← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · wild_bill
Thread ID: 12763 | Posts: 17 | Started: 2004-03-17
2004-03-17 02:52 | User Profile
Finding Common Ground between Orthodox and Protestants [url]http://www.orthodox.net/faq/protobje.htm[/url]
2004-03-17 03:19 | User Profile
To me, the most important common ground between the Orthodox and Protestants is the Orthodox exclusive use of the Greek Received Text for the New Testament. The Byzantine manuscripts form the basis for the New Testament portions of the Bibles that fueled the Reformation, such as the Tyndale, Geneva, Luther and King James.
I understand now why the Orthodox chose Thomas Nelson Co's New Testament portion of the NKJV for their Orthodox Study Bible....it's a revision of the KJV, which is based on manuscripts they trust. (If only you people would embrace the Masoretic Hebrew instead of the Septuagint for the OT, we'd totally be on the same sheet of music for Scripture.)
Today's MSS-based modern English Bibles (NIV, NASB, ESV, etc) are based on manuscripts closer to what Jerome based the Latin Vulgate on. In this respect, dumbed-down Western Protestantism is using Rome's Bible and is propagating Rome's doctrines. In fact, Rome officially endorses the NRSV, and since the ESV is a revision of the old RSV (sponsored by the NCC), I am willing to bet that Rome will eventually endorse the ESV w/Apocrypha added (it's already available in that form for Anglicans in the UK).
And it looks like the ESV is about to become the de facto standard among "conservative" Protestants, even though it's only an updated RSV with some more "conservative" language, -- it still has quite a bit of inclusive language.
[url=http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/esv.htm]The ESV -- Emergency Sloppy Version?[/url]
2004-03-17 05:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]Finding Common Ground between Orthodox and Protestants [url]http://www.orthodox.net/faq/protobje.htm[/url][/QUOTE]
"We cannot earn our salvation, but we can lose it. It is as if we were given a large inheritance. "
Don't usually talk such matters where they can be misunderstood, its too important for glibness. But this was a stopper. Not to argue, but reply. One works out their salvation with fear and trembling, but once saved always saved. It is once for all, you either do it or you don't (in response to the right presentation, which requires grace, to make 'faith' possible, whatever that word might mean. Cewrtainly not the same for me and Bush, since I regard him as fit for hell and have faith that GOd will send him there soon, I hope.)
2004-03-17 12:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Centinel]To me, the most important common ground between the Orthodox and Protestants is the Orthodox exclusive use of the Greek Received Text for the New Testament. The Byzantine manuscripts form the basis for the New Testament portions of the Bibles that fueled the Reformation, such as the Tyndale, Geneva, Luther and King James.
I understand now why the Orthodox chose Thomas Nelson Co's New Testament portion of the NKJV for their Orthodox Study Bible....it's a revision of the KJV, which is based on manuscripts they trust. (If only you people would embrace the Masoretic Hebrew instead of the Septuagint for the OT, we'd totally be on the same sheet of music for Scripture.)
Today's MSS-based modern English Bibles (NIV, NASB, ESV, etc) are based on manuscripts closer to what Jerome based the Latin Vulgate on. In this respect, dumbed-down Western Protestantism is using Rome's Bible and is propagating Rome's doctrines. In fact, Rome officially endorses the NRSV, and since the ESV is a revision of the old RSV (sponsored by the NCC), I am willing to bet that Rome will eventually endorse the ESV w/Apocrypha added (it's already available in that form for Anglicans in the UK). [/QUOTE]
As an ex-Orthodox, (I presume that by the website you linked to), you know that Orthodox folks don't get excited over these Bible versions as do Protestants - any Bible version that innovates or contradicts Orthodox Tradition will be ignored. In contrast, serious Protestants seem to instinctively flip their safety off every time a new Bible version comes out. This is understandable, since if your church bases everything on the Bible only, and if the Bible goes, so goes your church.
One thing that makes me wary of the Orthodox study Bible you referenced is the group who is doing the editing. Overall, they seem non-traditionalist. Many are clean-shaven and I don't think there's even one of them from the ROCOR. A previous Orthodox NT study Bible was published by some of the same people and it has been largely ignored and gotten some pretty negative reviews. The issue I think is that a study Bible is of limited use by most Orthodox Christians, since if one has an issue on theology, most people will consult with their priest and not some study Bible. If an Orthodox wants to really go into real depth on an issue or if the priest's answer isn't enough, he will go to the writings of the Church Fathers, which take up many volumes.
This is why I think its taken this long for an Orthodox study Bible to be published (lack of interest) and why Orthodox Christians aren't fanatically devoted to any particular translation of the Bible. Of course, I would estimate that most use the KJV because its the most widely available. Beyond that, I think the RSV might be next, but many people use the Bible edited and published by Holy Apostles Convent, who are arch-traditionalists and use a modified KJV, illustrated with numerous Icons, and includes many notes of the Church Fathers at the end of each book. The Convent's NT comes in two volumes each almost two inches thick. That would be a minimal study Bible, IMHO, for any Orthodox who wants more understanding - and that's just the NT. A companion OT would probably be four volumes of comparable size.
I think its safe to say that even today, there's a general feeling of regret within Orthodoxy that Luther did not become Orthodox instead of recklessly discarding all of Tradition and starting Protestantism - in effect, throwing the baby out with the bathwater. After all, the Orthodox Church 500 previous had separated itself from Rome for many of the same reasons Luther did. But unfortunately the Eastern Church had no presence in Germany in those days to which Luther might have turned. Yet I read where even John Wycliff observed that "the Greeks had preserved the true teachings of Christ." So there was some recognition even back then, of some common ground between Orthodoxy and Protestantism.
2004-03-17 12:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=TexasAnarch]"We cannot earn our salvation, but we can lose it. It is as if we were given a large inheritance. "
Don't usually talk such matters where they can be misunderstood, its too important for glibness. But this was a stopper. Not to argue, but reply. One works out their salvation with fear and trembling, but once saved always saved. It is once for all, you either do it or you don't (in response to the right presentation, which requires grace, to make 'faith' possible, whatever that word might mean. Cewrtainly not the same for me and Bush, since I regard him as fit for hell and have faith that GOd will send him there soon, I hope.)[/QUOTE]
Tex, do you think Judas Iscariot went to Heaven?
2004-03-17 14:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]Tex, do you think Judas Iscariot went to Heaven?[/QUOTE]
If a member of the "Roman Church" may hi-jack this thread for a moment ......[B]Wild Bill [/B] - you described yourself as an [B]ex[/B]-Orthodox. May I ask what you are now?
Personally, I don't accept in "[I]Once Saved, Always Saved[/I]". I'm not sure but isn't the passage "...[B]continue[/B] to work out your salvation with fear and trembling"?. Also, St Paul mentioned that lest he defect, which would suggest that it is possible to accept Christ then reject him. I know plenty of people who have done so.
As far as I'm aware, in Catholic Theology only Angelic beings are safe from defecting once they have made their decision, but this is rather due to the nature of the Angelic Spirit. For the same reason, Satan and his fallen angels are unable to repent because they made their decision in full knowledge, whereas humans live in ignorance and are subject to the weakness of the flesh which can lead them astray. For this reason, while our flesh makes us weak, it also makes it possible for us to repent and turn to God, which the angels are unable to do
2004-03-17 17:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Aquinas]If a member of the "Roman Church" may hi-jack this thread for a moment ......[B]Wild Bill [/B] - you described yourself as an [B]ex[/B]-Orthodox. May I ask what you are now?[/QUOTE]
No, I am Orthodox, not an EX-Orthodox. I was referring to the person who posted the ex-Orthodox website link. My wording maybe wasn't clear. I'm sorry for any confusion.
2004-03-17 17:41 | User Profile
I've never been Orthodox, wild_bill. I just happened to stumble across the ex-Orthodox and posted the ESV article not because the guy was ex-Orthodox, but because the article was to the point on the ESV issue.
2004-03-17 18:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Aquinas]If a member of the "Roman Church" may hi-jack this thread for a moment ......[B]Wild Bill [/B] - you described yourself as an [B]ex[/B]-Orthodox. May I ask what you are now?
Personally, I don't accept in "[I]Once Saved, Always Saved[/I]"[/QUOTE]
I agree and I think such a idea doesn't make sense. It only encourages sin, hypocrisy, and degeneration. I had one guy at work told me that since he had been "saved" as a teenager, nothing he did wrong after that made any difference. This is the attitude that often arises from the "once saved, always saved" idea. Also maybe that's why the divorce rate is about the same amongst many churchgoers as among athetists.
2004-03-18 08:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]Tex, do you think Judas Iscariot went to Heaven?[/QUOTE]
Is "heaven" what you are get if you are "saved"?
I "think" Judas was used by the brotherhood leader, the one who played de Jeezus that time, as part of the plan someone set him up to do, bring the mob to where the Man was waiting. Obviously. He and de Jeeze (the only actor who ever made sense of the role in movies, in my opinion, was The Great Labowski guy. At the bowling alley?) are no doubt sipping tea and crumping crumpets as we speak, yucking it up with Don Slimus dittohead useful neocon idiots in drag.
See, WB, its like slipping Mr. Johnson back into the old wombadaddomba boogie, then coming out again. Once you do it, you've done it, and one shouldn't really be pretending to know what they are talking about if they haven't. If you have, what anybody else does about anything else on earth, from toenail trimming to horseshoe pitching, don't mean diddly. How could it?
But this shows what happens if you set out to mention anything of ultimate importance in discourse with gentiles of the spirit. Public Gods are pubic displays, as Sigmund Freud aptly pointed out. Wag that dong. They'll wag back if they've got one.
2004-03-18 10:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=TexasAnarch]Is "heaven" what you are get if you are "saved"?
I "think" Judas was used by the brotherhood leader, the one who played de Jeezus that time, as part of the plan someone set him up to do, bring the mob to where the Man was waiting. Obviously. He and de Jeeze (the only actor who ever made sense of the role in movies, in my opinion, was The Great Labowski guy. At the bowling alley?) are no doubt sipping tea and crumping crumpets as we speak, yucking it up with Don Slimus dittohead useful neocon idiots in drag.
See, WB, its like slipping Mr. Johnson back into the old wombadaddomba boogie, then coming out again. Once you do it, you've done it, and one shouldn't really be pretending to know what they are talking about if they haven't. If you have, what anybody else does about anything else on earth, from toenail trimming to horseshoe pitching, don't mean diddly. How could it?
But this shows what happens if you set out to mention anything of ultimate importance in discourse with gentiles of the spirit. Public Gods are pubic displays, as Sigmund Freud aptly pointed out. Wag that dong. They'll wag back if they've got one.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, but I can't figure out what you're talking about.
2004-03-18 10:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]Sorry, but I can't figure out what you're talking about.[/QUOTE] Well. it was your question.
2004-03-18 10:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=TexasAnarch]Well. it was your question.[/QUOTE]
Well, I re-read your posting and if I understand the basic idea, all I can say is your position contradicts the basic doctrine of the Orthodox Church. The "once saved, always saved" idea is an innovation. Its not traditional Christianity.
2004-03-18 10:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]Well, I re-read your posting and if I understand the basic idea, all I can say is your position contradicts the basic doctrine of the Orthodox Church. The "once saved, always saved" idea is an innovation. Its not traditional Christianity.[/QUOTE]
Yes, it is traditional Protestant American Christianity, Southern Baptist West Texas Confederate White Male American Orthodoxy, sure enough. (That should have been "The Big Labowsky" -- John Goodman?)
2004-03-18 11:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=TexasAnarch]Yes, it is traditional Protestant American Christianity, Southern Baptist West Texas Confederate White Male American Orthodoxy, sure enough. (That should have been "The Big Labowsky" -- John Goodman?)[/QUOTE]
No offense, but I'll put my faith in the 2,000 year-old Tradition of the Orthodox Church over the 200 year-old Protestant American Tradition.
2004-03-18 11:31 | User Profile
You talk jive, turkey? :D j/k
[QUOTE=TexasAnarch]Is "heaven" what you are get if you are "saved"?
I "think" Judas was used by the brotherhood leader, the one who played de Jeezus that time, as part of the plan someone set him up to do, bring the mob to where the Man was waiting. Obviously. He and de Jeeze (the only actor who ever made sense of the role in movies, in my opinion, was The Great Labowski guy. At the bowling alley?) are no doubt sipping tea and crumping crumpets as we speak, yucking it up with Don Slimus dittohead useful neocon idiots in drag.
See, WB, its like slipping Mr. Johnson back into the old wombadaddomba boogie, then coming out again. Once you do it, you've done it, and one shouldn't really be pretending to know what they are talking about if they haven't. If you have, what anybody else does about anything else on earth, from toenail trimming to horseshoe pitching, don't mean diddly. How could it?
But this shows what happens if you set out to mention anything of ultimate importance in discourse with gentiles of the spirit. Public Gods are pubic displays, as Sigmund Freud aptly pointed out. Wag that dong. They'll wag back if they've got one.[/QUOTE]
2004-03-24 23:15 | User Profile
I am don't see what the Big Labowsy has to do with this discussion, but I must say that the only good thing I can say about the movie is that one of the main characters John Goodman( A Fat Man) really knew how to handle a crow bar. It was an impressive site watching John demolish that Hispanic guy's Corvette. I wish I could say that I had the skills needed to do the job equally as well . [QUOTE]That should have been "The Big Labowsky" -- John Goodman?[/QUOTE]