/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>710933

>only being good

Because you're never "good" enough. And you don't know what's good by your alone.

>And why that Church should be the Apostolic churches?

Because it's only church.

>>710933

All your good deeds are as dirty rags, my friend.

>>710950

Please send us a citation of this, and the context that comes along with it, and make sure the message still says "all good works are like dirty rags" even after taking the context into account.

>>710952

>Please send us a citation of this

Isaiah 64:6

>>710952

You need a citation for that? Oof … well >>710956 beat me to it.

But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

Leaving aside the hell question, do you really think you or anyone has ever done enough to deserve eternal paradise? Not a few good years, not a thousand years, not a million years, but eternity - in heaven?

>>710966

I don't deserve even a glimpse of Paradise. Nothing about me deserves the remotest, blackest corner of Paradise.

Because we are saved by being united to Christ and putting on Him, and that is only possible with the grace of the Church, conveyed primarily by the sacraments. And only churches with apostolic succession have sacraments.

>>710956

>>710959

I included more text after that exactly because I knew you would cite Isaiah 64:6, you miss this?

Anyways, the rest of Isaiah 64 is talking about how Jews were making earthen idols.

In the verse right below, it says "No one calls on your name" which is silly if interpreted like you interpret it right now because, well, let someone else do the talking for me: https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Calling-Upon-God

>>710976

Yes, we have sins, which is why our righteousness is filtht rags, because it's soiled by our sins, which we all have, making it worthless.

>>710983

I know my reply was a bit confused so maybe this is my fault, but I do not see how to apply your argument here. Your reply is based on this interpretation of Isaiah 64:6 being right, which we are contesting right now.

Slightly off-topic, but what is the Orthodox argument against Protestantism (excluding abuses of interpretation stemming from sola scriptura, because it is possible for one to be a Protestant and base faith on patristics and the councils)?

I was persuaded away from Catholicism by Orthodox arguments about essence-energies distinction, papal authority, and biblical interpretation, but now I'm left wondering why I should even need to be Orthodox. As far as I can tell, apostolic succession is the only reason. But even then, one wonders what necessity it serves.

There are saints (hermits) who only ever received the eucharist once, so real presence (while I believe in it) doesn't seem to be a great requirement to Orthodox. Confession is done before Christ and witnessed by the priest, so I'm not sure how you couldn't confess to Christ in something like the Lutheran/Anglican general confession and have it witnessed and absolved by a priest.

Am I missing something big here? Because the most insistent Orthodox apologists for the necessity of Orthodox dogmas seem to argue like crypto-Catholics and sit at odds with long-standing traditions of their own church in a way. Like replacing traditional soteriological ethics with a Catholic-like deontological ethic.

Please be gentle, I am genuinely just trying to make sense of it.

>>711012

The claim of apostolic succession is of great importance. It's the claim that we are the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church established by Jesus Christ. The claim of apostolic succession leads to the claim that the church is perfect and is the best way to worship Jesus Christ. While Orthodox aren't as explicit as Catholics and claim that a person cannot find salvation outside of the church, we would 100% claim to be the best path to salvation. However, to be fully Orthodox means participating in the church, which means church on sundays, and feast days, and prayer, and fasting, and participation in the holy mysteries.

>There are saints (hermits) who only ever received the eucharist once, so real presence (while I believe in it) doesn't seem to be a great requirement to Orthodox.

>[The Eucharist] doesn't seem to be a great requirement to Orthodox.

Wew. Forget about some hermits you read about. You aren't them. Think about this instead: The Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ. Christ himself is coming down to earth to make contact with his people physically. Forget if it's a "requirement" to be Orthodox, why would you not want to partake?

>>710933

>Why is only being good not enough to be saved?

because it's necessary to be humble and understand your relationship to God.

the nice thing is you only need a tiny modicum of faith, even a smidge is enough, the main thing is actually being 'good' and pursuing virtue and avoiding vice. That's what Christ wants and demanded. That's what separates the sheep from the goats, that's what keeps the vines on the tree, and how he will say "I knew you" on judgement day, and why he will say "I never knew you" to those who simply have a lot of faith but lack fruit.

>>711012

>Like replacing traditional soteriological ethics with a Catholic-like deontological ethic

Just what are you talking about?

>>711032

Ethics that take into account man's ultimate goal of union with Christ (so that all Christ said–himself or through others–in the bible is interpreted through Christ and with a view toward salvation) as opposed to ethics where everything that Christ literally said is a formal rule that is followed in 100 percent of the cases, regardless of what the literal meaning (not taking into account the man who said it) could mean for the eternal soul of another.

>>711002

>Your reply is based on this interpretation of Isaiah 64:6 being right

It's what the text says, dude.

>>711134

>Verse 64:6 is to be interpreted as a text for everyone, ever

>The rest of Isaiah 64 is to be interpreted as a warning solely to the jews at the time

0/10 theology, see me after class.

Jesus didn't write the Bible, he founded the Church.

>>711264

He did both, both by virtue and inspiration of Himself and the Holy Spirit.

>>711195

You're not making any sense, kid. You even got a point?

>>710970

Geez would it kill you to have some 'spirit'?

>>711002

>Which we are contesting now.

Lol. The absolute state of sola scriptura.

Christ came because we couldn't work our way into heaven by following the Law. We are justified by Christ's mercy. He founded the Church. So there's your answer

>it is possible for one to be a Protestant and base faith on patristics and the councils

I do not think so. Only if you go with "I'll take what I like and throw out what I dislike" as many prots do. If you consider them to be of an authority, you will eventually admit that: Asking Theotokos to pray for you is not idolatry, that there is one true Church, that you may ask saints for a prayer, and many other things that Protestants believe to be a "heresy"

Your confusion perhaps stems from the fact that some Orthos tend to sweet talk prots in order to find an ally against catholics. Seriously, if you start claiming Protestantism is more close to Orthodoxy than catholicism because muh papacy then you should reconsider what orthodoxy is for you. I am not claiming Orthodoxy and Catholicism are the same but to claim Orthodoxy and Prostestantism are close is ludicrous. Only if you think in terms "papacy" which is kind of lame approach to faith…what about the things in common with caths, what about the differences I named here you have with prots?

That being said. I am a catholic. I do not mind orthos arguing for their church, not at all. But this sweet talk for prots is pathetic.

If you doubt why you should even become orthodox then you are not ready to become one. Orthodoxy teaches Orthodox church is the true one, others are not legit.

If you doubt why you should even become catholic then you are not ready to become one. RCC teaches RCC is the true one, others are not legit.

If you doubt why you should even become some denomminaton, you're protestantized. The same goes for Catholics or Orthos that think it does not matter which church you belong to.

>Orthodox apologists for the necessity of Orthodox dogmas seem to argue like crypto-Catholics and sit at odds with long-standing traditions of their own church in a way.

This is the reason why I think your stance is primarily built upon some orthos just reinforcing your opposition to RCC. You should reconsider your position. It makes no sense to argue "from orthodox perspective" against RCC if your stance is protestant/protestantized

>>718649

an answer to, forgot to get there the mention when I wrote it.

>>711012

>Why is only being good not enough to be saved?

Atheists ask this same question. What do you think exactly is good?

>>710933

Why, why why why why

Do you really expect a human to give you an answer? How are we supposed to know? Do we know God's reasons? Does God have an obligation to justify His decision to us? I profoundly hate the 'whyyyyyy' questions, as if anyone can give you an answer.

The Apostles were clear, follow traditions taught by them. All Apostolic Churches have pretty much the same teaching, go figure, what a coincidence. If you're one of those prots that says 'muh man made traditions, Luther in the 16th century gave us the real traditions' then you go be that. The Apostles taught 1 tradition, not 40 000 traditions, which means that a lot of people are wrong and that their salvation is in danger.

>>710933

>Why is only being good not enough to be saved?

Imagine putting your hand on something warm, you can actually place your hand on it and feel it, now imagine that that object had gone as hot as the surface of the sun, not only would you no longer be able to hold on to it but you would also probably not be able to stand anywhere it.

It's the same with God, God is so good that we humans in our goodness can never go near God in his goodness.

Another image that I can imagine is that a Girl you love that is too good for you, you see this trope all over fiction (and I can bet in real life as well). This girl is so pure and good that you can never imagine her love for you being reciprocated, why would someone so pure and good even think of someone like you (even if you aren't that bad, as many people in this trope are, they still can't imagine it happening). It's the same with us and God.

>Why do we need the Church?

The Church is like a hospital, and we are the sick. We go to it to be healed, to meet with those who are also inflicted with the illness, to receive guidance on how we can better ourselves, and If you are Catholic or Orthodox, to commune with the man with the cure, Christ himself.

>And why that Church should be the Apostolic churches?

Because it provides a link to the very people who walked with the Lord, ate with him, drank with him, and even died for him. The faith was spread by these men, these were the originals

>>711134

I'm sorry I need a higher authority to interpret this for me because it's not clear enough please call a priest

>>718692

>Imagine putting your hand on something warm, you can actually place your hand on it and feel it, now imagine that that object had gone as hot as the surface of the sun, not only would you no longer be able to hold on to it but you would also probably not be able to stand anywhere it.

I like how you put it. God, OP, is *infinitely* good, and this is meant literally. We can't imagine what this really means, but take it on faith and do what God demands of us.

If you're interested, you can get a better sense for this by studying the difference between universals (ideas) and particulars. The form of a triangle, for example, is perfect, unchanging, and immaterial but any particular triangle on the other hand is imperfect, given to change, and very much physical. Your and any human's "goodness" is like the particular triangle, while God's is like the universal of one.