I hope this is not a double post. I'm just curious or let us say wondering what is the proper way of serving God is it in a biblical way or in a traditional way? Kindly explain.
The Orthodox tradition has followed what's in the Bible as closely as possible. Do you know of any major contradictions between what's written in the Bible and the traditions we follow? Also, some of our "traditions" are actually written in historical, valid books outside of the Bible. St. Paul always stressed church unity in his letters, and that's what the Orthodox church has been promoting and stressing as well- unlike the Protestants, who also preach unity but don't put the same reliance on the church as we do.
Sorry for asking this stupid question..I do really believe that the church has followed all what is written in the bible..this question just came up into my mind because of many detraction about the church and it confuses me. I hope I can find the knowledge I've been looking for.
If it's really bothering you, then it's not a stupid question. I'm sure Fr. Peter can explain it better than I can, but what I know is that every tradition that is held by the church is held for a reason. The rites are either straight out of the Bible (i.e, the sacrament of baptism) or symbolic of something biblical (i.e, the priest going around the alter holding the lamb, symbolizing Simeon carrying the child Jesus). Other things, like set regular fasts are for a more unified church, so that we, as one body, fast at the same time, meanwhile leaving us to fast however strictly we want, as Christ said to let it be between you and God. There is a thought process and a logic behind everything in the Bible as well as every tradition of the church.
Also, it's important to note that when the traditions are not kept, that is when divisions are caused by the church. Had the Roman Catholic church stuck to its biblical, traditional foundation, the Protestant reformation would not have occurred, especially in such a revolutionary, large-scale fashion.
Can you give me the verse in the bible where I can find that the priest must go around the altar or etc. or let us say can you give me the verse in the bible that the priest should held a mass? Because you said that all the rites held by the church is following on what is written in the bible so it must be written in the bible right?
"Brothers, I have applied all this to Apollos and myself for your benefit, so that you may learn from us not to go beyond what the Scriptures say." 1 Corinthians 4:6
[quote author=George_Mina_Awad link=topic=9549.msg117725#msg117725 date=1281408466] The Orthodox tradition has followed what's in the Bible as closely as possible. Do you know of any major contradictions between what's written in the Bible and the traditions we follow?
Yes it does. You know God used the apostles to write the right and genuine doctrines and teachings of Jesus Christ but what happened is that some people or most people are not aware of it meaning they are not following what is written on the bible. The true salvation is written in the bible and not just from any person or other books. Reflect with this verse:
"Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men" Mark 7:7
This is not a place for proselytising. if you are interested in what Orthodox believe then you can ask questions, but if you only want to tell people what the Church of God International believes then that will not be allowed. If you are interested in learning about Orhodoxy then it is best to either correspond with a priest, and/or visit your local Coptic Orthodox Church.
This is not an appropriate place to tell people that they are wrong and you are right.
If you want to ask a particular question then go ahead. I'll let you know if I think it inappropriate.
But the general question you asked is too vague. Everything we do is Biblical AND Traditional. The Bible is part of the Tradition of the Church not separate and apart from it. The Bible was written BY the Church.
[quote author=Thackeray61 link=topic=9549.msg117762#msg117762 date=1281438213] Ok..so I'm going to ask now specifically..my question is does your church really follow what is written in the bible?
Saint Paul mentions in Titus, that we should first of all hold onto the traditions he has taught us by word of mouth and by letter.
Of course, "by letter" signifies the scriptures, and "by word of mouth" signifies the apostolic traditions that we have kept. Not everything is in the Bible, but everything we do emanates from the teachings of the apostles and the Bible.
Spiritual tradition is important.
For example - who told Joseph, the son of Jacob, that adultary was wrong when he was seduced by Potiphar's wife? It wasn't written down anywhere! No one explicitly told him that adultary was wrong in ANY of the scriptures. The 10 commandments came AFTER joseph. Not before.
So, when God appeared to moses and gave him the 10 commandments, what was the reaction of the people :"Darn! Adultary and murder are wrong?! Oh! We didnt know that!".
No.. they knew. It wasn't written before for them; but teachings were passed on.
The orthodox Church was founded by the evangelist Saint Mark. Our traditions are apostolic. Nothing we do comes as a result of novalty or a "good idea".
So, yes, our Church follows EVERYTHING that is in the Bible and everything that was taught to churches by the apostles that they preached by word of mouth.
We have the luxury of having their knowledge because our Church was founded by Saint Mark the Evangelist. Nothing is missing in the spiritual life the Orthodox Church brings to her followers.
Nothing has been added, nothing has been taken away, since the time of the Apostles.
ok..how can you say that the bible is not complete? you said that "Not everything is in the Bible'' is that what your church believe that the bible is incomplete? kindly clarify
I would imagine every Christian group believes it is following what is written in the Bible. Clearly only the Orthodox Church is really following what is written in the Bible because it is also following the instructions of those who wrote the Bible and those who knew the Apostles themselves. To open the Bible and decide for yourself what it means is not Christian at all. It belongs to the Church and is only understood properly IN the Church.
If you have something you want to say then be specific and ask about something specific otherwise it seems to be fairly clear that you are not here to learn about our Orthodox faith.
Let me ask you. Do you fast on every Wednesday and Friday? If you do not, why not? It is one of the earliest instructions we have from the Apostles. If you believe that you do what is in the Bible wy do you not to what those who established the Church that wrote the Bible taught us to do? Before the New Testament was written Christians were taught to fast every Wednesday and Friday by the Apostles. Do you follow this practice? If you do not then you have separated yourself from the Apostles, and clearly cannot be following the Bible, since that which they wrote in the Bible is not contradicted by what they taught the Church before they wrote the New Testament?
Do you make the sign of the cross? If you do not then why not? We also know that this practice also goes back to the Apostles. How can you be following the Bible if you do not do what the authors of the New Testament teach?
You see we need to ask questions about detail. The Church of God International believes many things which the Church has always rejected as error. How then is it Biblical if it misuses the Bible to support error? And it is error because the Apostolic Church has always rejected it and the Apostolic Church follows the teachings of the Apostles both in the Scriptures and in the Apostolic traditions. Indeed St Paul says...
2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
Yet you seem to be trying to suggest that the unwritten traditions are to be rejected? How is it obedience to the Scriptures if the Scriptures are ignored.
We know that St Ignatius of Antioch knew the Apostles, and he provides us with the Apostolic order of the Church, with bishops, priests and deacons. Should he have ignored what he heard the Apostles teaching, and told them 'I will only obey what you write in a letter to one of the Churches'? Likewise we know that St Polycarp knew St John before he died. And we know that St Ireneaus was a disciple of St Polycarp and he tells us that he passed on what he had learned from the Apostle and Evangelist. In this early period the Church understood that the bishops in each place, tracing their succession to the Apostles, were the guarantors of the truth, and that it was those who suddenly appeared from nowhere who were the ones who lacked authority.
If we want to know how the Bible should be understood we turn to men like these who knew the Apostles, and those who were their disciples. What their writings teach us is essentially and substantially the same as that of our Apsotolic Church today, modified only by the fact that generations of saintly and God-bearing teachers have reflected on these truths and explained them in more detail or to meet particular circumstances.
With great respect for the faithful members of the Church of God International, it was created in the last century and has no connection with the Apostolic and Orthodox Church. The very earliest leaders of the Church taught us that we could recognise the true Church by the succession of Apostolic bishops. Where does the CGI fit into this Apostolic model? Nor is there one protestant Church of God but even in the last 70 years it has split into a variety of groups, all claiming to believe the Bible, but holding contradictory and different teachings. It is clear that the CGI does not teach the Bible, otherwise it would believe the same as the Apostolic and Orthodox Churches have always believed, rather it itself believes the 'traditions of men', and other CGI type churches believe the 'traditions of other men'.
Withn our Apostolic and Orthodox Church there is a unity of faith both horizontally and vertically. I could walk into any Orthodox Church over the last millenia and would believe as they believed. Indeed we read and study the writings of Fathers of the Church from 2000 years ago as if they were still here, and we believe that they do live in Christ. But I could also walk into an Orthodox Church in India, separated by distance and history from my own Coptic Orthodox Church and also feel entirely at home, or a Syrian Orthodox Church, or an Armenian, or any other of the Apostolic Orthodox Churches. After centuries of separation due to distance, the oppression of invaders and the difficulties of language, nevertheless we still believe the same things as each other, and the same things as the early fathers learned from the Apostles.
Yet your own group has already split from the Worldwide Church of God, and the founder of the WCoG taught both that we should 'blow the dust off, and believe your Bible' and also that this methodology taught him that the Holy Spirit was not a divine person. Ot also taught him that Britain and the US were the lost tribes of Israel. In the 19070's this group split into smaller groups - the Church of God (O'Beirn), Top of the Line ministry; the Restoration Church of God; the Church of God (Boise City); the Church of God (Sabbatarian); the Fountain of Life Fellowship. All of these groups, and many others over the years were just 'believing the Bible' but without being rooted in the life and scriptural tradition of the Apostolic Orthodox Church they ended up really just following the 'traditions of men'.
Do we really believe what is in the Bible? Certainly. Although of course we must all put into practice what we learn and are taught. But does the CoGI believe what is in the Bible? I can't say that I think you do, otherwise you would not be separated from the Church of Christ which is built on the foundation of the Apostles and has never failed through centuries of persecution. if you do not even believe the same as other groups in the CoG family of groups then how could we believe that you had anything to add to that which we have already learned from the Apostles and from those who were their disciples.
[quote author=Thackeray61 link=topic=9549.msg117765#msg117765 date=1281440485] ok..how can you say that the bible is not complete? you said that "Not everything is in the Bible'' is that what your church believe that the bible is incomplete? kindly clarify
What do you understand by the words of Saint Paul when he says:
"Hold to the traditions you were taught by us, whether by word of mouth, or letter" [2 Thess. 2:15]"
What do you understand by the term "Word of Mouth" here? And what do you understand by the term "or letter"?
For me, unless the Bible is interpreted correctly, it is incomplete. You end up gaining partial truth, not complete truth.
So, the question is: how can it be interpreted correctly? What is the best way to interpret it? How do I know what I am following is correct??
Why, this is quite remarkable Thackery.. even Saint Paul who SAW Christ, had the descency, had the wisdom, had the intelligence to GO BACK TO THE APOSTLES and tell them :"Look, this is the Gospel that I have received.. is this right with you? Are you in accordance with what I have witnessed?"
The apostles confirmed to Paul that the news he had received was in fact correct. Paul didnt go off and start a cult. He went back to the apostles to re-confirm what he had witnessed. Likewise, by following Saint paul's example, we refer to the Apostles, to our apostolic heritage for guidance.
Our faith IS based on the Bible ; but as I said, without correct interpretation, without the correct knowledge or wisdom given by THE WORD OF MOUTH, then I believe (ME PERSONALLY) that your faith is incomplete - NOT the Bible.
Get it??
But I will let fr. Peter from now on answer. He is a priest and his position is official. I just gave my personal view.
[quote author=Thackeray61 link=topic=9549.msg117765#msg117765 date=1281440485] ok..how can you say that the bible is not complete? you said that "Not everything is in the Bible'' is that what your church believe that the bible is incomplete? kindly clarify
Of course the Bible is incomplete. It was never intended by God that it should be the complete and last word. It has its own authority, but there are a great many things it does not teach us and was not meant to teach us. It is the Holy Spirit who guides and teaches the Church. This is a Biblical teaching. The Apostolic and Orthodox Churches believe that teh Holy Spirit is active in the Church to lead us into all truth, and to grant us life and health and healing. It is the Holy Spirit who produces order in the Church, and who, from the earliest times, called out bishops, priests and deacons.
The protestant Churches miss this aspect of the Church because they think and teach that any pastor can open the Bible and decide for himself what it means, irrespective of what the Holy Spirit has already taught in the Church. How can a person be led into truth apart from the Church in which the Holy Spirit has never ceased to work and lead the members into truth?
It would be like George W. Bush reading the Communist Manifesto and insisting that he didn't need to have anything to do with the Communist Party, he could work out what being a communist meant all by himself, and even worse then developing a political party that was essentially republican but called itself the republican communist party and insisted that it was the true heir of Marx.
Or it would be like someone writing a biography of Churchill but refusing to speak to anyone who actually knew him, and basing the biography only on his own opinions gained from reading some books of Churchill and some letters he had written. And when the family members insisted that he was not as described the biographer insists that he has the true understanding of the man from reading some books, while those who knew him have corrupted their memories and are much less trustworthy than he.
This time you are wrong the bible is complete as it is written in the book of Isaiah 34:16-17 "Look in the scroll of the Lord and read:None of these will be missing, not one will lack her mate. For it is his mouth that has given the order, and his Spirit will gather them together. He allots their portions; his hand distributes them by measure. They will possess it forever and dwell there from generation to generation"
Romans 15:4 "For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope."
Lol. This is what I mean. You take words out of context and apply them to whatever you want. Where does the Bible teach us about making the sign of the cross, or how to make the prophora, or what prayers to pray over the eucharistic elements etc etc.
You are twisting one idea - has God completed the Scripture - with he meaning - is everything about the christian life only and entirely found in the bible.
You are ignoring the word of scripture - keep the tradition.
You cannot explain what the bible teaches because you are not found within the life of the Church in which the Holy Spirit produced the Bible.
What were the Christians doing before the New Testament was written? Were they just sitting there waiting for Revelation to be written so the Bible would be 'complete' or did they not even think in such terms - how could they. They lived the life of the Holy Spirit, taught by the Holy Spirit, the Apostles and then their appointed bishops, just as Orthodox have always done. The Bible is part of the life of the Church, the Church exists even before a single book of the New Testament is written.
comprehensive. thanks, father peter. btw, i also used to be a protestant, then i studied church history (from protestant, catholic, orthodox and non-Christian sources, so i could get a wide variety of viewpoints) and it was when i arrived in the orthodox church that it all made sense. it's true that sometimes, especially in the past, some orthodox churches have operated a bit like social clubs, with the lay people leaving all the learning up to the priests, but the orthodox churches always had a vast repository of good teaching, let down the ages by the church's early teachers.
the good things i learnt in my youth (that there is only one God, He exists as a Trinity, He has always planned to save us through the death and resurrection of the Son of God, and that, through Him, we can have peace with God and eternal life) have not only be confirmed in the orthodox church, but they are much easier for me to understand now. for example, i was taught that salvation is a one-off process that happens when you say a specific prayer. this is not found in the Bible and is wrong! i actually spent many hours in my youth trying to find 'the Jesus prayer' in the Bible! salvation is a process that takes your whole life, and it's important for us to keep on believing in God and following Him, doing it once in a meeting and then turning away is not enough.
so keep studying and keep learning and may God show you the way.
First, I want to apologize for coming in directly to this thread as I am neither Orthodox nor CoG. I found this thread via Twingly Screensaver. But I have contemplated tradition vs. scripture in relation to the Roman Catholic Church and I have read this thread thoroughly.
Now, my personal belief is that the scriptures were originally intended to be direct communication breathed by God and that one can go to this Word of God to find the Father and receive the Holy Spirit. Of course, I haven't found a satisfactory explanation of how the Holy Spirit is a person as opposed to a demeanor, attitude, etc. which is also a valid translation, but this is just background information so you can understand the perspective in which I ask my question and I'm really not trying to change the subject.
This is the question that essentially drove me to make the questions that drove me from the Roman Catholic Church, and I wonder if your church (is that Coptic Orthodox?) has a better answer. Considering that the Apostles wrote (according to at least one interpretation) that wolves with bad doctrine, traditions and philosophy were trying to take over the Church (in their own day) and that they would be successful, how can one verify (especially from the perspective of an outsider considering a new church, though that wasn't in my conversation with the RCC as I was already a member) that the doctrine, traditions and philosophy of your church or parts therein are not false?
I'll give you an example, the RCC blatantly disobeys God's commandment of resting on the seventh day (though admitting they know when the seventh day is), in favor of resting on the first day of the week (or eighth of seven). Their reasoning is that their history shows that the early Christians did this, thus it is a tradition. The problem is that there is no way to verify that their history is, in fact, accurate without beforehand trusting that the Church's tradition is accurate, nor even if it is (in that it is correctly ascribed as tradition), that those who are earliest in practicing such tradition were themselves correct. To that end, the scripture, according to them must be interpreted "through the Church" (which for the RCC really means "by the clergy" from my experience), whereby even in scripture, "The Lord's Day" is now Sunday, thus, making scripture itself subjective to the tradition and unable to provide correction to it. (And no, I'm not SDA; I'm just a man lost at sea clinging to the buoy that is God's Word, seeking truth and hoping for eternal life.)
Just to clarify, my question without all the leading up to and parenthesis is: how can one verify that the doctrine, traditions and philosophy of your church or parts therein are not false?
I believe that is on the topic, "Biblical or Traditional" and I guess this question really could be posed to any of the viewpoints on the thread, Coptic Orthodox, CoGI, etc, but I think I'm kinda thinking it really seems more aimed at Peter Farrington. And please note that my intent was not to focus on the sabbath, but that was an example on the impossibility of testing for validity I personally experienced in the RCC.
It would seem that you are a Seventh Day Adventist of some sort, can you identify which group you do belong to.
If you do not believe for sure that the Holy Spirit is a divine Person, and think that the spirit could be an attitude then I have to say that you are far from what has always been considered Apostolic and Orthodox Christianity, and I am not sure on what basis we can have a discussion. These questions have all been answered by the Church. We have always worshipped on Sunday, though many have also kept the Sabbath holy, and we still do not fast on that day, except in Holy Week.
You are doing what our previous friend wants to do. Reading the Bible according to your own interpretation. When the Church met on the first day of the week it was by no written instruction. None of the New Testament had been written. Therefore when you dismiss the position held by the RCC and the Orthodox because it does not match your particular interpretation of the Bible we can reasonably ask why your interpretation should be more authoritative than that of the whole Church through all ages.
You speak of wolves, but no-where are we taught that the Church would be lost. This is the very opposite of what is taught in the Bible. You may read that into the Bible, but again, on what authority do you read the Bible and decide for yourself what it means?
You have not understood that the Bible is part of the Tradition and not separate to it. And it is the Holy Spirit which guides the Church, not men choosing an interpretation from the Bible.
How do we know that what we are taught is true? It is, in one regard at least, because it is what has always been taught from the Apostolic times and in all places. The witness is clear that there was a universality of belief in all of these things from the beginning, and long before there was a New Testament. If you reject the early Church has having fallen into error, how can you then rest on the Bible which the early Church produced and canonised?
You speak of your personal belief, but the Christian faith is not a matter of personal belief, it is a matter of believing what the Church teaches under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. If you do not believe that, and if you believe that the Holy Spirit is an influence and not a Divine Person then you have already been led astray. This is not a valid translation and your personal belief is wrong - and I say all that without pleasure. To become a Christian is to believe what the Church teaches, and has always taught, and to receive what the Church preserves and has always preserved. You may not believe that, but this separates you from the Church, as far as we are concerned.
I am not personally judging your opinions by the measure of my own opinions, but if we wish to be Christians, if we wish to be Apostolic and Orthodox Christians, then all of our opinions are judged by the teaching of the Church. This does not mean the teaching of the clergy since all clergy are judged by the same universal, historic and Apostolic teaching.
We are unable to discuss one opinion against another, that is not how Orthodoxy works. We have already received the true light, and found the true faith, and worship the Holy Trinity with a true worship. Anything else is something less.
PS I was an Evangelical. I have also been searching and I have found entire fulfillment within the Orthodox Church, the true Church which Christ established.
Comments
What do you mean by a Biblical way and a Traditional way?
Father Peter
I don't understand what you mean I am afraid.
What do you mean by a Biblical way and a Traditional way?
Father Peter
What I mean is that should we really follow the traditional way of serving God or we should follow what is written in the bible?
"Brothers, I have applied all this to Apollos and myself for your benefit, so that you may learn from us not to go beyond what the Scriptures say." 1 Corinthians 4:6
The Orthodox tradition has followed what's in the Bible as closely as possible. Do you know of any major contradictions between what's written in the Bible and the traditions we follow?
Yup many.
"Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men" Mark 7:7
Are you Coptic Orthodox? What is your church background.
If you are going to make general criticisms of the Orthodox Church it is fair that we know where youy are coming from.
Father Peter
This is not an appropriate place to tell people that they are wrong and you are right.
Father Peter
Father Peter
But the general question you asked is too vague. Everything we do is Biblical AND Traditional. The Bible is part of the Tradition of the Church not separate and apart from it. The Bible was written BY the Church.
Father Peter
Ok..so I'm going to ask now specifically..my question is does your church really follow what is written in the bible?
Saint Paul mentions in Titus, that we should first of all hold onto the traditions he has taught us by word of mouth and by letter.
Of course, "by letter" signifies the scriptures, and "by word of mouth" signifies the apostolic traditions that we have kept. Not everything is in the Bible, but everything we do emanates from the teachings of the apostles and the Bible.
Spiritual tradition is important.
For example - who told Joseph, the son of Jacob, that adultary was wrong when he was seduced by Potiphar's wife? It wasn't written down anywhere! No one explicitly told him that adultary was wrong in ANY of the scriptures. The 10 commandments came AFTER joseph. Not before.
So, when God appeared to moses and gave him the 10 commandments, what was the reaction of the people :"Darn! Adultary and murder are wrong?! Oh! We didnt know that!".
No.. they knew. It wasn't written before for them; but teachings were passed on.
The orthodox Church was founded by the evangelist Saint Mark. Our traditions are apostolic. Nothing we do comes as a result of novalty or a "good idea".
So, yes, our Church follows EVERYTHING that is in the Bible and everything that was taught to churches by the apostles that they preached by word of mouth.
We have the luxury of having their knowledge because our Church was founded by Saint Mark the Evangelist. Nothing is missing in the spiritual life the Orthodox Church brings to her followers.
Nothing has been added, nothing has been taken away, since the time of the Apostles.
Which part of the Bible do we not follow??
[Moderator: Please do not create additional accounts]
I would imagine every Christian group believes it is following what is written in the Bible. Clearly only the Orthodox Church is really following what is written in the Bible because it is also following the instructions of those who wrote the Bible and those who knew the Apostles themselves. To open the Bible and decide for yourself what it means is not Christian at all. It belongs to the Church and is only understood properly IN the Church.
If you have something you want to say then be specific and ask about something specific otherwise it seems to be fairly clear that you are not here to learn about our Orthodox faith.
Let me ask you. Do you fast on every Wednesday and Friday? If you do not, why not? It is one of the earliest instructions we have from the Apostles. If you believe that you do what is in the Bible wy do you not to what those who established the Church that wrote the Bible taught us to do? Before the New Testament was written Christians were taught to fast every Wednesday and Friday by the Apostles. Do you follow this practice? If you do not then you have separated yourself from the Apostles, and clearly cannot be following the Bible, since that which they wrote in the Bible is not contradicted by what they taught the Church before they wrote the New Testament?
Do you make the sign of the cross? If you do not then why not? We also know that this practice also goes back to the Apostles. How can you be following the Bible if you do not do what the authors of the New Testament teach?
You see we need to ask questions about detail. The Church of God International believes many things which the Church has always rejected as error. How then is it Biblical if it misuses the Bible to support error? And it is error because the Apostolic Church has always rejected it and the Apostolic Church follows the teachings of the Apostles both in the Scriptures and in the Apostolic traditions. Indeed St Paul says...
2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
Yet you seem to be trying to suggest that the unwritten traditions are to be rejected? How is it obedience to the Scriptures if the Scriptures are ignored.
We know that St Ignatius of Antioch knew the Apostles, and he provides us with the Apostolic order of the Church, with bishops, priests and deacons. Should he have ignored what he heard the Apostles teaching, and told them 'I will only obey what you write in a letter to one of the Churches'? Likewise we know that St Polycarp knew St John before he died. And we know that St Ireneaus was a disciple of St Polycarp and he tells us that he passed on what he had learned from the Apostle and Evangelist. In this early period the Church understood that the bishops in each place, tracing their succession to the Apostles, were the guarantors of the truth, and that it was those who suddenly appeared from nowhere who were the ones who lacked authority.
If we want to know how the Bible should be understood we turn to men like these who knew the Apostles, and those who were their disciples. What their writings teach us is essentially and substantially the same as that of our Apsotolic Church today, modified only by the fact that generations of saintly and God-bearing teachers have reflected on these truths and explained them in more detail or to meet particular circumstances.
With great respect for the faithful members of the Church of God International, it was created in the last century and has no connection with the Apostolic and Orthodox Church. The very earliest leaders of the Church taught us that we could recognise the true Church by the succession of Apostolic bishops. Where does the CGI fit into this Apostolic model? Nor is there one protestant Church of God but even in the last 70 years it has split into a variety of groups, all claiming to believe the Bible, but holding contradictory and different teachings. It is clear that the CGI does not teach the Bible, otherwise it would believe the same as the Apostolic and Orthodox Churches have always believed, rather it itself believes the 'traditions of men', and other CGI type churches believe the 'traditions of other men'.
Withn our Apostolic and Orthodox Church there is a unity of faith both horizontally and vertically. I could walk into any Orthodox Church over the last millenia and would believe as they believed. Indeed we read and study the writings of Fathers of the Church from 2000 years ago as if they were still here, and we believe that they do live in Christ. But I could also walk into an Orthodox Church in India, separated by distance and history from my own Coptic Orthodox Church and also feel entirely at home, or a Syrian Orthodox Church, or an Armenian, or any other of the Apostolic Orthodox Churches. After centuries of separation due to distance, the oppression of invaders and the difficulties of language, nevertheless we still believe the same things as each other, and the same things as the early fathers learned from the Apostles.
Yet your own group has already split from the Worldwide Church of God, and the founder of the WCoG taught both that we should 'blow the dust off, and believe your Bible' and also that this methodology taught him that the Holy Spirit was not a divine person. Ot also taught him that Britain and the US were the lost tribes of Israel. In the 19070's this group split into smaller groups - the Church of God (O'Beirn), Top of the Line ministry; the Restoration Church of God; the Church of God (Boise City); the Church of God (Sabbatarian); the Fountain of Life Fellowship. All of these groups, and many others over the years were just 'believing the Bible' but without being rooted in the life and scriptural tradition of the Apostolic Orthodox Church they ended up really just following the 'traditions of men'.
Do we really believe what is in the Bible? Certainly. Although of course we must all put into practice what we learn and are taught. But does the CoGI believe what is in the Bible? I can't say that I think you do, otherwise you would not be separated from the Church of Christ which is built on the foundation of the Apostles and has never failed through centuries of persecution. if you do not even believe the same as other groups in the CoG family of groups then how could we believe that you had anything to add to that which we have already learned from the Apostles and from those who were their disciples.
Father Peter
ok..how can you say that the bible is not complete? you said that "Not everything is in the Bible'' is that what your church believe that the bible is incomplete? kindly clarify
What do you understand by the words of Saint Paul when he says:
"Hold to the traditions you were taught by us, whether by word of mouth, or letter" [2 Thess. 2:15]"
What do you understand by the term "Word of Mouth" here? And what do you understand by the term "or letter"?
For me, unless the Bible is interpreted correctly, it is incomplete. You end up gaining partial truth, not complete truth.
So, the question is: how can it be interpreted correctly? What is the best way to interpret it? How do I know what I am following is correct??
Why, this is quite remarkable Thackery.. even Saint Paul who SAW Christ, had the descency, had the wisdom, had the intelligence to GO BACK TO THE APOSTLES and tell them :"Look, this is the Gospel that I have received.. is this right with you? Are you in accordance with what I have witnessed?"
The apostles confirmed to Paul that the news he had received was in fact correct. Paul didnt go off and start a cult. He went back to the apostles to re-confirm what he had witnessed. Likewise, by following Saint paul's example, we refer to the Apostles, to our apostolic heritage for guidance.
Our faith IS based on the Bible ; but as I said, without correct interpretation, without the correct knowledge or wisdom given by THE WORD OF MOUTH, then I believe (ME PERSONALLY) that your faith is incomplete - NOT the Bible.
Get it??
But I will let fr. Peter from now on answer. He is a priest and his position is official. I just gave my personal view.
ok..how can you say that the bible is not complete? you said that "Not everything is in the Bible'' is that what your church believe that the bible is incomplete? kindly clarify
Of course the Bible is incomplete. It was never intended by God that it should be the complete and last word. It has its own authority, but there are a great many things it does not teach us and was not meant to teach us. It is the Holy Spirit who guides and teaches the Church. This is a Biblical teaching. The Apostolic and Orthodox Churches believe that teh Holy Spirit is active in the Church to lead us into all truth, and to grant us life and health and healing. It is the Holy Spirit who produces order in the Church, and who, from the earliest times, called out bishops, priests and deacons.
The protestant Churches miss this aspect of the Church because they think and teach that any pastor can open the Bible and decide for himself what it means, irrespective of what the Holy Spirit has already taught in the Church. How can a person be led into truth apart from the Church in which the Holy Spirit has never ceased to work and lead the members into truth?
It would be like George W. Bush reading the Communist Manifesto and insisting that he didn't need to have anything to do with the Communist Party, he could work out what being a communist meant all by himself, and even worse then developing a political party that was essentially republican but called itself the republican communist party and insisted that it was the true heir of Marx.
Or it would be like someone writing a biography of Churchill but refusing to speak to anyone who actually knew him, and basing the biography only on his own opinions gained from reading some books of Churchill and some letters he had written. And when the family members insisted that he was not as described the biographer insists that he has the true understanding of the man from reading some books, while those who knew him have corrupted their memories and are much less trustworthy than he.
Father Peter
Romans 15:4 "For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope."
Are you saying that this is not true?
You are twisting one idea - has God completed the Scripture - with he meaning - is everything about the christian life only and entirely found in the bible.
You are ignoring the word of scripture - keep the tradition.
You cannot explain what the bible teaches because you are not found within the life of the Church in which the Holy Spirit produced the Bible.
What were the Christians doing before the New Testament was written? Were they just sitting there waiting for Revelation to be written so the Bible would be 'complete' or did they not even think in such terms - how could they. They lived the life of the Holy Spirit, taught by the Holy Spirit, the Apostles and then their appointed bishops, just as Orthodox have always done. The Bible is part of the life of the Church, the Church exists even before a single book of the New Testament is written.
Father Peter
thanks, father peter.
btw, i also used to be a protestant, then i studied church history (from protestant, catholic, orthodox and non-Christian sources, so i could get a wide variety of viewpoints) and it was when i arrived in the orthodox church that it all made sense.
it's true that sometimes, especially in the past, some orthodox churches have operated a bit like social clubs, with the lay people leaving all the learning up to the priests, but the orthodox churches always had a vast repository of good teaching, let down the ages by the church's early teachers.
the good things i learnt in my youth (that there is only one God, He exists as a Trinity, He has always planned to save us through the death and resurrection of the Son of God, and that, through Him, we can have peace with God and eternal life) have not only be confirmed in the orthodox church, but they are much easier for me to understand now.
for example, i was taught that salvation is a one-off process that happens when you say a specific prayer. this is not found in the Bible and is wrong! i actually spent many hours in my youth trying to find 'the Jesus prayer' in the Bible!
salvation is a process that takes your whole life, and it's important for us to keep on believing in God and following Him, doing it once in a meeting and then turning away is not enough.
so keep studying and keep learning and may God show you the way.
Now, my personal belief is that the scriptures were originally intended to be direct communication breathed by God and that one can go to this Word of God to find the Father and receive the Holy Spirit. Of course, I haven't found a satisfactory explanation of how the Holy Spirit is a person as opposed to a demeanor, attitude, etc. which is also a valid translation, but this is just background information so you can understand the perspective in which I ask my question and I'm really not trying to change the subject.
This is the question that essentially drove me to make the questions that drove me from the Roman Catholic Church, and I wonder if your church (is that Coptic Orthodox?) has a better answer. Considering that the Apostles wrote (according to at least one interpretation) that wolves with bad doctrine, traditions and philosophy were trying to take over the Church (in their own day) and that they would be successful, how can one verify (especially from the perspective of an outsider considering a new church, though that wasn't in my conversation with the RCC as I was already a member) that the doctrine, traditions and philosophy of your church or parts therein are not false?
I'll give you an example, the RCC blatantly disobeys God's commandment of resting on the seventh day (though admitting they know when the seventh day is), in favor of resting on the first day of the week (or eighth of seven). Their reasoning is that their history shows that the early Christians did this, thus it is a tradition. The problem is that there is no way to verify that their history is, in fact, accurate without beforehand trusting that the Church's tradition is accurate, nor even if it is (in that it is correctly ascribed as tradition), that those who are earliest in practicing such tradition were themselves correct. To that end, the scripture, according to them must be interpreted "through the Church" (which for the RCC really means "by the clergy" from my experience), whereby even in scripture, "The Lord's Day" is now Sunday, thus, making scripture itself subjective to the tradition and unable to provide correction to it. (And no, I'm not SDA; I'm just a man lost at sea clinging to the buoy that is God's Word, seeking truth and hoping for eternal life.)
Just to clarify, my question without all the leading up to and parenthesis is: how can one verify that the doctrine, traditions and philosophy of your church or parts therein are not false?
I believe that is on the topic, "Biblical or Traditional" and I guess this question really could be posed to any of the viewpoints on the thread, Coptic Orthodox, CoGI, etc, but I think I'm kinda thinking it really seems more aimed at Peter Farrington. And please note that my intent was not to focus on the sabbath, but that was an example on the impossibility of testing for validity I personally experienced in the RCC.
If you do not believe for sure that the Holy Spirit is a divine Person, and think that the spirit could be an attitude then I have to say that you are far from what has always been considered Apostolic and Orthodox Christianity, and I am not sure on what basis we can have a discussion. These questions have all been answered by the Church. We have always worshipped on Sunday, though many have also kept the Sabbath holy, and we still do not fast on that day, except in Holy Week.
You are doing what our previous friend wants to do. Reading the Bible according to your own interpretation. When the Church met on the first day of the week it was by no written instruction. None of the New Testament had been written. Therefore when you dismiss the position held by the RCC and the Orthodox because it does not match your particular interpretation of the Bible we can reasonably ask why your interpretation should be more authoritative than that of the whole Church through all ages.
You speak of wolves, but no-where are we taught that the Church would be lost. This is the very opposite of what is taught in the Bible. You may read that into the Bible, but again, on what authority do you read the Bible and decide for yourself what it means?
You have not understood that the Bible is part of the Tradition and not separate to it. And it is the Holy Spirit which guides the Church, not men choosing an interpretation from the Bible.
How do we know that what we are taught is true? It is, in one regard at least, because it is what has always been taught from the Apostolic times and in all places. The witness is clear that there was a universality of belief in all of these things from the beginning, and long before there was a New Testament. If you reject the early Church has having fallen into error, how can you then rest on the Bible which the early Church produced and canonised?
You speak of your personal belief, but the Christian faith is not a matter of personal belief, it is a matter of believing what the Church teaches under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. If you do not believe that, and if you believe that the Holy Spirit is an influence and not a Divine Person then you have already been led astray. This is not a valid translation and your personal belief is wrong - and I say all that without pleasure. To become a Christian is to believe what the Church teaches, and has always taught, and to receive what the Church preserves and has always preserved. You may not believe that, but this separates you from the Church, as far as we are concerned.
I am not personally judging your opinions by the measure of my own opinions, but if we wish to be Christians, if we wish to be Apostolic and Orthodox Christians, then all of our opinions are judged by the teaching of the Church. This does not mean the teaching of the clergy since all clergy are judged by the same universal, historic and Apostolic teaching.
We are unable to discuss one opinion against another, that is not how Orthodoxy works. We have already received the true light, and found the true faith, and worship the Holy Trinity with a true worship. Anything else is something less.
PS I was an Evangelical. I have also been searching and I have found entire fulfillment within the Orthodox Church, the true Church which Christ established.
Father Peter