Hisservant
posted on Apr 16, 2008 - 07:59 PM
From Truth.Seeker:1) For the record, whenever I said "another testament" I was merely meaning a change in the requirements as we understand them. I called this a "unilateral action" by God. I did not necessarily mean another "covenant."
Having clarified that, I won't delve into a discussion of the OT and NT because I don't think it's necessary. I see your point though. Your point is that the NT is talking about stuff until the end of time, and after the end of time, there's no testaments. I understand that. But again, when I say "another testament" I put it in quotes because that's not really what I mean. The reason I say "another testament" is to point out that requirements have changed between the OT and the NT; that means that the requirements CAN change.
2) As we discuss this, only about 15 million people are Coptic Orthodox, and about 70 million people are Oriental Orthodox. That is about (70 million/2 billion) 3.5% of Christianity. According to your premise, God would have presumably "sent someone" to tell the other 1.93 billion that they are wrong.
I agree with you that He sent out prophets in the OT to remind people of what's wrong. He doesn't have to do that because we have the Church to tell us that (leads me to your next point).
3) Your priest is obviously unaware of many other Coptic priests and bishops that HAVE interprted Revelations (whether right or wrong). Since you're talking about the notion of doubting the Church, I must point out some canonical aspects:
For something to be "infallible" it must be declared thus by a Holy Synod or an Ecumenical Council. I put "infallible" in quotes because decisions of Synods have been reversed in the past. The most famous one that comes to mind is a Synod where Sts. Cyril and Theophilus had St. John Chrysostom deposed. St. Chrysostom was only put back in the Church's books AFTER his death. In effect, that Synod was wrong. (Interestingly, the Church has Chrysostom right next to Cyril and Theophilus in the Liturgy during the Commemoration of the Saints).
So, there we have it, saints having deposed other saints. Anyway, there's a distinction between "procedural mistakes" and "doctrinal mistakes," in effect, a Synod could make a procedural mistake, but not a doctrinal mistake.
Absent a Synod proclaimation, what your priest says is not infallible, and I could easily be right while he is wrong. Infact, even our pope could make a mistake. I would be uncomfortable in my position if our Holy Synod got together and said, "All non-Christians will go to hell, this is a matter of doctrine." The Holy Synod has NOT done that.
Since the Holy Synod has not done that there is no Church doctrine for me to doubt. You would be surprised how often priests are wrong (it's alarming). I wouldn't take their word as the final thing.
That said, I have NEVER been told by a bishop (no matter how hard I have pushed in the past) that non-Christians will go to hell. You know what they say? "We teach what is necessary for salvation, but we leave judgment up to God." That statement would be meaningless if what's "necessary for salvation" does not change, because presumably anyone who doesn't do what's necessary for salvation will end up in hell, but they would NEVER say this.
I'm rather tired of arguing. You stick to whatever you want to believe and I will stick to what I was taught.
As I promised I said I will get confirmation on what I said, and I did. a Priest, three Servants, and a priest monk. This is the interpretation I was taught. I will stick to it.
_________________
Je `aripameu`i `w pa{oic@ `aripameu`i `w paNou]@ `aripameu`i `w pa`Ouro@ aksan`i qen tekmet`ouro.
Joined: Apr 09, 2008 | Posts: 17
