The Orthodox Study Bible: Unwise arguments

The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy,Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee.

Purchased from my employer, the Canadian Bible Society @ Cafe Logos, Vancouver. This text review continues...

As example, some key New Testament verses to consider while engaged in a discussion that could become a heated argument.

New American Standard  Bible (My preferred version)

2 Timothy 2:23-26

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

23 But refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce [a]quarrels. 24 The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, 25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, 26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive [b]by him to do his will.

Footnotes:
2 Timothy 2:23 Lit fightings
2 Timothy 2:26 Or by him, to do His will

Titus 3:9-11 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

9 But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. 10 Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, 11 knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.

From the Orthodox Study Bible: New King James Version (NKJV)

Interesting with notes...

From 2 Timothy

2: 20-23 that 'Heresy corrupts: bad theology leads to bad behaviour' (498).

2: 24-26 that 'Good theology helps us along the bath to good behaviour'. (498). The text further opines that good theology instills in followers 'reasonable patience and gentleness toward all people.' (298). This approach should even be given to false teachers, although they should be understood as such. (298). The text calls them enemies that should be avoided, and in the New Testament, we are of course in the Christian Church to love our enemies (Matthew 5, Luke 6).

From Titus 3

The Orthodox text describes the divisive person as one who 'picks' or 'chooses from' the whole truth. (506). Incomplete or erroneous beliefs are defended which lead to immorality, states the text. (506).

This concept of being selective with truth fascinates me because often arguments are based on selective premises and conclusions, lacking objectivity to certain extents. If greater objectivity in premises and conclusion was embraced, less arguments would occur.

One of favourite Christmas time photos (Facebook, Google +). I am seeing some local Christmas decorations already.

The Orthodox Study Bible: Brief on John 1

The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy,Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee.

Purchased from my employer, the Canadian Bible Society @ Cafe Logos, Vancouver. This text review continues...

Page 209

John 1 New American Standard Bible (NASB)(My preferred version)

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 [a]He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not [b]comprehend it.
---

This Orthodox Study Bible correctly documents that the Word as God, existed in the beginning, and  existed without a reference to a starting point. (209). This documents the eternal nature of the Word of God, also known in the New Testament as God the Son, incarnated as Jesus Christ.

God the Son, existed eternally with God the Father, without a beginning (209).

Hypothetically, if there was a beginning, as opposed to an entity existing prior to and at the beginning, this would be a finite entity, as opposed to infinite. The Word of God  (God the Son, in this context) existed before the beginning of creation. Therefore within New Testament based theology, God the Son, God the Father and God the Holy Spirit can be reasoned as three distinctions (also named persons) within an eternal, infinite nature.

As this texts notes, there is oneness in essence. (209). Oneness within the triune God.

However, there is a distinction, as God the Son, the Word is with God the Father. (209). There is a communion. (209).

This text correctly negatively critiques any attempts at rendering 'a god' from John 1, as being false, heretical theology. (209).

I will add that a finite god, would be no God at all, as there is only one infinite God within the Hebrew Bible (Isaiah 43-45, as examples) and as noted, in the New Testament via John, as example with this article.

The Orthodox Study Bible: Ephesians 2: 8-10

The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy,Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee. 

Purchased from my employer, the Canadian Bible Society @ Cafe Logos, Vancouver. This text review continues...

Preface:

A former pastor visited me here at work last week and provided me with significant information in regard to local ministry.

He also opined that an Eastern Orthodox priest he knows, denies justification by faith, 'alone' within his teaching. My former pastor agreed with me that Orthodoxy does exhibit fine scholarship. He reasoned that Orthodoxy views that justification equates to one realizing the he/she is a son/daughter of God.

This is not a typical, at least, Protestant or Reformed view, but can be equated with being born again (John 3) and being regenerated (Titus 3), without an emphasis on legal justification.

What does this academic study bible state in regard to a key related section of Scripture I often note on this website?

Ephesians 2:8-10

New American Standard Bible (NASB) (My most preferred version)

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and [a]that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them. Footnotes: Ephesians 2:8 I.e. that salvation

The New Kings James Version (NKJV) (Used by this bible)

Ephesians 2:8-10 New King James Version (NKJV)

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

The Orthodox Study Bible (440)

(Again paraphrased within the British academic system)

Notes: Ephesians 2: 8-10

By the unity of grace, faith, and works persons are brought into the Kingdom of God. (440-442). These are not equal, for grace is uncreated and infinite. (442). Human faith is limited and can grow. (442). Good works flow out of a true, authentic, faith. Works do not earn a person this great treasure (442).

I read this as stating that good works cannot earn a person justification and that good works cannot earn a person salvation. Salvation is a gift and those who receive it shall do good in Jesus Christ and the triune God. (442).

Direct quote:

'We are not saved by good works, but for good works.' (442).
---

Romans 1: 17 is interpreted in notes as presenting the righteousness of God as a right relationship with God. (338).

This bible text then states that Christ's righteousness is given to us and by our own cooperation with God, we continue to be righteous, in it. (338-339). This participation takes place via human faith.

A Protestant view will emphasize that salvation and justification is only a work of God.

In other words, a Protestant and especially a Reformed view would not state that those in Christ, cooperate in justification and righteousness.

I reason I can shed light on the issue via my MPhil/PhD and following work:

An Orthodox concern may be justification and salvation must have human cooperation, otherwise risking a forcing or coercion of salvation.

A Protestant and especially Reformed concern with the concept of cooperation, may be that it might be works righteousness.

My Reformed theology views the human embracing of salvation, including justification and imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ, in a sense as philosophically and theologically, a human secondary cause; but very importantly, only the primary cause, the triune God, creates the means of salvation through the atonement and resurrection.

In this way, those in Christ, being regenerated by God alone, only accept salvation as a divine gift and this also avoids the problem of divine force or coercion. It is also not a (fallen) human work of salvation. Even Christ's righteousness, as God-man, for salvation, is divine righteousness from God: Romans 1-6, Ephesians 2: 8. It is incarnated divine righteousness in a perfect person. Again, to be clear, human secondary cause, is embracing and not creating salvation.

In a similar way that God can be a primary cause by willing directly or allowing, a human being, can be a secondary cause by embracing what God has caused.

For example, I am regenerated and convinced the gospel is true. I study and earn a PhD. In my view God alone sanctifies me, but I participate in my salvation via works within that salvation as a secondary cause. It is not forced or coerced. I am a secondary cause in becoming better with theology, by study, and therefore strengthen my salvation. But only God's work of salvation in Jesus Christ, actually saves me.

Vladimir Lenin & the use of organized terror

Vladimir Lenin & the use of organized terror

Preface

On 20281110, I had recently viewed a World War I documentary on British Columbia's, Knowledge Network. This article updated on Blogger for a posting on academia.edu, 20250831.

USSR flag from Wikipedia

Vladimir Lenin & the use of organized terror

I believe a form of the second quote below was stated from Vladimir Lenin, the first leader of the Soviet Union. His views on the use of terror.

Word Future Fund

Cited

'From the 1 September 1918 edition of the Bolshevik newspaper, Krasnaya Gazeta:'

'“We will turn our hearts into steel, which we will temper in the fire of suffering and the blood of fighters for freedom. We will make our hearts cruel, hard, and immovable, so that no mercy will enter them, and so that they will not quiver at the sight of a sea of enemy blood. We will let loose the floodgates of that sea. Without mercy, without sparing, we will kill our enemies in scores of hundreds. Let them be thousands; let them drown themselves in their own blood. For the blood of Lenin and Uritsky, Zinovief and Volodarski, let there be floods of the blood of the bourgeois - more blood, as much as possible.”'

'Excerpt from an interview with Felix Dzerzhinsky published in Novaia Zhizn on 14 July 1918.'

'We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Soviet Government and of the new order of life. We judge quickly. In most cases only a day passes between the apprehension of the criminal and his sentence. When confronted with evidence criminals in almost every case confess; and what argument can have greater weight than a criminal's own confession.”'

'Excerpts from V.I. Lenin, “The Lessons of the Moscow Uprising” (1906) Keeping in mind the failure of the 1905 revolution, Lenin argued that it was imperative for an even more ruthless application of force in the pursuit of overthrowing the Tsar’s regime.'

'“We should have taken to arms more resolutely, energetically and aggressively; we should have explained to the masses that it was impossible to confine things to a peaceful strike and that a fearless and relentless armed fight was necessary. And now we must at last openly and publicly admit that political strikes are inadequate; we must carry on the widest agitation among the masses in favour of an armed uprising and make no attempt to obscure this question by talk about "preliminary stages", or to befog it in any way. We would be deceiving both ourselves and the people if we concealed from the masses the necessity of a desperate, bloody war of extermination, as the immediate task of the coming revolutionary action.'
---

Vancouver 20181110

It is a good thing to see the founding leader of the Soviet Union actually exposed within this documentary, in order to counter views that Soviet thuggery and terror only evolved from original more peaceful intentions.

No, historically, it was thuggery and terror from its beginning.

Baculum, Argumentum Ad/Appeal to Force 

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

 'When reason fails you, appeal to the rod.' (46). Pirie lists Soviet leader, Joseph Stalin as a classic adherent. (47). This fallacious approach uses force as means of persuasion as the argument would be lost without it. (46). Stalin followed Lenin...

As a worldview, this and other worldviews as examples, have used (or use if present context is valid) terror to varying degrees. Non-exhaustively, I offer up:

Medieval State-Church Christianity

Radical Islam

Twentieth Century, Fascism

Other forms of Communism

Biblical Christianity, however, reasonably and accurately interpreted, promotes progressive revelation which began with, from the Hebrew Bible theocracy and theonomy, which had it warlike aspects. The religious philosophy ot worldview progressed to New Testament dogma which teaches the Church to love believers and non-believers alike with truth and witness.

God's ultimate and everlasting punishment for those outside of Jesus Christ in Revelation 20 and the likely largely figurative literal, lake of fire, is sanctioned and issued from an infinite, eternal God that is of infinite love and infinite justice.

The present temporal, or the future everlasting, Christian Church and Christian Community is not sanctioned to use any means of terror in order to culminate its existence.

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London. 

ROBINSON, N.H.G. AND SHAW D.W.D. (1999) ‘Theonomy’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd. 

Vancouver: 20181110