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:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 248 of 248"Nestorius' teachings is that the pre-existing second person of the trinity united himself at some point to a human person."
I acknowledeg that Nestorious illustration was incorrect and I correct it in my article. In that the man did meet with the divine. however this was a response to a heated debate. A bad argument and a firm teaching are two different things.
For instance DT just taught that Jesus was God at conception. Which denies the eternal nature of God. The Person of Jesus is one person with Christ. Therefore He is eternal. "Before Abraham was Iam"
Is Dt an Arian or do you thing he just slipped in an error?
"This means that there are 2 persons in the body of Jesus - one divine and one human."
Actually if you were accurate there are 3 persons in the trinity.
Jesus is fully God.
So within the man Christ there are 3 persons.
Only the Word/Son is operative in the man.
However, the Divine spirit of God is omnipresent So the Father and the Holy Spirit operate independently.
Regardles of whether Nestorius got it right.
I have taught Jesus was God from eternity passed. Unlike DT.
Therefore, you are utterly false in calling me a nestorian, as you define it.
Actually you seem to be saying that Nestorian was less Nesotrian and more an adoptionist. If you were to have carefully read my article you would know I taught against adoption.
"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."
Unless you think the magi from the east are somehow from the southwest in Egypt your statement makes no sense. You have not proved that the Alexandrines took the Bible literally.
I also want to check your sources on whether atiochans worshiped the incarnation.
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
That is not a reference but an add for a book. Since it is about Cyril it is safe to assume that it is bias in favor of Cyril against Nestorious.
Cyril caused this controversy to perpetuate the worship of Mary and gain political superiority to constantinople.
"...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".
Of course this was done without Nestorius present to defend himself. Guilty before proven innocent.
"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."
Costrowski if your religion is Catholic then you have really step in it! Because Catholicism is teaching "hyperdulia" or worship to a pure woman alongside many saints!
So don't try to ensnare me into the Catholic churches multitudes of sins.(idolotry of "saints"
"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."
It has been disputed.
Secondly, there is only a quick geneology without actual historical events. Alexandria is linked with the school. Where did the school come from.
"The King James Version translates the OT from the Masoretic text. This text was produced in the 7th - 10th centuries. "
What you mean to say is the copies were passed down to the 7th-10the century.
After all the text is nearly identicle to the most ancient manuscripts such as the dead Sea scrolls.
Mr. Singleton wrote:
"First you argued that these were originally unified system now they are two. Make up your mind."
I was absolutely consistent. The particular churches in Palestine of course were first. Churches then spread to other parts of the world such as Antioch Alexandria, Rome, etc. There were particular churches, but they were united as one Church. They were in mutual communion with each other.
"You brag about your great vision with glasses but I am wearing binoculars."
Huh??
I don't know what you're talking about. I never bragged about anything. If I did please show me.
I guess this is another of your constant petty personal attacks (ad hominenms). Don't you think it's best to interact with my arguements instead of spewing more insults?
Let's get beyond this silly behavior.
Stop bearing false witness.
"Alexandria Egypt was academic system of paganism and witchcraft."
You seem to be conflating the secular city of Alexandria with the Church of Alexandria. This would be similar to pointing out the anti-Christian characteristics of your local region and then blaming your particular church.
You rarely if ever seem to provide any documentation to back up your charges and insults. Please show some evidence to back up your charge.
"gypsies were originally immigrants from egypt"
No they did not come from Egypt.
Gypsies, or Romani, originally came from India. It's true that people once thought they came from Egypt, but some people also once thought the earth was flat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_people
Notice how I document what I say. You should do the same.
"Gnosticism was prevalent and the first school master of Alexandria Clement referred to himself as a "true Gnostic""
It's true that gnosticism was prevalent in Alexandria and the surrounding ancient world, but what you seem to be confusing is the relationship between faith and reason. Greek philosophy was very strong in the culture of the day and in gnosticism. Greek philosophy had many admirable things about it and still does today. What Clement of Alexandria said was that the perfect Christian was the "true gnostic". In other words the Christian is the one who has the true knowledge. Clement of Alexandria went on to say that this true "gnosis" is Christian faith. He was explaining Christianity in words which the culture of his time and place would understand. You are taking his words completely out of context.
"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.)"
You continue to spew accusations without providing any evidence whatsoever.
You also fail to see your inconsistency by accepting Papias' testimony as to the authorship of the first gospel but then turn around and refer to his testimony with outright rejection ("came not from the apostles"), or with such words as dubious and sketchy.
I noticed that you did not deal with this point. For you to honestly and deeply engage this point is deadly for your position.
"I would like you to show me in the didache were it uses the term mass."
The didache was written in Greek so the term mass of course would not be in there. Neither did I ever claim that it was in the Didache or the other things you mention.
This is called a straw man arguement. You ignore my arguement but instead construct and respond to something which I never said.
All I said was that the east and west both had unity in a sacramental system and that this is supported by the very early Didache.
Here are the chapter and verses for the following:
1. confession 4:19 & 14:1
2. baptism 7:1-7 (including sprinkling which the EO's do accept as valid but do not commonly practice)
3. eucharist (communion, sacrifice of the mass) 9:1-10:15 & 14:-14:5
4. holy orders 15:1-7
This is what I previously claimed to support the sacramental unity of the universal early church. My claim is supported by the Didache.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-lightfoot.html
"Origen is the most influential church father of the Alexandrine schools.
The East owes to Origen just like calvinistic Baptists owe to John Calvin."
This is just not true at all. Origen is commonly acknowledged to have had some troubling views. Many of his works were destroyed because of this. Although very highly regarded in his own time his status was soon surpassed by both Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria. This claim is further supported by the fact that no church east or west venerates Origen as a saint, although this holy status is recognized for Athanasius and Cyril.
It's difficult to imagine how Mr. Singleton can make such a statement about Origen when some of his teachings were condemned by the ecumenical council Constantinople II.
"Costrowski, do you deny that Jesus was a human person?"
Mary gave birth to one divine person who had 2 natures (a fully divine nature and a fully human nature).
Jesus was a divine person, not a human person. He was divine before the birth, during birth, death and resurrection.
If Mary gave birth to a human person then what happened to the preexistent divine person?
Mary gave birth to one person, not two. The moment she concieved the preexistent second person of the trinity assumed embryonic flesh and humanity in her womb, all the while remaining a divine person.
This is not adoptionism because the humanity which the divine person possessed was always all his own. It was never that of any other person.
This is what I previously showed as erroneous with the analogy of a person who is possessed. In the possessed body there are at least 2 persons present.
Mary indeed gave birth to God. Nestorians have a hard time with this because they get hung up on the paradox of a preexistent divine person undergoing birth.
"I acknowledeg that Nestorious illustration was incorrect and I correct it in my article. In that the man did meet with the divine. however this was a response to a heated debate."
Where in this article did you correct Nestorius? I can't find it? Maybe I'm just overlooking it. If so, can you point it out to me?
"The man met the divine." This is Nestorianism. There were not 2 persons in Christ. There was no man to meet the preexistent divine person. This involves 2 persons. The second person of the trinity remained a divine person but assumed a human nature at conception.
"For instance DT just taught that Jesus was God at conception. Which denies the eternal nature of God. The Person of Jesus is one person with Christ. Therefore He is eternal. "Before Abraham was Iam"
Is Dt an Arian or do you thing he just slipped in an error?"
I don't know what DT believes regarding Christology, but if you accurately represent his beliefs then he is absolutely correct. If as you say, Jesus was not God at the moment of conception then you are worshipping a man at some point. DT does not violate the principle that God is eternal because God's divine nature is eternal. The second person of the trinity's human nature is not eternal. It began at a moment in time. If you think DT's view violates the eternal nature of God then so does your Nestorian view because Jesus assumed a human nature at a fixed point in time, whether it's at conception, birth or any time after birth.
The good news is that the divine second person of the trinity is eternal. You are getting hung up on the paradox of a preexistent person undergoing birth, as all Nestorians do. The birth, conception actually, is the beginning of His human nature, not of the divine person. Thus it does not violate God's eternality.
This is what Cyril of Alexandria recognized as being so dangerous and erroneous in Nestorius' denial of the term theotokos. It was never about Mary.
"For instance DT just taught that Jesus was God at conception. Which denies the eternal nature of God. The Person of Jesus is one person with Christ."
If as you say, DT's view is wrong, then there was another person at conception. This makes 2 persons. You have an incompatible contradiction in these 2 sentences.
You can't say your 2nd sentence but deny DT's view. You then have 2 separate persons in Christ. This is the Nestorian controversy all over again. Just as Nestorius at times claimed to believe in one person, but then turned around and went on to say things which were incompatible with one person, so are you doing.
"Actually if you were accurate there are 3 persons in the trinity.
Jesus is fully God.
So within the man Christ there are 3 persons.
Only the Word/Son is operative in the man...I have taught Jesus was God from eternity passed. Unlike DT"
Now this is modalism! Are the persons of the trinity really persons or are they just techniques of language used to describe the actions of God?
Jesus was only one person. He was indwelt by the other persons of the trinity but this indwelling only meant in a more perfect/fully perfect way than God indwells his prophets and saints. Jesus kept his single personhood just as the prophets were each single persons, although indwelt by the Holy Spirit in lesser ways.
God is a trinity, not a triumvirate. Each person of the trinity is an individual person, although they share a single divine will.
How can you reconcile your competing views that Jesus was eternally God - but not at conception?
If not at conception then when did this other human person of Mary's womb unite with the person of the Logos?
What happened to this other human person who was in Mary's womb?
When did the second person of the trinity become man?
DT's views as you relate them, actually teach that Jesus was eternally God, not yours. If you disagree, then please explain this to me. The above 4 questions are critical to any answer to this problem.
"Actually you seem to be saying that Nestorian was less Nesotrian and more an adoptionist. If you were to have carefully read my article you would know I taught against adoption."
I previously said that my favorite quote on Nestorius' teaching was that it "was an incomprehensible mess".
As for adoptionism, as least until (if) you decide to substantively respond to my 4 above questions it seems as if you may hold to some form of adoptionism. I'm not clear on this charge, but neither is your explanation. For that matter, neither were Nestorius' explanations.
Maybe I missed it, but please show me where in this article you taught against adoptionism and then how your condemnation of DT's views are not adoptionism on your part?
"Unless you think the magi from the east are somehow from the southwest in Egypt your statement makes no sense. You have not proved that the Alexandrines took the Bible literally."
My point which you are responding to here is that Cyril and the Alexandrians believed that Jesus was one person at conception, birth, life, death, ect. They believed that the single divine person of Jesus is eternal. My mentioning of the Magi had nothing to do with where they came from. It was to prove that since they worshipped the infant Jesus, which Nestorius would not, that the Alexandrians took the bible more literally on this subject.
Furthermore on this point the Antiochenes supported Nestorius, at least temporarily.
To support Nestorius as the Antiochenes temporarily did denies the literal biblical teaching of the magi worshipping the infant Jesus.
"That is not a reference but an add for a book. Since it is about Cyril it is safe to assume that it is bias in favor of Cyril against Nestorious.
Cyril caused this controversy to perpetuate the worship of Mary and gain political superiority to constantinople."
I gave you a reference to a source. This reference included everything one needs to know in order to check my source. IT IS A REFERENCE!!
It's a scholarly book which takes the position of Cyril. So what? I gave you other sources as well. You have never given any sources. Don't you see how hypocritical it is to spew a baseless charge when you yourself don't give any sources?
Then you again spew more baseless accusations and insults. Give some evidence for your charges aganist Cyril.
Show me some evidence of Cyril worshipping Mary or supporting the worship of Mary.
Don't bear false witness!
How many times must I point this out?
"this was done without Nestorius present to defend himself. Guilty before proven innocent."
Nestorius was present in Ephesus along with all of the others gathered there for the council. He locked himself in his place of lodging and refused to either hear those who charged him or present his own case. He had every opportunity but refused to do so. He only had himself to blame. He was a heretic who never repented after given many opportunities to do so. Even in exile many years later, he still never repented.
I previously said:
"The Church of Alexandria’s claim of origin has never been historically disputed by either the east or west until possibly modern times."
Mr. Singleton responded:
"It has been disputed."
I prove my claim again by this:
"According to church tradition, the Patriarchate was founded in 42 by the Apostle Saint Mark the Evangelist. All churches acknowledge the same succession of church leaders up to about the dividing Council of Chalcedon 451..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_of_Alexandria
Mr. Singleton,
You should get into the habit of fact checking before making all of your charges. Give me some proof for your claim for once!
First I said:
"The King James Version translates the OT from the Masoretic text. This text was produced in the 7th - 10th centuries."
You responded:
"What you mean to say is the copies were passed down to the 7th-10the century.
After all the text is nearly identicle to the most ancient manuscripts such as the dead Sea scrolls."
This doesn't help you at all. You're still in the position of which you charge the Church of Alexandria. You're in the position of trusting Christ-hating Jews and then counting the number of places where the Masoretic text differed from the dead sea scrolls, just as you counted discrepancies between the codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
Your charge also puts you in the position of deciding that the holy apostles got the inspired OT texts wrong which they quoted when they wrote the NT.
This compiles more evidence of your methodological inconsistencies.
And yes, I did notice that you didn't respond to this quandry you put yourself in; that is to arbitrarily decide to trust OT texts produced by Christ-hating Jews nearly a millenium after the care of the oracles of God was removed from them and given to the Church. Also, you decide to trust a Catholic man who opposed Luther to translate the Latin text into Greek for your bible.
To make matters even worse, you decided that Christ-hating Jews who had their divinely appointed charge of authority removed nearly a millenium before decided the canon correctly. You can't point to the dead sea scrolls for the correct canon and standard of words and verses because they contain books and verses rejected by the Masoretic Text.
All of the above leads to numerous serious issues. You freely admitted that you choose to follow a tradition of Christ-hating Jews. This is why it will never do to say that "the bible is my only authority".
You have much to think about.
"Nestorius taught that Mary gave birth to a human person."
Costrowski, do you deny that Jesus was a human person?
Pastor Matt likes playing dishonest word games.
There is a reason that Jesus is called the God-Man. Because He was, and is, at all times, fully human and fully divine, those who deny His humanity are in error, as are those who deny His Divinity.
Of course, for all of his desperate spin, the pastor knows that neither Cos or I fall into EITHER error.
Matt, on the other hand, by the consequence of his own arguments, has divided Christ into slices- A Divine nature of Christ, which is the offspring of the Holy Spirit and a Human nature of Christ, which is the offspring of Mary.
The problem with this heretical gymnastics is that Mary gave birth to a PERSON.
That PERSON is Jesus Christ- fully human, fully divine.
Mary gave birth to the second person of the blessed trinity. She is, therefore, without question, Theotokos.
First I said:
"The King James Version translates the OT from the Masoretic text. This text was produced in the 7th - 10th centuries."
You responded:
"What you mean to say is the copies were passed down to the 7th-10the century.
After all the text is nearly identicle to the most ancient manuscripts such as the dead Sea scrolls."
This doesn't help you at all. You're still in the position of which you charge the Church of Alexandria. You're in the position of trusting Christ-hating Jews and then counting the number of places where the Masoretic text differed from the dead sea scrolls, just as you counted discrepancies between the codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
Your charge also puts you in the position of deciding that the holy apostles got the inspired OT texts wrong which they quoted when they wrote the NT.
This compiles more evidence of your methodological inconsistencies.
And yes, I did notice that you didn't respond to this quandry you put yourself in; that is to arbitrarily decide to trust OT texts produced by Christ-hating Jews nearly a millenium after the care of the oracles of God was removed from them and given to the Church. Also, you decide to trust a Catholic man who opposed Luther to translate the Latin text into Greek for your bible.
To make matters even worse, you decided that Christ-hating Jews who had their divinely appointed charge of authority removed nearly a millenium before decided the canon correctly. You can't point to the dead sea scrolls for the correct canon and standard of words and verses because they contain books and verses rejected by the Masoretic Text.
All of the above leads to numerous serious issues. You freely admitted that you choose to follow a tradition of Christ-hating Jews. This is why it will never do to say that "the bible is my only authority".
You have much to think about.
Ouch. That's gonna leave a mark.
"No they did not come from Egypt.
Gypsies, or Romani, originally came from India. It's true that people once thought they came from Egypt, but some people also once thought the earth was flat."
Gypsies are historically a very migrant people so they have origins in those and many other areas.
I got my source from a gypsy spell book. You probably won't believe this, but I experienced many demonic attacks in keeping the book; around so I eventually burned it.
I have no problem believing in demonic attacks. It's a good thing to burn any book that contains spells.
That being said, no one believes today that Gypsies originated in Egypt. Furthermore DNA proves they came from India, probably northern India.
I'm glad that the tone of our dialogue seems to be improving.
I'm not sure whether I should wait for further responses to the issues I raised or if I should proceed with my critique of your article.
I think the questions I asked you are fundamental to all Christian theology, but they are not actually the main subject of your article. Therefore I understand if you don't want to respond to them now.
Let me know if I should proceed.
Here's a link which deals with an interesting variation between the Masoretic text, Septuagint and the Qumran manuscripts.
http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/DT32BibSac.pdf
Once you realize just how many variations there are in the OT and the NT then you are faced with the unmistakable fact that you are dependent on tradition. Since nothing akin to a complete bible dropped from heaven exists then whether you like it or not or know it or not, the question is "whose tradition do you accept?"
Here's a very interesting statement from the link I provided in the above comment. The author further explains this statement in that paper.
"Where there are wide and significant textual divergencies between MT and the LXX, many textual studies have shown that the Qumran witnesses demonstrate the reliability of the transmission of the Hebrew text underlying the LXX."
MT = Masoretic Text
LXX = Septuagint
This was a horrible review/critique.
Jnorm888
Jnorm,
I couldn't agree more. I'm not even Eastern Orthodox, but I think nearly every sentence of this article is in error. If you read any of my comments my opinion becomes very apparent.
I'm praying for Matt Singleton that he's in the process of learning about historical/biblical Christianity.
Since you're E.O. what do you think about my comments? Were they fair to Eastern Orthodoxy?
costrowski,
I think you did a very good job.
ICXC NIKA
Jnorm,
Thank you.
Pray for Matt Singleton and me.
"Once you realize just how many variations there are in the OT and the NT then you are faced with the unmistakable fact that you are dependent on tradition. Since nothing akin to a complete bible dropped from heaven exists then whether you like it or not or know it or not, the question is "whose tradition do you accept?""
costorwski,
You have revealed a very sad fact about yourself.
You are enslaved to man-made religion.
I say this not as a slam but as a fact. You have to pick a team for the religious World Series and hope that God is going to favor your team over another.
Once God's Word is the act of man, then it is all up to man.
Once religion is up to man it is all stained with sin. Once it is stained with sin it cannot save.
But the problem is that you are seeking a sinful religion to save you.
Religion can not save you. Only God in his grace can save you.
"1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. 1:24 For all flesh [is] as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you."
1 Peter 1:23-25
Now you have placed your faith in men to give you there version of history nd believe that they are inspired when they teach you that they can dictate the word of God.
Yet here is an illegal word from the Sovereign God of the universe who says that the word of God hs been preserved and that by His grace You may recieve it and be born again.
What will you believe? The word of man that you will ot have an real assurance of Salvation or the Word of God which mankind was never capable of destroying?
I place my faith not in the religious but in the Word of My Savior Jesus Christ.
"1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Romans 1:16"
I pray to the Lord that you would read it and cling to the God Jesus Christ alone for Salvation.
In Christ,
Matt
Matt,
I'm surprised that after so long you are at it again on this topic, or more accurately, against me personally. You are completely dependent on ad hominems. You rarely if ever gave a competent response to any of my comments. Once again you avoid my comments and only make assertions rather than sound arguments. Therefore, following your most recent comment I ask which of the many variations of the bible is the "preserved" word of God that you mentioned? Your answer in order to be competent must also explain how you objectively know which one is the truly "preserved" version.
Mat,
If you want to get more exposure you should look me up on facebook and post your comments there. That way others will see our exchanges. That should make things much more interesting.
Dear costrowski,
I do not know how to find you on facebook. Is your name chris ostrowski? There are a couple of those. If you want to do that then give me your information.
In Christ,
Matt
Finding the ideal text is actually not so difficult.Proving beyond a reasonale doubt is quite another manner, it would take an entire book. I have a manuscript completed for this book but have yet to publish it.(sorry)
first you go to the original language of the manuscript. The Greek New Testament and the Hebrew Old testament.
This eliminates the apocrypha since it is wasn't written in Hebrew.
Also the vulgate is now gone as well.
Scriptures tell us that the inspiration of the word is linked to believer's saving gospel (1peter1:23-25) and the Old Testament is preserved by the Jews.(romans 3:1-2,9:1-5)
The masoretic text was preserved by the Jews. The Byzantine text is the most available to God's people.
The Byzantine text was then organized by Erasmus and the Reforms the reformers understood salvation according to scripture.So they had the gospel and would then have the text according to God's Word.
So now it is the masoretic text and the textus receptus.
But you may reply that there were still less than a handful of differences in the textus receptus and masoretic text.
It would have to be the edition most available to born again believers.
This is found in the king James version. The AV uses a combination of the various editions of TR manuscripts.
But you might argue that it is an english translation
well in the 1890's Dr. Scribner printed an edition of the TR according to the manuscript choices of the AV translators.
Therefore providing you the perfect Greek New Testament manuscript.
The manuscript is entitled "A New Look at an Old Word"
if you are freidnly I may provide you with a rough draft but on if you for give the numerous typos.
In Christ,
Matt
Hi Matt,
I hope all is well with you. My name is Craig Ostrowski. You can find me on Facebook. I have been quite active there regarding these and similar issues. I find the best forum there to be the Catholic-Protestant Debate board. That board seems to draw people who are courteous and insightful. I think that's the way discussions should be held. I encourage you to start a new discussion there about the canon of the bible. I suggest to keep the focus narrow so as to keep the resulting discussion from veering into every possible tangent.
May God bless you,
Craig Ostrowski
Deeper Truth,
I also encourage you to look me up on Facebook. As I mentioned in the last comment my name is Craig Ostrowski. I also encourage you to take a peek at the Catholic-Protestant Debate board.
May God bless you,
Craig Ostrowski
Dear craig,
I'll be sure to look you up. currently I am investing a lot of my academic energy on a 23 page critique of John Piper. My system crashed and I have had to take my spare time on retyping it.
but I will check it out. Thanks I really apreciate ya stoppin' by.
In Christ,
matt
Post a Comment