
"Let's pray for HIM and HIS flock that this PASTOR doesn't lead HIS herd as in Mark 5:13."
It's clear that I'm suggesting to pray for YOU and those that follow YOU so that YOU don't lead them spiritually off of a cliff. Furthermore in a followup comment I explained that I used the word herd in the sense of group, flock, etc. It's beyond doubt that the sense of the sentence was sympathetic to those who follow you - not derogatory. I said this because of the constant insults and baseless accusations which you continue to spew. Yours is the behavior of one heading the wrong way and possibly leading those who follow him - ergo Mark 5:13.
You show no sense of understanding or remembering what I write.
Furthermore, for which insults have you ever taken responsibility?
You can't seem to ever move forward. It's your behavior and inability to remember what I write that keeps this from proceeding to your comments on theology.
Another accusation refuted.
Mr. Singleton,
Referencing my pointing to your sub-Christian behavior you wrote:
"Who are you to judge me?"
I'm not judging you and your worth. I'm judging the behavior which you direct towards me - as I should.
You then write:
"you are in the position of a guest. You have zero authority."
Does my status as a guest give you permmission to relentlessly spew insults and baseless accusations (as I have consistently shown)?
Incredibly you then somehow write:
"...may behavior which once again is none of your business."
How can it be none of my business when it's directed towards me? This is beyond belief!
You quote Psalm 15 (A gentle answer turns away wrath but a harsh word stirs up anger) as if anger is equivalent to insults and baseless accusations.
All of my charges I have documented. You have not. I have not spewn insults and baseless accusations. You have with alarming frequency.
Mr. Singleton,
You INCREDIBLY wrote:
"I asked for specific facts refuting my article."
I have given specific facts for everything I disputed. You don't demonstrate any familiarity with what I write.
Mr. Singleton,
You wrote:
"Then you vented over whether greek liturgy is used univesally among the Greek Orthodox."
This is a complete falsehood and you know it. You yourself commented that because of my documented charge you reworded your article from the EO's worship in Greek to Greeks worship in Greek. My point being all the EO's do not worship in Greek as your article originally stated.
Anyone can check the earlier comments to verify what I say - unless you delete the posts.
Is this a deliberate lie or an instance of bad memory?
Mr. Singleton,
You incredibly write:
"Alyoshak appears to idenify themself as EO. do they have anything o say about your claims?
No.
Because they know that what you are claiming is not worth arguing."
If I remember correctly the only ones who have commented on this article have been myself, you, Deeper Truth, Nicene and Alyoshak. Do you honestly think that since almost no one comments on your blog (this article)that this must mean the EO's concede your article to you?
You have got to be kidding!!
This is absolute nonsense!
Do you have anyone to vet your thoughts with? Please ask for an intelligent friends opinion on this matter. You're embarrassing yourself with every post you make.
Mr. Singleton,
You wrote:
"Many reknowned Secular scholars claim that gnosticism had a strongholds in early Christianity and that Catholicism was a later development.
New Agers have a similar approach seeing Christ as a pagan Jew leading his people to a Nw Age Truth.
Some Baptist scholars point to the encroaching Roman Empire as making a counterfeit religion of the early middle ages.
Adventist scholars make an emphases of this argument pointing to the destruction of early Jewish customs in 1st century Christianity."
These are not renowned scholars. These are revisionists such as Elaine Pagels. The only ones who accept scholarship such as hers are people who attack Christianity.
As for the adventists and baptists who make such claims they apologists, not scholars. They are attempting to defend their position, not objectively analyze history. There's no agreement in history from scholars of previous centuries with which they can point to. They are alone in this modern age anachronistically speaking about history.
People such as N.T. Wright, A.C. Sundberg, John McGuckin, Alistair McGrath, Bruce M. Metzger, etc are respected across the theological divide. This can't be said for Pagels et al.
Mr. Singleton is spewing more accusations:
1. All this has been a fascade.
2. You are keeping your argumens at arms length in order to avoid essntial questions.
3. Your ongoing back-peddling and redirections of the subject can only be acknowledged as a fear.
Your behavior is again sub-Christian. You spew insults and accusations in nearly every post you make. This is why I suggested to pray for you and your flock.
All three of these accusations I have long ago and many times explained. You show little memory of what I write and even less care in dealing with it.
If you thought the history of the EO's was of so little importance then why did you write about it? You only have yourself and your errors to blame.
You charged that I think my theology is in high demand, but once again you make a demand for it by these accusations.
You determine how quickly we will get to the theology. Demonstrate that you understand what I write instead of your obsession with spewing insults and accusations. This way we will get to your own demand of my theology.
Mr. Singleton spewed another accusation:
"Your ongoing back-peddling and redirections of the subject"
When have I ever back peddled? I have not. You can't demonstrate that.
As for redirections, I'm staying on your own subject. I told you that repeatedly. You want to change the focus in order to save face and then claim that I won't answer your flailing questions. This is the way you arrive at your accusation of redirecting the subject, when you well know you are the one who is guilty of this charge.
Your accusations are pure nonsense and you know it.
Every accusation of yours has been refuted.
Your next round of comments will determine when we get to YOUR demands for my theology.
Deeper Truth wrote:
"Cos,
all hyperbole and rancor aside, I have to be serious with you. I am being 100% straight and truthful when I tell you that Matt simply does not have the intellect to converse with you. He really must use nastiness as a foil because he knows that he is on a vastly inferior intellectual plane."
Mr. Singleton has been demonstrating what you say with nearly every comment he posts. He very rarely demonstrates any knowledge of what I wrote.
He accuses me of back peddling when I have never done so yet he agreed with my charges. After he agrees with them he then later goes back and tries to make claims we both said things neither of us ever said.
To Deeper Truth,
Mr. Singleton's behavior makes this request I'm about to make very difficult. As difficult as it is I do think we should try to rise above the sub-Christian behavior he has relentlessy demonstrated. If he has any flock that he pastors (which I'm beginning to have questions about), then I think it's a good idea that at least you and I demonstrate proper Christian behavior. We can do this by respecting him even when his behavior doesn't warrant it, by accurately representing his writings even though he rarely does this.
I think this is the best way to either help him or expose him as I said in the beginning.
To Deeper Truth,
There's so so much more I want to say, but I still think this is the best way.
To Deeper Truth,
Let me know if you can get a source for Luther saying Jesus committed adultery.
Sure Cos,
Read for yourself the demon that is the object of Matt's love and affection (rather than Jesus)
"Christ committed adultery first of all with the woman at the well about whom St. John tells us. Was not everybody about Him saying: 'Whatever has he been doing with her?' Second, with Mary Magdalene and thirdly with the woman taken in adultery whom He dismissed so lightly. Thus, even Christ, who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before he died"
Martin Lucifer Trishreden, Weimer edition, Vol 2, Page 107
http://openlibrary.org/b/OL17418788M/D.-Martin-Luthers-Tischreden.
Of course, Matt will defend this demonic filth because he-like Luther- is evil.
"You wrote:
"You are not under covenant"
Another accusation. Why are you judging me? You don't even know what I believe.
Remember Matthew 7:1"
costrowski,
You are not under covenant with me!
have you sworn to the freedom baptist church covenant?
Have you studied the Freedom Baptist church confession to where your understand it and accept that this will be the basic teaching of the church?
Look I am not your pastor. I am a pastor to those who attend my congregation. If you want me to pray for you or counsel you from a distance that's fine. But I know who is a covenant member of my church and I never seen you on the list
"In a previous comment I explained that I was purposely restricting my interactions with Deeper Truth. I said then and I say again that there's so much more that I would like to say, but I saw long ago that this is the best way to keep these comments as focused as possible.
Another accusation refuted."
Here we go...
You didn't refute the accusation. If anything you affirmed it. You big evidence is that you see it as the best way. Way to do what?
Give DT afalse sense of security and tag team against the evil of my views?
Get over yourself.
your logic
4+3=8 problem asnwered.
If you want objective truth then you must look at both sides.
You want to win some argument over the trivial no matter the objective truth.
When you have nothing good to say to me and nothing bad to say to the guy who opposes every word I say it is obvious you are biased. You don't think I nottice that. Who are you trying to fool?
You can delete Luther's comments from your blog but you can't delete them from your soul. God is not going to be fooled Matt.
costrowski
"As difficult as it is I do think we should try to rise above the sub-Christian behavior he has relentlessy demonstrated. "
This is an accusation
You say my behavior is sub-christian.
Yet you have no standard of Christianity.
Since you have no standards then you are simply name calling.
You want to argue about how innocent you are. You only show yourself to be sinful and immature.
Satan is an accuser.
I have rebuked you repeatedly.
You choose to play games and ignore these facts.
As a result your accusations against me hold no weight.
You can not take correction and as a result the book of proverbs would brand you as unwise.
After a hundred and fifty comments. You have yet to discuss any substantial theology.
I am still waiting. If you were to die tonight, and the Lord were to ask why you should be allowed in His kingdom. What would your response be.
If you do not respond to this question immediately, then it is a message to every reader of your blogs to go ahead and assume you have no faith in Christ.
"Matt has a quandry. Does he denounce the demon Luther and admit the Catholic was right about him all along or does he continue to embrace him, knowing that he'll eventually join him in hell?"
Simple I do not believe Jesus fornicated with any woman since he is without sin.
I am going to investigate this charge against Luther. I think it would be odd with everything that he has written that no one would nottice such an outrageous remark.
DT the Great thing about being a born-again Christian is that my faith is tied to Christ alone. I do not have any ties to Luther or His church. Of course I know that you are a liar, so I am going to have to look deeper.
After a little research on the web. I don't see much context to this statement.
Some people said that he just blurted it out while he was drunk. Others say it was taken out of context in a sermon. basically indicated that Christ was called and adulterer just like he was called an adulterer or winebibber.
Either which way His behavior does not effect my faith. Because my faith is in scripture and not in man.
LOL
I gave the exact location of the quote. Doesn't affect your salvation!?
You follow a BLASPHEMER and it doesnt affect your salvation!?
Just look at the dark place you are in! If you don't come out of the cult of Luther, your soul will certainly burn in hell. It really is that simple.
You now know the truth and Jesus WILL hold you to account. Become a Catholic or burn. It's your choice.
Matt says "I really don't mine that Luther blasphemed Christ. He probably had too much win. I'll worship Luther anyway"
Deeper Truth,
Thanks for the source of the Luther quote. It seems as though this quote was provided by a contemporary of his. I'm not sure if the guy was a friend of Luther's or not. It might be best to give this quote lesser weight because of this.
Thanks again for the source and also for your kind words.
Mr. Singleton,
You wrote:
"You are not under covenant with me!"
That's fair. I accept that. I just want to be clear, because there is a difference between being under covenant with your particular affiliation and being in covenant in general.
Mr. Singleton,
You continue to place my theology in high demand. You also continue to try to shift the focus from the article you yourself wrote. You equate my logical approach to methodically proceeding through your article to "4+3=8".
In the beginning I never intended to have a debate. Then because of your beligerance I decided to expose your sub/anti-Christian behavior. You can trace how my thought progressed from initially not intending to debate to proceeding to critique your article in an orderly fashion. Once I decided to proceed I mentioned many, many times I intend to keep this very focused.
The following list will more than thoroughly refute your silly accusation...
Here we go:
...List of my own quotes refuting your silly accusation:
Now, here’s why I don’t intend on continuing a debate with you.
I didn't get to the theology because as I said before, in my opinion your article is so bad that I had to spend over two pages correcting only about 20 short lines or so.
Maybe once you behave decently I might proceed with a critique
Yes, I’ve ignored your attempts to take the focus off of your article and behavior. I intend to keep this focused. No shotgun approach from me.
Originally I never intended to leave further comments, but the base nature of your comments has certainly engaged me. Perhaps if you demonstrate civility and an ability to interact thoughtfully with my critique I will consider moving forward to the next section of your piece.
I'm waiting to see how he responds to my last comments before I proceed with further critiques of his piece on EO.
Stay tuned DT because my critiques will get even better, if we can get past dear PASTOR's behavior.
So far I've only critiqued under 20 lines of your article and it's taken me over 3 pages now to document your errors.
I all ready told you that I'm staying very focused on the article and comments. I plan on proceeding in an orderly fashion through your article. As for now, to answer your question will only serve to distract from what your article claims and my critique of it.
If you conduct yourself in a civil and thoughtful manner we'll get to your question much quicker.
I'm doing my best to keep you focused.
I'm very clearly and logically proceeding to demonstrate my accusations. Your mischaracterizations and evasions only serve to drag this out.
Your behaviour will determine how this goes. I'm not losing my focus.
There's so much I'd like to say, but I realized very early on that I have to carefully guard against giving any opportunity to run from the purpose of these comments. That's why I'm doing my best to keep this as focused as possible on PASTOR's article about EO's.
Maybe with some decent thoughtful Christian behavior on your part we can proceed to the next 20 lines of your article.
... just trying to keep these comments focused.
Pay attention to what I write and we can proceed. Then I'll answer your question when we finish with the purpose of the comments regarding this article.
We would have proceeded far more quickly if you would have paid attention to what I wrote and acted in the fashion which the office you claim calls for.
As I have been repeatedly saying, I'm keeping this focused. I have only referenced your points in your own article.
List of my own quotes refuting your silly accusation continued:
I have all ready explained to you the reason why I haven't revealed my religious affiliation. Your behavior has shown that you're looking for any distraction from your own article. We're dealing with your article here. My theology will come after your article. It's up to you how soon that will be.
Then we will get to my theology sooner.
Stay focused on your article.
I'll await your comments before deciding whether or not I have to deal with a new barrage from you, or proceed with the article.
Persistence, Focus & Baby Steps
In a previous comment I explained that I was purposely restricting my interactions with Deeper Truth. I said then and I say again that there's so much more that I would like to say, but I saw long ago that this is the best way to keep these comments as focused as possible.
How many times have I addressed this? Since you placed theology at the end of your article I'm also placing theology at the end in the order of my comments. This is why I keep saying it will only take as long as you make it take for me to get to that subject.
Again you show little evidence of reading what I wrote. I explained many times how I have attempted to keep the focus on your article, in which the theology comes last.
You can't seem to ever move forward. It's your behavior and inability to remember what I write that keeps this from proceeding to your comments on theology.
All three of these accusations I have long ago and many times explained. You show little memory of what I write and even less care in dealing with it.
You determine how quickly we will get to the theology. Demonstrate that you understand what I write instead of your obsession with spewing insults and accusations. This way we will get to your own demand of my theology.
You want to change the focus in order to save face and then claim that I won't answer your flailing questions. This is the way you arrive at your accusation of redirecting the subject, when you well know you are the one who is guilty of this charge.
Your next round of comments will determine when we get to YOUR demands for my theology.
There's so so much more I want to say, but I still think this is the best way.
Mr. Singleton,
This very long list which demonstrates my intent to logically proceed through your article thoroughly refutes another silly accusation of yours.
STOP WITH THE SILLY ACCUSATIONS SO WE CAN GET ON WITH THE ARTICLE!!!
Mr. Singleton,
You wrote:
"You say my behavior is sub-christian."
Do you really want me to now list all of your silly accusations?
Do you know how long that list would be?
Don't equate your baseless refuted accusations with my thoroughly documented charges of your errors and sub/anti-Christian behavior.
Let's move on with your article.
Mr. Singleton,
1. Stop with the silly accusations.
2. Pay attention to what I write when you respond to it
3. ...then we will proceed.
Hopefully we won't get sidetracked with anymore baseless accusations and insults. I'm looking forward to moving on to the next portion of the article about the Church of Alexandria.
Agree?
Go ahead costrowski,
tell us about the church of Alexandria
"That's fair. I accept that. I just want to be clear, because there is a difference between being under covenant with your particular affiliation and being in covenant in general."
The New covenant is one between man and God. I have no ability to judge a man's soul personally.
My responsibility is to declare the scriptures teachings concerning Christ and salvation.
If a person let say DT openly rejects the gospel of salvation as I have studied it over the years. then I can assuime that they are not saved. I can not
"determine" that they are unsaved since I can't read their mind. Nor do I know their ultimate decision prior to death.
That being said costrowski I do hope to see you as a brother in heaven.
I just find this past debate fruitless and would appreciate if we could move the topic along.
So tell me about the Alexandrine church
“Eastern orthodoxy is in many ways a Roman Catholic system.”
I don't have a major contention with this statement but I do think something needs to pointed out.
Eastern Orthodoxy certainly shares a sacramental system with the Roman Catholic Church, but it is misleading to say that it is in many ways a Roman Catholic system. Saying it this way implies that the Eastern Orthodox Church inherited its sacramental system from the Roman Catholic Church in some way. It most surely did not. The Roman Catholic Church grew alongside, although maybe very shortly after the birth of the Eastern Church. They both shared a sacramental system from their common beginning.
For example, the Didache which scholars date 65 –160 A.D. gives instructions regarding most of the 7 sacraments commonly acknowledged among the eastern and western churches.
Another example is Clement of Rome’s Letter to the Corinthians which scholars date to 80-98 A.D. In his letter Clement, the bishop of Rome, writes about the sacrament of the eucharist, how and by whom it is to be celebrated.
There are many more very early examples but I’ll leave it at this.
“The Alexandrine church is of a dubious origin. They claim Mark as their apostle and yet have little if any historical link or testimony.”
This is a very troubling statement. The reason for this is that we have the testimony of Papias (no later than 130 A.D.) for the Church of Alexandria being founded by Mark the Evangelist and then the 4th century testimony of Eusibius, Jerome and Epiphanius. The Church of Alexandria’s claim of origin has never been historically disputed by either the east or west until possibly modern times.
Returning to Papias, he also testifies regarding the authorship of the Gospel of Matthew. If one holds the view that the Marcan origin of the Church of Alexandria is “dubious” then this view also casts suspicion over the Gospel of Matthew. Is its authorship also “dubious”? According to the above view it would seem so.
Irenaeus also testified to the Matthaean authorship of the first gospel, but scholars date his document (Against Heresies) to about 180 A.D. Irenaeus was necessarily depending on a tradition handed down to him. There are obviously many later testimonies to the Matthaean authorship of the first gospel, but this fact doesn’t overcome the charge of "dubious origin" if one uses a consistent methodology.
As you can see this charge presents an enormous problem.
"It appears more likely that the city just had few nominal Christians from Israel and later formed the Alexandrine school."
Please give some kind of evidence for this charge.
Regarding the School of Alexandria you wrote:
"This school was started by a man named Clement of Alexandria."
This is not true. Pantaenus was the founder of the school of Alexandria.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantaenus
"The Alexandrine texts of scriptures were not surprisingly filled with verse cut out of them. In fact the 2 major manuscripts codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus disagree with each other in over 3,000 places!"
While maybe not factually wrong (not sure about the number) this begs the question - which specific manuscript does Matt Singleton accept as the complete authentic bible and how does he know it's the perfectly preserved writings of both every inspired OT & NT writer along with every inspired word?
This question must be raised because the whole reason for mentioning the discrepancies in the Alexandrian codices seems to be to smear the Church of Alexandria. Therefore for Matt Singleton to escape this smear himself he must somehow objectively prove that his version of the bible is both complete and superior to that of the Alexandrians.
continued...
continued from last post...
It's clear from checking Matt Singleton's biblical quotes that he's using the King James version. The KJV translated the NT from the Textus Receptus and the OT from the Masoretic Text.
The Textus Receptus was produced by two people whose religion Mr. Singleton abhors, the Catholics Basel and Erasmus. Furthermore not having a complete Greek text of Revelation Erasmus translated from the Latin text he possessed back into Greek. To make the matter even more vexing for Mr. Singleton all of the manuscripts used by Erasmus were produced no earlier than the 12th century.
Mr. Singleton's problems don't stop there because the Greek text Erasmus produced "differed markedly" from the manuscripts he was using.
Summing up the problems Mr. Singleton faces:
1. somehow he must judge the 12th century and later Greek texts as better quality than the ones used by the Church of Alexandria whose extant texts are 4th century productions considered by scholars to be the best known biblical texts.
2. In addition to the above he now must trust that the new version produced by Erasmus was even better than the earlier Greek texts he used.
3. Furthermore Mr. Singleton is in the position that he must believe that the Latin texts and then Erasmus' translations were better than the biblical texts of the Alexandrians.
4. Finally, if Erasmus' Textus Receptus was "markedly different" than the earlier Greek texts he used then Mr. Singleton must believe that Erasmus' production was somehow "more inspired" than either the codex Vaticanus or Sinaiticus.
These are very, very difficult issues which are necessary implications that flow out of Mr. Singleton's original seemingly condescending charge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus
continued from above post...
If Mr. Singleton's is indeed criticising the Alexandrians for having a "deficient" bible then he must also deal with the OT.
The King James Version translates the OT from the Masoretic text. This text was produced in the 7th - 10th centuries.
Complicating this matter further the Jews of this time held in very high regard the Talmud which includes many blasphemous condemnations of Jesus Christ which are written in the most vile disgusting manner.
Therefore Mr. Singleton is trusting that the no earlier than 9th century extant OT Masoretic text produced by Christ haters is more inspired than the text of the OT quotes in the NT.
For example, look at the difference between the Masoretic text of Psalm 40:6 and the NT Letter to the Hebrews quote from the Septuagint (LXX) version of Psalm 40:6
Hebrews 10:5 - Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me... (KJV & LXX OT)
Psalm 40:6 - Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.(KJV & Masoretic Text)
If Mr. Singleton is criticising the Alexandrians for corrupting the bible than he must also objectively answer whether the KJV OT (Masoretic Text) or the KJV NT (LXX) is corrupt.
Mr. Singleton's original statement was:
"The Alexandrine texts of scriptures were not surprisingly filled with verse cut out of them. In fact the 2 major manuscripts codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus disagree with each other in over 3,000 places!"
Now being confronted with the absolutely necessary implications of the above careless charge Mr. Singleton is put in a very precarious position.
This is what carelessness leads to.
"The Alexandrine church was the birth place for the majority of heresies concerning the doctrine of God."
This is indeed true, but understanding the proper historical context of Alexandria would require Mr. Singleton to give a much more fair assessment.
Alexandria was one of the most, if not the most vibrant intellectual centers of the ancient Christian world. It was also gave birth to the best formulated doctrines of God. Recognizing this fact radically changes the context of Mr. Singleton's above quote.
Much of the theology of the first 7 ecumenical coucils was based on the Alexandrian school.
"Origen was hailed as a hero for some actions, like defending the faith against an unbeliever named Celsus. However, Origen would wander into heretical waters over and over again. Such as: universalism, the salvation of the Devil, subordinationist, reincarnation etc."
While the above quote is indeed true it also has a characteristic lack of balance on the part of Mr. Singleton. Why would Mr. Singleton leave out any ancient criticism of Origen?
The following declaration of the 5th Ecumenical Council(Constantinople II) in defending the Athanasius/Cyril faction against the Origen faction of the school of Alexandria declared:
"If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their impious writings..."
Again, this gives a radically different context to the Church of Alexandria than Mr. Singleton's careless quote.
Leaving out something so important as this points to a continuing pattern of a selective one-sided presentation of facts.
"The Alexandrine School stressed the heresy of apollynarianism. They believed that Christ was God but not full in his humanity."
Yet another example of a very selective one-sided telling of the story. Apollinaris was indeed from the school of Alexandria and was originally very highly esteemed there, but eventually his teachings were condemed by a local synod at Alexandria.
Again, seeing the above facts presents quite a different story than the way Mr. Singleton presents Alexandria monolithically supporting Appolinarianism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollinarianism
"The antiochans fought to keep a balanced view yet eventually there was a Bishop by the name of Nestorius. The Alexandrines sent spies to find a way to trip up the Bishop. Finally they found an opening when Nestorious would insist that the Lyric of hymn refer to Mary as the Mother of Christ as opposed to the Mother of God."
This quote exposes your Nestorian heresy. To think that this Christological controversy was only over the use of the term "theotokos" is akin to seeing only the tip of the iceberg.
Nestorius taught that Mary gave birth to a human person. This is why he said that he "cannot describe as God an infant of 2 or 3 months" (1). The obvious implication of this and the rest of Nestorius' teachings is that the pre-existing second person of the trinity united himself at some point to a human person. This is quite different than the second person of the trinity becoming man in the same way that all men become man, with the exception of a virginal conception.
Furthermore, Nestorius' teaching meant that those who worship Jesus at some point are also worshipping another separate human person. This is idolatry.
If the 2 or 3 month old infant is not God than this person is pure man alone. The person of this pure man, according to Nestorius was united at some point to the second person of the trinity. This means that there are 2 persons in the body of Jesus - one divine and one human. An example of this 2 persons in one body would be a person who is demonically possessed. In possession you have 2 separate persons inhabiting one body. This is Nestorianism.
This is also how Nestorius denied the term theotokos. In reality Mary gave birth to only one divine person who had both a human nature and a divine nature. This is why she truly is the mother of God, theotokos. Mary did not give birth to a human vessel for the second person of the trinity which acted in the same way as Arnold Schwarzenegger had a living human body in the movie "Terminator".
(1)http://www.amazon.com/St-Cyril-Alexandria-Christological-Controversy/dp/0881412597/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250571072&sr=1-1
"The Alexandrine School would argue with the school of Antioch. Antioch took the scriptures more literally"
The Antiochenes did not take the bible more literally as Mr. Singleton claims because the magi clearly worshipped the baby Jesus (Mt. 2:1), while Nestorius and those of Antioch who supported him did not.
I forgot to give the page number a few comments ago about Nestorius' quote about not worshipping a 2 or 3 month old infant.
It can be found on page 84 of the book St. Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy by John McGuckin.
“Yet the bishop Cyril accused him of preaching two Christ (human and deity). Nestorius denied this and tried to explain this, however he used a bad metaphor in a letter to Cyril describing the flesh and deity as married. Based upon this one bad illustration...”
Still extant are much of Nestorius’ writings. He definitely denied the charge laid against him of positing 2 persons in Christ but here is how his surprisingly large amount of writings defending himself have been described:
“incredible and innately obscurantist” – L. Wickham in Cyril of Alexandria: Select Letters page xix-xx
“...Nestorius’ doctrine, behind all of its bluster of technicalities, as unable to explain subject unity in Christ” – H.E.W. Turner in Nestorius Reconsidered page 51
Turner also noted that Nestorius’ problem wasn’t that he posited a double personality in Christ but was unable to explain how his doctrines didn’t require a double personality. Therefore Nestorius’ explanations amounted to nothing in far, far more than one bad metaphor.
Finally, there’s my favorite description of Nestorius’ doctrine, but unfortunately I can’t find the source yet – “an incomprehensible mess”.
"Nestorius recanted his illustration to no avail."
This proves that Mr. Singleton thinks the Nestorian controversy was only about the use of the term theotokos. Nestorius did say that it was ok for the uniformed layman to use this term, but that formally it was incorrect and heretical. This was Nestorius' recantation.
In contrast to Mr. Singleton's beliefs Nestorius' doctrines were an attack on the whole fundamental belief system of Christianity.
Regarding Mr. Singleton's assertion that Nestorius recanted this quote should suffice to thoroughly refute him:
"...in the winter of 430, the council moved to confirm the sentence in full accord with the canons governing the prosecution of one who refuses to repent after recieving a canonical decree".
St. Cyril of Alexandria & the Christological Controversy p. 84 by John McGuckin
In Nestorius' Book (Bazaar) of Heraclides written when he was excommunicated and in exile well after the controversy still never recanted. Even after much time to reconsider and think things over the best he could do was to admit that he did not understand the Christological doctrine of St. Cryil of Alexandria and that proclaimed by the ecumencial Council of Ephesus.
To Deeper Truth,
I told you this would get better. We are now at the heart of all of Christianity. Nearly all of the orthodox doctrines of Christianity flow from these correct trinitarian and Christological doctrines.
If Mr. Singleton accepts the Nestorian heresy as his own then he is at some point worshipping a pure man alone, contrary to the magi and the rest of the NT.
If there was a second person in the body of Christ than the Logos didn't offer himself up as a sacrifice to the Father. He offered up some man.
The sacrifice of only some man can never be the grounds of eternal salvation for anyone.
I don't think Mr. Singleton fully believes in all of the above, but he's still in the same position as Nestorius trying to explain how there are not 2 persons in the body of Christ. Nestorius couldn't do it as brilliant as he was, so I don't have much hope that Mr. Singleton can offer a consistent defense of his Nestorian views.
Therefore the question is:
Did Mary give birth to a fully divine person?
If the answer is that she bore a fully divine person then she is God-bearer - Theotokos.
First you argued that these were originally unified system now they are two. Make up your mind.
You brag about your great vision with glasses but I am wearing binoculars.
Alexandria Egypt was academic system of paganism and witchcraft.
The Jews immigrated there in disobediance to God.
The had already learned to synchrinize pagan platonic philosophy with judaism.
Many Jews allowed idol worship while there.
I have read pagans discuss how the ancient pagans in egypt would translate black magic spells into christian prayers. We even see it today with the gypsies.(btw, gypsies were originally immigrants from egypt.)
Christianity was on the next logical step of the gnostic faith.
Gnosticism was prevalent and the first school master of Alexandria Clement referred to himself as a "true Gnostic" The Aleandrine church came not from the apostles, but instead from a scholastic system which honored pagan philosophy.
(Yes, I know that some say Mark founded but the evidence is very sketchy to say the least.)
"For example, the Didache which scholars date 65 –160 A.D. gives instructions regarding most of the 7 sacraments commonly acknowledged among the eastern and western churches."
I would like you to show me in the didache were it uses the term mass. Or where they treat it as a new offering of a sacrafice.
Or where they proceed to a front level banner. Or where they are called priest.
Show me where they sprinkly infants heads. By the way I have seen where Orthodox baptize by immersion and not sprinkling.
Where does it mention penance?
Where is the confessional booth?
Where do they recite hail mary?
Where does it mention monks in the didache.
Could you cite me chapter and verse to these? Since it was already in place and all.
"Why would Mr. Singleton leave out any ancient criticism of Origen?"
Very Simple, the purpose of bringing this up is to identify a historical influence upon the Alexandrine church. While there may have been corrections made centuries later. Origen is the most influential church father of the Alexandrine schools.
The East owes to Origen just like calvinistic Baptists owe to John Calvin.
"Nestorius taught that Mary gave birth to a human person."
Costrowski, do you deny that Jesus was a human person?
Post a Comment