OrthodoxChristianity.net

Moderated Forums => Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion => Orthodox-Protestant Discussion => Topic started by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 06, 2012, 02:29:57 AM

Title: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 06, 2012, 02:29:57 AM
The following thread started here: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,41917.0.html  -PtA (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,41917.0.html  -PtA)



Hi Peter,

Phillipians 2:10That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.12Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
13For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure
.

How does this verse refer to or fit in with your idea of working out your salvation 'in community' as opposed to personally?

Is it possible to love your neighbour when you supposedly have no neighbour?

Who do you know that has no contact with anyone in the outside world as this above statement suggests? If they had no contact with anyone I assume they could then be without a neighbour? Even on the most remote farms in central Australia, were the nearest neighbour is 1500km's away, those people still see people and can still love their neighbour..

The only other case I can think of would be the orthodox monks.. They live in isolation don't they? Virtually?? Well can they not love their neighbour because they are isolated? Your argument makes no sense when I take into account the fact that you are a christian of 'orthodox' background and tradition.

Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 06, 2012, 03:18:15 AM
Hi Peter,

Phillipians 2:10That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.12Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
13For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure
.

How does this verse refer to or fit in with your idea of working out your salvation 'in community' as opposed to personally?
Why focus solely on this verse? Is this the only verse in the Bible that talks about salvation?

Is it possible to love your neighbour when you supposedly have no neighbour?

Who do you know that has no contact with anyone in the outside world as this above statement suggests? If they had no contact with anyone I assume they could then be without a neighbour? Even on the most remote farms in central Australia, were the nearest neighbour is 1500km's away, those people still see people and can still love their neighbour..

The only other case I can think of would be the orthodox monks.. They live in isolation don't they?
No. Not even the most "isolated" hermit truly lives in isolation. Are you aware that before a monk is permitted to live as a hermit, he must first show that he can live with others in a community, and then only after many years?

Virtually?? Well can they not love their neighbour because they are isolated? Your argument makes no sense when I take into account the fact that you are a christian of 'orthodox' background and tradition.
Why does it make no sense? Don't think so hard about what is simply an analogy.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Seafra on January 06, 2012, 03:32:57 AM
Hi Peter,

Phillipians 2:10That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.12Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
13For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure
.

How does this verse refer to or fit in with your idea of working out your salvation 'in community' as opposed to personally?

Is it possible to love your neighbour when you supposedly have no neighbour?

Who do you know that has no contact with anyone in the outside world as this above statement suggests? If they had no contact with anyone I assume they could then be without a neighbour? Even on the most remote farms in central Australia, were the nearest neighbour is 1500km's away, those people still see people and can still love their neighbour..

The only other case I can think of would be the orthodox monks.. They live in isolation don't they? Virtually?? Well can they not love their neighbour because they are isolated? Your argument makes no sense when I take into account the fact that you are a christian of 'orthodox' background and tradition.


first off that has nothing to do with the invisible church, Secondly no one has neglected the fact that Theosis is a personal struggle, however as a community we celebrate the sacraments, Not to mention you cannot progress through much of Theosis without community. ALSO If you paid a little bit of attention you would notice they are called monastic communities. One monk is anothers neighbor...
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 06, 2012, 04:15:32 AM
first off that has nothing to do with the invisible church, Secondly no one has neglected the fact that Theosis is a personal struggle, however as a community we celebrate the sacraments, Not to mention you cannot progress through much of Theosis without community. ALSO If you paid a little bit of attention you would notice they are called monastic communities. One monk is anothers neighbor...

It has everything to do with the church - and whether it is visible or invisible. Salvation is personal. No one attains salvation by being a part of a certain or particular 'group'. Many would have us all believe this but it is not so. Salvation is personal. We then commune with other believers all of the time.. Anywhere and everywhere.. Members of the Body of Christ. 24 hr/day, 7 day a week church.

Pardon my lack of attention. Monks, monastics, however you would like to refer to them.. I'm not particularly familiar with them. They are people just like me and you. They choose to do whatever they like to do.

And Peter, do you defend yourself with the 'why just focus on this verse' routine? Ofcourse it is not the only verse that talks of Salvation. The church is the issue in this thread is it not? I used this verse to question a post written to suggest we need to work out our salvation in community - and I used it to compare what this person said and what the Word of God says about it..

In my first post did I not quote 1 Corinthians 3:16? “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?”

And

1 Corinthians 6:19What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
20For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

Can we focus on these verses also? Or do they also have nothing to do with the Church?



Fixed quote tags  -PtA
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Seafra on January 06, 2012, 04:43:37 AM

It has everything to do with the church - and whether it is visible or invisible. Salvation is personal. No one attains salvation by being a part of a certain or particular 'group'. Many would have us all believe this but it is not so. Salvation is personal. We then commune with other believers all of the time.. Anywhere and everywhere.. Members of the Body of Christ. 24 hr/day, 7 day a week church.

Pardon my lack of attention. Monks, monastics, however you would like to refer to them.. I'm not particularly familiar with them. They are people just like me and you. They choose to do whatever they like to do.

Im sorry you aren't understanding... Orthodoxy is not based on single scriptures pulled out of no where. There are many verses that speak of the communal aspect of Christianity. Also my point was not between semantics of monks and monastics but the communal aspect a monastery is a monastic COMMUNITY ergo neighbors. In Protestantism you can pick out whatever verses you like and make them fit your mold... In the Traditional churches you don't reply on personal interpretation (which is actually less biblical that you would think) But the interpretations accepted and taught by the church. In this way we dont have obscurities like, as i said before, Mormons who have through their personal interpretation of scripture came tho their personal salvation. THIS is the purpose of the Church it IS a single body who was charged by Paul to safeguard the traditions he taught both by letter and word.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 06, 2012, 07:10:32 AM

Im sorry you aren't understanding... Orthodoxy is not based on single scriptures pulled out of no where. There are many verses that speak of the communal aspect of Christianity. Also my point was not between semantics of monks and monastics but the communal aspect a monastery is a monastic COMMUNITY ergo neighbors. In Protestantism you can pick out whatever verses you like and make them fit your mold... In the Traditional churches you don't reply on personal interpretation (which is actually less biblical that you would think) But the interpretations accepted and taught by the church. In this way we dont have obscurities like, as i said before, Mormons who have through their personal interpretation of scripture came tho their personal salvation. THIS is the purpose of the Church it IS a single body who was charged by Paul to safeguard the traditions he taught both by letter and word.
[/quote]

I do understand that orthodoxy is not based on single scriptures pulled out of no where.. Rarely, do proponents of orthodoxy refer to scripture to back up doctrine, but tradition, passed down from the apostles is more often referred to. Orthodoxy claims to be the 1 true church on this basis.

In protestantism, we, (and I don't think of myself as a 'protestant',) are guilty of misusing the Word of God. We have built doctrines on single scriptures. Calvinism is a great example of this. Pick out the ones that go for the doctrine and then ignore the ones that smash it to pieces. We often do like to make things fit into a mould, and that is precisely how we have erred. I've done it myself. It wasn't until I started reading the bible for what it actually says, in the Greek, that I began to see the Truth. We need to look at the scripture for what it says and 'hear the Word'. Not just read it. But the Word of God is sharp like a 2 edged sword, it is powerful.. It cuts. But it can be misused. But by no means does this mean that one should not read the bible. I thank the Lord for men like Wesley, Tyndale and Luther, who or got the bible translated into English and put on that press to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ throughout the world..

Obviously, JW's are also a result of protestantism.

JW's rarely refer to scripture. But the teachings of their leader. Their 'teachings' take authority over the Word of God. Hence the cult that it is. They occasionally reference the scriptures that suit their beliefs and concentrate on the teachings of the leader.

The catholic church make the same claim as the orthodox.. Both denominations if you will, orthodoxy and roman catholicism can be traced back to the beginning of Christianity. Both have strong arguments for why they are the true church. But there is only 1 true church.

The oldest church writings we know of and that ever were are those written directly by the apostles themselves. Most important to us is the apostle Paul - his writings are imperative to understanding the mystery of Christ. Christ revealed Himself to Paul. Gave Him the mystery.. We have access to these writings.. They have been preserved and they tell us the truth. If were going to accept doctrines and ideas passed down from the earliest churches, through councils etc they need to be measured up against what the bible says.

After all, are they not the oldest writings? Are they not written by apostles? Then they deserve to have the final authority.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Melodist on January 06, 2012, 08:55:11 AM
After all, are they not the oldest writings? Are they not written by apostles? Then they deserve to have the final authority.

In what manner is this authority to be interpreted, exercised, and enforced?

EDIT: I'm not saying that the Church exists solely for the purpose of providing authority in matters of interpretation and government, only that these things are a function that rightfully belongs to the Church, it's purpose is to be the Body of Christ founded on the day of Pentecost, which did and continues to have a visible structure and organization. I'm also not limiting salvation solely to members of any particular visible body, or claiming that every member of any particular visible body will be saved on the day of judgement.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 06, 2012, 09:36:30 AM
This is a certain. The Word of God is Truth. So it is simple to interpret. It must first of all, be tested.. If one picks out a verse to build a doctrine, establish who it was written to. Was it written to Israel? Or was it written to gentiles? Are there verses that seem to say otherwise? If so, investigate them rather than sweeping them under the carpet because they don't agree with our current system of belief. The Word is to be 'rightly divided', as Paul describes to Timothy. There is a clear account in the bible of Gods dealings with man. In the old covenant He dealt with Israel only. Genesis 17. Gentiles were never a part of the covenant. Even when the prophesied Jewish messiah Jesus Christ came, He came to Israel to establish a new covenant with Israel. He did not come to gentiles.Matthew 15:24.. Gentiles at this point were strangers to the covenants of Promise.

But now, the famous words of the apostle Paul.. Apostle to the gentiles. He is given a revelation from Jesus Christ. One that was hidden from before the foundations of the earth, for if they had have known they would not have crucified the Christ. A message of salvation to the gentiles where salvation would be by grace, through the faith of Jesus Christ.. To provoke Israel to jealousy.

Israel has not been cast away, but through their fall, salvation is made available to us. Again the words of Paul - straight from Jesus.

If one was to open the bible having never read it before then we would likely be bamboozled with a lot of information. Obviously, there are 66 books in the bible, 70 in the orthodox canon isn't it? 73? in the catholic?? I'm not sure, but there are a lot of books.

Christians, who believe the gospel of Jesus Christ and call on His name for their salvation are baptised in the Spirit. This may sound surprising, even heretical, but it is what the bible teaches. Members of the church make up the Body of Christ by a spiritual baptism.. The Spirit guides us into all truth. How? By His Word.. How? By apostles, pastors, teachers, prophets and evangelists whom He appoints.
 
Ephesians 4:11And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;12For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:13Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:14That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;15But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:16From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

The truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ can not be destroyed. It is there. It will always remain If we want salvation, we ought look for it, and if we look for it we will find it. Turn from man, turn to God, turn to Truth, turn to Christ.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Fotina02 on January 06, 2012, 10:23:34 AM

It has everything to do with the church - and whether it is visible or invisible. Salvation is personal. No one attains salvation by being a part of a certain or particular 'group'. Many would have us all believe this but it is not so. Salvation is personal. We then commune with other believers all of the time.. Anywhere and everywhere.. Members of the Body of Christ. 24 hr/day, 7 day a week church.



Saint Ilarion (Troitsky) quoted earlier points out:
Quote
To come to believe in Christ, to become a Christian - this meant uniting with the Church. This is repeatedly expressed in the book of the Acts of the Apostles, where we read that the Lord daily added the saved to the Church (cf. Acts 2:47; 5:13-14).
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: FountainPen on January 06, 2012, 10:33:54 AM

It has everything to do with the church - and whether it is visible or invisible. Salvation is personal. No one attains salvation by being a part of a certain or particular 'group'. Many would have us all believe this but it is not so. Salvation is personal. We then commune with other believers all of the time.. Anywhere and everywhere.. Members of the Body of Christ. 24 hr/day, 7 day a week church.



Saint Ilarion (Troitsky) quoted earlier points out:
Quote
To come to believe in Christ, to become a Christian - this meant uniting with the Church. This is repeatedly expressed in the book of the Acts of the Apostles, where we read that the Lord daily added the saved to the Church (cf. Acts 2:47; 5:13-14).

We don't gather in the visible church to be saved but becuase we are already saved.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Melodist on January 06, 2012, 10:40:16 AM
Was it written to Israel? Or was it written to gentiles?

We believe differently on this point. The gentiles are the wild olive branches that were grafted onto the tree. There is still only one tree.

Quote
Christians, who believe the gospel of Jesus Christ and call on His name for their salvation are baptised in the Spirit. This may sound surprising,

I know what you're trying to say, and I've heard it before.

Quote
even heretical,

It is.

Quote
but it is what the bible teaches.

It is not.

Quote
Members of the church make up the Body of Christ by a spiritual baptism..

Members are baptized into the Body of Christ by those with the proper authority to baptize. Nobody just believes themselves into the Body of Christ. Not the 12 apostles, not the apostle Paul, not Cornelius, not the disciples of John the Baptist, etc.

Quote
The Spirit guides us into all truth. How? By His Word.. How? By apostles, pastors, teachers, prophets and evangelists whom He appoints.

How can someone know who is properly appointed by God to serve in any particular capacity in order to properly recognize and submit to any authority that may have been appointed by God?

Quote
Turn from man, turn to God, turn to Truth, turn to Christ.

I hope that looking for historical continuity and consistency in how God inspires and guides His people is not in opposition to turning to Christ.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 06, 2012, 10:56:56 AM
It has everything to do with the church - and whether it is visible or invisible. Salvation is personal. No one attains salvation by being a part of a certain or particular 'group'. Many would have us all believe this but it is not so. Salvation is personal. We then commune with other believers all of the time.. Anywhere and everywhere.. Members of the Body of Christ. 24 hr/day, 7 day a week church.

Pardon my lack of attention. Monks, monastics, however you would like to refer to them.. I'm not particularly familiar with them. They are people just like me and you. They choose to do whatever they like to do.

And Peter, do you defend yourself with the 'why just focus on this verse' routine? Ofcourse it is not the only verse that talks of Salvation. The church is the issue in this thread is it not? I used this verse to question a post written to suggest we need to work out our salvation in community - and I used it to compare what this person said and what the Word of God says about it..
I suggest that you're taking a verse of Scripture out of context in some vain attempt to prove me wrong, and you call my suggestion a routine, a ROUTINE! ::) You haven't even been here long enough to know what's routine for me.

In my first post did I not quote 1 Corinthians 3:16? “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?”

And

1 Corinthians 6:19What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
20For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.
Can we focus on these verses also? Or do they also have nothing to do with the Church?
Let's not focus on any verses in particular, since you're using them to frame the conversation artificially--essentially, you're prooftexting.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 06, 2012, 11:00:27 AM

It has everything to do with the church - and whether it is visible or invisible. Salvation is personal. No one attains salvation by being a part of a certain or particular 'group'. Many would have us all believe this but it is not so. Salvation is personal. We then commune with other believers all of the time.. Anywhere and everywhere.. Members of the Body of Christ. 24 hr/day, 7 day a week church.



Saint Ilarion (Troitsky) quoted earlier points out:
Quote
To come to believe in Christ, to become a Christian - this meant uniting with the Church. This is repeatedly expressed in the book of the Acts of the Apostles, where we read that the Lord daily added the saved to the Church (cf. Acts 2:47; 5:13-14).

We don't gather in the visible church to be saved but becuase we are already saved.
How do you define saved?
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 06, 2012, 11:05:17 AM
I do understand that orthodoxy is not based on single scriptures pulled out of no where.. Rarely, do proponents of orthodoxy refer to scripture to back up doctrine, but tradition, passed down from the apostles is more often referred to. Orthodoxy claims to be the 1 true church on this basis.

In protestantism, we, (and I don't think of myself as a 'protestant',) are guilty of misusing the Word of God. We have built doctrines on single scriptures. Calvinism is a great example of this. Pick out the ones that go for the doctrine and then ignore the ones that smash it to pieces. We often do like to make things fit into a mould, and that is precisely how we have erred. I've done it myself. It wasn't until I started reading the bible for what it actually says, in the Greek, that I began to see the Truth. We need to look at the scripture for what it says and 'hear the Word'. Not just read it. But the Word of God is sharp like a 2 edged sword, it is powerful.. It cuts. But it can be misused. But by no means does this mean that one should not read the bible. I thank the Lord for men like Wesley, Tyndale and Luther, who or got the bible translated into English and put on that press to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ throughout the world..

Obviously, JW's are also a result of protestantism.

JW's rarely refer to scripture. But the teachings of their leader. Their 'teachings' take authority over the Word of God. Hence the cult that it is. They occasionally reference the scriptures that suit their beliefs and concentrate on the teachings of the leader.

The catholic church make the same claim as the orthodox.. Both denominations if you will, orthodoxy and roman catholicism can be traced back to the beginning of Christianity. Both have strong arguments for why they are the true church. But there is only 1 true church.

The oldest church writings we know of and that ever were are those written directly by the apostles themselves. Most important to us is the apostle Paul - his writings are imperative to understanding the mystery of Christ. Christ revealed Himself to Paul. Gave Him the mystery.. We have access to these writings.. They have been preserved and they tell us the truth. If were going to accept doctrines and ideas passed down from the earliest churches, through councils etc they need to be measured up against what the bible says.

After all, are they not the oldest writings? Are they not written by apostles? Then they deserve to have the final authority.
Which came first, the Church or the New Testament?
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: FountainPen on January 06, 2012, 11:06:15 AM

It has everything to do with the church - and whether it is visible or invisible. Salvation is personal. No one attains salvation by being a part of a certain or particular 'group'. Many would have us all believe this but it is not so. Salvation is personal. We then commune with other believers all of the time.. Anywhere and everywhere.. Members of the Body of Christ. 24 hr/day, 7 day a week church.



Saint Ilarion (Troitsky) quoted earlier points out:
Quote
To come to believe in Christ, to become a Christian - this meant uniting with the Church. This is repeatedly expressed in the book of the Acts of the Apostles, where we read that the Lord daily added the saved to the Church (cf. Acts 2:47; 5:13-14).

We don't gather in the visible church to be saved but becuase we are already saved.
How do you define saved?

I don't. The word defines it accurately enough but i daren't provide a source or i'll get accused of proof texting or firing bible bullits. ;)
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 06, 2012, 11:10:13 AM

It has everything to do with the church - and whether it is visible or invisible. Salvation is personal. No one attains salvation by being a part of a certain or particular 'group'. Many would have us all believe this but it is not so. Salvation is personal. We then commune with other believers all of the time.. Anywhere and everywhere.. Members of the Body of Christ. 24 hr/day, 7 day a week church.



Saint Ilarion (Troitsky) quoted earlier points out:
Quote
To come to believe in Christ, to become a Christian - this meant uniting with the Church. This is repeatedly expressed in the book of the Acts of the Apostles, where we read that the Lord daily added the saved to the Church (cf. Acts 2:47; 5:13-14).

We don't gather in the visible church to be saved but becuase we are already saved.
How do you define saved?

I don't. The word defines it accurately enough but i daren't provide a source or i'll get accused of proof texting or firing bible bullits. ;)
You do realize I didn't ask you. ;)

Actually, you just showed me that you DO define saved. How do you know, though, that your definition is a complete, biblical understanding of salvation? How do we know if you won't tell us?
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 06, 2012, 06:37:07 PM

It has everything to do with the church - and whether it is visible or invisible. Salvation is personal. No one attains salvation by being a part of a certain or particular 'group'. Many would have us all believe this but it is not so. Salvation is personal. We then commune with other believers all of the time.. Anywhere and everywhere.. Members of the Body of Christ. 24 hr/day, 7 day a week church.



Saint Ilarion (Troitsky) quoted earlier points out:
Quote
To come to believe in Christ, to become a Christian - this meant uniting with the Church. This is repeatedly expressed in the book of the Acts of the Apostles, where we read that the Lord daily added the saved to the Church (cf. Acts 2:47; 5:13-14).

Hi, well the first thing wrong here is you are applying things found in the 2nd chapter of Acts through to the 5th chapter of Acts to us as though that is for us. Look at who is being addressed here.. Israel. Men of Israel. People of the dispersion. Both Jews, and proselyzed Jews. Who was at pentecost? Jews. Israel. It was a Jewish festival. Not a gentile festival. Gentiles were not welcome at this point.

It is not until Peter has the vision from the Lord of all of the unclean animals coming down on the sheet that God shows Peter that salvation will be made available to the gentiles. Peter had no idea of this.

Israel rejected their new covenant church. I think you'll find that Israel was counted in 'unbelief' by the middle of the book of Acts with the stoning of Steven. This is why Christ is seen 'STANDING' at the right hand of the throne.. Not sitting as He did when He ascended.

But because of Israels rejection, comes out of that, our, gentile, salvation.

To understand how the church works for us as gentiles, we need to read Pauls letters. The fullness of the gospel is revealed to Paul. We can't look at pentecost and imagine that the place was flowing full with Jews and gentiles.. What we clearly see is that pentecost at Jerusalem was filled with Jews, and proselyzed Jews - only.

If we try and mix all things in the 'new testament' up together and apply everything in it to ourselves without recognizing the very clear distinction between Gods dealings with Israel as a nation and His dealings with us - the rest of the world, then we will be left confused.

Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Asteriktos on January 06, 2012, 06:42:15 PM
Mid Acts dispensationalism?  :'(
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 06, 2012, 07:55:52 PM
Mid Acts dispensationalism?  :'(

No.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Riddikulus on January 06, 2012, 08:02:16 PM
I thought I might put a thought forward even though my education in this is not full. (part of why I enjoy reading on here so much. :laugh: ) It occurs to me that there is a good quote from 1 Corinthians 1:10 "Now I plead with you, Brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same Judgment."

The Invisible Church has no Divisions for it is full within Christ as he is the Head of that Church. But the Visible Church is spoken of here and we are told to keep no Contentions among us. (in Verse 11 of the same chapter) This could be called part of the main purpose of the Visible Church I think. The visible Church must be "The Pillar and Ground of the Truth." Which when we rely on our own personal Interpretations is very near impossible to achieve because this relies on Human Reasoning which is notoriously Fallible. And the reply, that the Holy Spirit will guide us is not very plausible as a reason because if he Guided each of us with such unerring accuracy there would BE no disagreements among those who stand as their own interpreters. This is how I see the need for the Visible Church, and Holy Tradition.

This is just my thought in the subject. :p

TD Andreis

We grow spiritually through reading, more importantly, hearing the Word. This is how the Spirit works. Through His Word.


Are you talking about the written Word, here?
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Asteriktos on January 06, 2012, 08:02:56 PM
Mid Acts dispensationalism?  :'(

No.

*Reads post again...*

Hi, well the first thing wrong here is you are applying things found in the 2nd chapter of Acts through to the 5th chapter of Acts to us as though that is for us. Look at who is being addressed here.. Israel. Men of Israel. People of the dispersion. Both Jews, and proselyzed Jews. Who was at pentecost? Jews. Israel. It was a Jewish festival. Not a gentile festival. Gentiles were not welcome at this point.

It is not until Peter has the vision from the Lord of all of the unclean animals coming down on the sheet that God shows Peter that salvation will be made available to the gentiles. Peter had no idea of this.

Israel rejected their new covenant church. I think you'll find that Israel was counted in 'unbelief' by the middle of the book of Acts with the stoning of Steven. This is why Christ is seen 'STANDING' at the right hand of the throne.. Not sitting as He did when He ascended.

But because of Israels rejection, comes out of that, our, gentile, salvation.

To understand how the church works for us as gentiles, we need to read Pauls letters. The fullness of the gospel is revealed to Paul. We can't look at pentecost and imagine that the place was flowing full with Jews and gentiles.. What we clearly see is that pentecost at Jerusalem was filled with Jews, and proselyzed Jews - only.

If we try and mix all things in the 'new testament' up together and apply everything in it to ourselves without recognizing the very clear distinction between Gods dealings with Israel as a nation and His dealings with us - the rest of the world, then we will be left confused.

1) Parts of NT not for us, they're for the Jews. Check.
2) At first Gentiles "were not welcome". Check.
2) Things changed around mid-acts. Check.

How is that not mid-Acts dispensationalism? That's like the very definition of the idea...  :police:
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 06, 2012, 08:07:35 PM
I don't see anywhere in the scriptures the words mid acts dispensationalism. Therefore, I am not a mid acts dispensationalist. Just someone who recognises he is a filthy sinner, and called on the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation.

If people want to put an 'ism' in there so be it. But I'm not interested in 'isms'. Thanks.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Volnutt on January 06, 2012, 11:13:56 PM
I don't see anywhere in the scriptures the words mid acts dispensationalism. Therefore, I am not a mid acts dispensationalist. Just someone who recognises he is a filthy sinner, and called on the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation.

If people want to put an 'ism' in there so be it. But I'm not interested in 'isms'. Thanks.
Are you one of those people who doesn't believe in the Trinity either because the word is not in the Bible?
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 07, 2012, 03:47:21 AM
I don't see anywhere in the scriptures the words mid acts dispensationalism. Therefore, I am not a mid acts dispensationalist. Just someone who recognises he is a filthy sinner, and called on the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation.

If people want to put an 'ism' in there so be it. But I'm not interested in 'isms'. Thanks.
Are you one of those people who doesn't believe in the Trinity either because the word is not in the Bible?

Very intelligent question. But no. I'm not 'one of those' - as you put it. I believe there is One God - Father Son and Holy Spirit. If you've read any of my posts you'll see that I'm a defender of the Word of God. The doctrine of the Father Son and Spirit is spilling out of the bible - so why would I not believe that? Normally, those that deny the trinity read writings or teachings outside of the bible. Eg. christadelphians, mormons, Jehovahs witnesses etc etc.

If you think these people get their teachings from the bible you better have a more thorough look at what they believe - and more importantly where they get it from.. I can assure you its not from the bible.

Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 07, 2012, 03:51:35 AM

It has everything to do with the church - and whether it is visible or invisible. Salvation is personal. No one attains salvation by being a part of a certain or particular 'group'. Many would have us all believe this but it is not so. Salvation is personal. We then commune with other believers all of the time.. Anywhere and everywhere.. Members of the Body of Christ. 24 hr/day, 7 day a week church.



Saint Ilarion (Troitsky) quoted earlier points out:
Quote
To come to believe in Christ, to become a Christian - this meant uniting with the Church. This is repeatedly expressed in the book of the Acts of the Apostles, where we read that the Lord daily added the saved to the Church (cf. Acts 2:47; 5:13-14).

Hi, well the first thing wrong here is you are applying things found in the 2nd chapter of Acts through to the 5th chapter of Acts to us as though that is for us. Look at who is being addressed here.. Israel. Men of Israel. People of the dispersion. Both Jews, and proselyzed Jews. Who was at pentecost? Jews. Israel. It was a Jewish festival. Not a gentile festival. Gentiles were not welcome at this point.
Did you forget about how Jesus preached to the Samaritans? And what of the OT prophecies that the good news would be preached to the Gentiles?
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 07, 2012, 03:54:06 AM
I thought I might put a thought forward even though my education in this is not full. (part of why I enjoy reading on here so much. :laugh: ) It occurs to me that there is a good quote from 1 Corinthians 1:10 "Now I plead with you, Brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same Judgment."

The Invisible Church has no Divisions for it is full within Christ as he is the Head of that Church. But the Visible Church is spoken of here and we are told to keep no Contentions among us. (in Verse 11 of the same chapter) This could be called part of the main purpose of the Visible Church I think. The visible Church must be "The Pillar and Ground of the Truth." Which when we rely on our own personal Interpretations is very near impossible to achieve because this relies on Human Reasoning which is notoriously Fallible. And the reply, that the Holy Spirit will guide us is not very plausible as a reason because if he Guided each of us with such unerring accuracy there would BE no disagreements among those who stand as their own interpreters. This is how I see the need for the Visible Church, and Holy Tradition.

This is just my thought in the subject. :p

TD Andreis

I appreciate that. Thankyou. I'm in agreement with you. The bible actually says there 'should' be no division among us. However, there is.

We grow spiritually through reading, more importantly, hearing the Word. This is how the Spirit works. Through His Word.
How did the Holy Spirit speak before St. Paul wrote his Epistle to the Galatians, the first of the New Testament books ever written?
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 07, 2012, 04:21:52 AM

It has everything to do with the church - and whether it is visible or invisible. Salvation is personal. No one attains salvation by being a part of a certain or particular 'group'. Many would have us all believe this but it is not so. Salvation is personal. We then commune with other believers all of the time.. Anywhere and everywhere.. Members of the Body of Christ. 24 hr/day, 7 day a week church.



Saint Ilarion (Troitsky) quoted earlier points out:
Quote
To come to believe in Christ, to become a Christian - this meant uniting with the Church. This is repeatedly expressed in the book of the Acts of the Apostles, where we read that the Lord daily added the saved to the Church (cf. Acts 2:47; 5:13-14).

Hi, well the first thing wrong here is you are applying things found in the 2nd chapter of Acts through to the 5th chapter of Acts to us as though that is for us. Look at who is being addressed here.. Israel. Men of Israel. People of the dispersion. Both Jews, and proselyzed Jews. Who was at pentecost? Jews. Israel. It was a Jewish festival. Not a gentile festival. Gentiles were not welcome at this point.
Did you forget about how Jesus preached to the Samaritans? And what of the OT prophecies that the good news would be preached to the Gentiles?

Yes. Isaiah in particular. But you've missed the fact that it didn't go down quite as Israel had planned. They thought their Messiah would come and they would rule with Him over us gentiles.. The gentiles could then be saved while they ruled with their Messiah.. This was what some thought.

But, for our sake, and according to the purpose of God to save gentiles,(this was planned from 'before the foundations of the earth' - or predestined to occur - the Body Of Christ was predestined not individuals as calvinists think)  they (as a nation) rejected and even crucified their Messiah.. Giving us an opportunity to be saved. Israel(the circumcision) were justified BY FAITH - through circumcision and works of the law, we (uncircumcision) are justified THROUGH faith. Or by the Faith of Jesus Christ.

Israel is no longer being dealt with as a 'nation'. Because now, there is neither Jew nor Greek.

And regarding the Samaritans - Matthew 10:5 -5These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:

The idea was not for the disciples to go to gentiles or the samaritans. They - the disciples, did not recognise Gods plan and purpose at this point. Jesus spoke to some samaritans in Sychar, the woman at the well, but they were isolated incidents, they were preached to by Jesus and the samaritan was persistent, showing her faith. This is why Jesus spoke to them, because of their child like faith in who He was.

John 4 is the story.. The disciples were a little shocked He was talking with the samaritan woman because Jews had nothing to do with them.

The mystery of Christ was not revealed until after Saul was converted.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 07, 2012, 04:29:29 AM

It has everything to do with the church - and whether it is visible or invisible. Salvation is personal. No one attains salvation by being a part of a certain or particular 'group'. Many would have us all believe this but it is not so. Salvation is personal. We then commune with other believers all of the time.. Anywhere and everywhere.. Members of the Body of Christ. 24 hr/day, 7 day a week church.



Saint Ilarion (Troitsky) quoted earlier points out:
Quote
To come to believe in Christ, to become a Christian - this meant uniting with the Church. This is repeatedly expressed in the book of the Acts of the Apostles, where we read that the Lord daily added the saved to the Church (cf. Acts 2:47; 5:13-14).

Hi, well the first thing wrong here is you are applying things found in the 2nd chapter of Acts through to the 5th chapter of Acts to us as though that is for us. Look at who is being addressed here.. Israel. Men of Israel. People of the dispersion. Both Jews, and proselyzed Jews. Who was at pentecost? Jews. Israel. It was a Jewish festival. Not a gentile festival. Gentiles were not welcome at this point.
Did you forget about how Jesus preached to the Samaritans? And what of the OT prophecies that the good news would be preached to the Gentiles?

Yes. Isaiah in particular. But you've missed the fact that it didn't go down quite as Israel had planned. They thought their Messiah would come and they would rule with Him over us gentiles.. The gentiles could then be saved while they ruled with their Messiah.. This was what some thought.

But, for our sake, and according to the purpose of God to save gentiles,(this was planned from 'before the foundations of the earth' - or predestined to occur - the Body Of Christ was predestined not individuals as calvinists think)  they (as a nation) rejected and even crucified their Messiah.. Giving us an opportunity to be saved. Israel(the circumcision) were justified BY FAITH - through circumcision and works of the law, we (uncircumcision) are justified THROUGH faith. Or by the Faith of Jesus Christ.

Israel is no longer being dealt with as a 'nation'. Because now, there is neither Jew nor Greek.

And regarding the Samaritans - Matthew 10:5 -5These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:

The idea was not for the disciples to go to gentiles or the samaritans. They - the disciples, did not recognise Gods plan and purpose at this point. Jesus spoke to some samaritans in Sychar, the woman at the well, but they were isolated incidents, they were preached to by Jesus and the samaritan was persistent, showing her faith. This is why Jesus spoke to them, because of their child like faith in who He was.

John 4 is the story.. The disciples were a little shocked He was talking with the samaritan woman because Jews had nothing to do with them.

The mystery of Christ was not revealed until after Saul was converted.
Or was it that it was revealed at or even before Pentecost, but St. Paul was the first apostle to really understand this? We do have the record of the Roman centurion whose child Jesus healed from a distance and whom Jesus praised for his great faith, which is an example of how Jesus revealed His plan for the Gentiles. We also have the Great Commission, where Jesus commands his disciples to preach the Gospel to all nations. How is this not a revelation of His plan for the Gentiles?
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 07, 2012, 06:58:43 AM

It has everything to do with the church - and whether it is visible or invisible. Salvation is personal. No one attains salvation by being a part of a certain or particular 'group'. Many would have us all believe this but it is not so. Salvation is personal. We then commune with other believers all of the time.. Anywhere and everywhere.. Members of the Body of Christ. 24 hr/day, 7 day a week church.



Saint Ilarion (Troitsky) quoted earlier points out:
Quote
To come to believe in Christ, to become a Christian - this meant uniting with the Church. This is repeatedly expressed in the book of the Acts of the Apostles, where we read that the Lord daily added the saved to the Church (cf. Acts 2:47; 5:13-14).

Hi, well the first thing wrong here is you are applying things found in the 2nd chapter of Acts through to the 5th chapter of Acts to us as though that is for us. Look at who is being addressed here.. Israel. Men of Israel. People of the dispersion. Both Jews, and proselyzed Jews. Who was at pentecost? Jews. Israel. It was a Jewish festival. Not a gentile festival. Gentiles were not welcome at this point.
Did you forget about how Jesus preached to the Samaritans? And what of the OT prophecies that the good news would be preached to the Gentiles?

Yes. Isaiah in particular. But you've missed the fact that it didn't go down quite as Israel had planned. They thought their Messiah would come and they would rule with Him over us gentiles.. The gentiles could then be saved while they ruled with their Messiah.. This was what some thought.

But, for our sake, and according to the purpose of God to save gentiles,(this was planned from 'before the foundations of the earth' - or predestined to occur - the Body Of Christ was predestined not individuals as calvinists think)  they (as a nation) rejected and even crucified their Messiah.. Giving us an opportunity to be saved. Israel(the circumcision) were justified BY FAITH - through circumcision and works of the law, we (uncircumcision) are justified THROUGH faith. Or by the Faith of Jesus Christ.

Israel is no longer being dealt with as a 'nation'. Because now, there is neither Jew nor Greek.

And regarding the Samaritans - Matthew 10:5 -5These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:

The idea was not for the disciples to go to gentiles or the samaritans. They - the disciples, did not recognise Gods plan and purpose at this point. Jesus spoke to some samaritans in Sychar, the woman at the well, but they were isolated incidents, they were preached to by Jesus and the samaritan was persistent, showing her faith. This is why Jesus spoke to them, because of their child like faith in who He was.

John 4 is the story.. The disciples were a little shocked He was talking with the samaritan woman because Jews had nothing to do with them.

The mystery of Christ was not revealed until after Saul was converted.
Or was it that it was revealed at or even before Pentecost, but St. Paul was the first apostle to really understand this? We do have the record of the Roman centurion whose child Jesus healed from a distance and whom Jesus praised for his great faith, which is an example of how Jesus revealed His plan for the Gentiles. We also have the Great Commission, where Jesus commands his disciples to preach the Gospel to all nations. How is this not a revelation of His plan for the Gentiles?

Or was it that it was revealed before Paul? it has been in operation since the beginning of time. Nobody knew it, not fully at least, until it was revealed to Paul. Whether this just means the first to understand it well, the scriptures just don't seem to say that.

Now, the disciples were instructed to go and preach the gospel to all nations in Matthew 28 - the great commission. But what exactly are they preaching and what is going on? It is Peter preaching in Acts 2. He's constantly referring to the audience as 'ye men of Israel', 'ye men of judea'. He preaches baptism and repentance as a requirement for the remission of sins. At this point he also does not recognise gentiles are to become partakers of the covenant through our 'adoption'.. It isn't until God gives him a vision of a white sheet filled with what Peter knows to be (according to OT law) unclean animals. Peter and all of the Jews were, even after Christ died and ascended back to heaven, still practicing the law, observing sabbath days, pentecost was still taking place in Jerusalem among the Jews, circumcision was even still being taught. Gatherings in the temples. Everything as the law prescribed.

What does Paul - (taught by Jesus by revelation) have to say about this? Romans 6:14 14'For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace'.

We are no longer under law. Christ fulfilled the law. He lived under the law, taught the law, perfectly fulfilling it. There's nothing more we can do. This is not what Peter taught in Acts 2. Pauls letters take precedent as he was the last to receive direct  revelation. In his letters is revealed in full the 'manifold wisdom of God'. Paul corrected many including Peter because he was teaching jewish customs to gentiles.

Galatians 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

That faith is Jesus Christ.


Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Volnutt on January 07, 2012, 09:36:28 AM
I don't see anywhere in the scriptures the words mid acts dispensationalism. Therefore, I am not a mid acts dispensationalist. Just someone who recognises he is a filthy sinner, and called on the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation.

If people want to put an 'ism' in there so be it. But I'm not interested in 'isms'. Thanks.
Are you one of those people who doesn't believe in the Trinity either because the word is not in the Bible?

Very intelligent question. But no. I'm not 'one of those' - as you put it. I believe there is One God - Father Son and Holy Spirit. If you've read any of my posts you'll see that I'm a defender of the Word of God. The doctrine of the Father Son and Spirit is spilling out of the bible - so why would I not believe that? Normally, those that deny the trinity read writings or teachings outside of the bible. Eg. christadelphians, mormons, Jehovahs witnesses etc etc.

If you think these people get their teachings from the bible you better have a more thorough look at what they believe - and more importantly where they get it from.. I can assure you its not from the bible.


Just checking. In my experience people who pull the "that term isn't in the Bible" argument are either cultists or nuts.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: genesisone on January 07, 2012, 10:31:36 AM
If you've read any of my posts you'll see that I'm a defender of the Word of God. The doctrine of the Father Son and Spirit is spilling out of the bible - so why would I not believe that? Normally, those that deny the trinity read writings or teachings outside of the bible. Eg. christadelphians, mormons, Jehovahs witnesses etc etc.

If you think these people get their teachings from the bible you better have a more thorough look at what they believe - and more importantly where they get it from.. I can assure you its not from the bible.


I'm not entering the basic issue of this thread, but I must point out that we've had a lot of recent discussion about "Word of God" vs "word of God". Yes, it is important - I think you'll find that the Orthodox members here would likely equate "Word of God" with Jesus Christ and "word of God" with the Holy Scriptures. I notice you write "bible" instead of the more usual "Bible". It would help us understand your perspective if you could be more exact in how you write these words. Things can get horribly confused and misunderstood on an internet forum.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 07, 2012, 02:16:59 PM

It has everything to do with the church - and whether it is visible or invisible. Salvation is personal. No one attains salvation by being a part of a certain or particular 'group'. Many would have us all believe this but it is not so. Salvation is personal. We then commune with other believers all of the time.. Anywhere and everywhere.. Members of the Body of Christ. 24 hr/day, 7 day a week church.



Saint Ilarion (Troitsky) quoted earlier points out:
Quote
To come to believe in Christ, to become a Christian - this meant uniting with the Church. This is repeatedly expressed in the book of the Acts of the Apostles, where we read that the Lord daily added the saved to the Church (cf. Acts 2:47; 5:13-14).

Hi, well the first thing wrong here is you are applying things found in the 2nd chapter of Acts through to the 5th chapter of Acts to us as though that is for us. Look at who is being addressed here.. Israel. Men of Israel. People of the dispersion. Both Jews, and proselyzed Jews. Who was at pentecost? Jews. Israel. It was a Jewish festival. Not a gentile festival. Gentiles were not welcome at this point.
Did you forget about how Jesus preached to the Samaritans? And what of the OT prophecies that the good news would be preached to the Gentiles?

Yes. Isaiah in particular. But you've missed the fact that it didn't go down quite as Israel had planned. They thought their Messiah would come and they would rule with Him over us gentiles.. The gentiles could then be saved while they ruled with their Messiah.. This was what some thought.

But, for our sake, and according to the purpose of God to save gentiles,(this was planned from 'before the foundations of the earth' - or predestined to occur - the Body Of Christ was predestined not individuals as calvinists think)  they (as a nation) rejected and even crucified their Messiah.. Giving us an opportunity to be saved. Israel(the circumcision) were justified BY FAITH - through circumcision and works of the law, we (uncircumcision) are justified THROUGH faith. Or by the Faith of Jesus Christ.

Israel is no longer being dealt with as a 'nation'. Because now, there is neither Jew nor Greek.

And regarding the Samaritans - Matthew 10:5 -5These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:

The idea was not for the disciples to go to gentiles or the samaritans. They - the disciples, did not recognise Gods plan and purpose at this point. Jesus spoke to some samaritans in Sychar, the woman at the well, but they were isolated incidents, they were preached to by Jesus and the samaritan was persistent, showing her faith. This is why Jesus spoke to them, because of their child like faith in who He was.

John 4 is the story.. The disciples were a little shocked He was talking with the samaritan woman because Jews had nothing to do with them.

The mystery of Christ was not revealed until after Saul was converted.
Or was it that it was revealed at or even before Pentecost, but St. Paul was the first apostle to really understand this? We do have the record of the Roman centurion whose child Jesus healed from a distance and whom Jesus praised for his great faith, which is an example of how Jesus revealed His plan for the Gentiles. We also have the Great Commission, where Jesus commands his disciples to preach the Gospel to all nations. How is this not a revelation of His plan for the Gentiles?

Or was it that it was revealed before Paul? it has been in operation since the beginning of time. Nobody knew it, not fully at least, until it was revealed to Paul. Whether this just means the first to understand it well, the scriptures just don't seem to say that.

Now, the disciples were instructed to go and preach the gospel to all nations in Matthew 28 - the great commission. But what exactly are they preaching and what is going on? It is Peter preaching in Acts 2. He's constantly referring to the audience as 'ye men of Israel', 'ye men of judea'. He preaches baptism and repentance as a requirement for the remission of sins. At this point he also does not recognise gentiles are to become partakers of the covenant through our 'adoption'.. It isn't until God gives him a vision of a white sheet filled with what Peter knows to be (according to OT law) unclean animals. Peter and all of the Jews were, even after Christ died and ascended back to heaven, still practicing the law, observing sabbath days, pentecost was still taking place in Jerusalem among the Jews, circumcision was even still being taught. Gatherings in the temples. Everything as the law prescribed.

What does Paul - (taught by Jesus by revelation) have to say about this? Romans 6:14 14'For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace'.

We are no longer under law. Christ fulfilled the law. He lived under the law, taught the law, perfectly fulfilling it. There's nothing more we can do. This is not what Peter taught in Acts 2. Pauls letters take precedent as he was the last to receive direct  revelation. In his letters is revealed in full the 'manifold wisdom of God'. Paul corrected many including Peter because he was teaching jewish customs to gentiles.

Galatians 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

That faith is Jesus Christ.
The problem, though, is that you seem to be concluding from these events that the only reason the Gospel has gone to the Gentiles at all is because the Jews rejected it. You seem to think also that something was revealed to Paul that wasn't revealed to the Twelve and that Paul therefore takes precedent over the Twelve. I reject this point of view.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: HabteSelassie on January 07, 2012, 03:44:00 PM
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!
Quote
We are no longer under law. Christ fulfilled the law. He lived under the law, taught the law, perfectly fulfilling it. There's nothing more we can do. This is not what Peter taught in Acts 2. Paul's letters take precedent as he was the last to receive direct  revelation. In his letters is revealed in full the 'manifold wisdom of God'. Paul corrected many including Peter because he was teaching Jewish customs to gentiles.

It wasn't that Peter or the Apostles were teaching Jewish customs to Gentiles, it was that the Apostles themselves were often continuing to publicly keep the Law and the Hebrew cultural traditions and diet, and this set a confusing example which seemed to contradict their words in Acts 2:36-42, Acts 5:29-42, Acts 11:1-18, Acts 13:38-48, Acts 15:1-30 (specifically v19-30).  What do we make of Acts 21:20-26 where Paul takes on the costs for redeeming four Nazarites at the Temple, who we can also assume were from the Church community? Also in 1 Corinthians 9:21-23 as you already quoted, Paul says he became "to those under the Law, as under the Law."  See the Apostles never explicitly forbid Jewish proselytes and neophytes from maintaining cultural aspects of the Law such as diet, dress, holidays, and Temple worship.  In the early Church the Temple still existed, and so we can be sure it was central to the Church life until its destruction and the subsequent dispersion of Jews, many who migrated to the growing Christian centers of Alexandria and Antioch/Damascus. The Church as a physical institution evolved out of the Dispersion just like the Synagogue.  The issue in Galatians 2:11-21 was over cultural etiquette

 more so than theology.  Paul was upset with Peter and James because they had "ate together with the nations yet when they [Jews] came shrank back and severed."  This was basically rude.  The Gentile converts to the Church were in many respects no different than any Jewish converts from a theological standpoint, which is precisely what Paul emphasizes in Galatians 3:28 and Colossians 3:11.  Don't forget Romans 9 where he advises the Gentile converts to patient and respectful to the Jewish membership of the Church however.  This is also Peter's emphasis in 2 Peter 2:1-22 and 3:14-17, that folks in the Church follow the protocol, and that protocol included mutual fellowship between Jewish and Gentile converts alike, but with respect towards the Prophets and the Scriptures which were markedly Jewish in imagery, culture, and symbolism.  We are not legalistically under the Law, but that doesn't mean the Apostle's threw the Jewish baby out with the bathwater.  So much of the Church is distinctively first-century Jewish in thought, in architecture, in theology, in culture, in music, in symbolism and imagery, in dress, in diet, in liturgical prayer, again we are not Jews at all, and the Jews equally had to "convert" in the first century, but the Church is most definitely built upon the Jewish identity of the Apostles.  I am not into that Jewish Jesus cultish fad going on in mega-church America where evangelical Christians are wearing Talith prayer shawls and blowing the shofar at sundown, but clearly culturally and anthropologically speaking, the Church is very Jewish in its original identity, not necessarily the contemporary Jews, the split between us and the is about 1700-1800 years old.
Quote



I have to say I think if just reading and hearing were the case then historical facts would line up very differently. Why would people die in acts if the rituals were just that or symbols?  I think part of the measure here has to come from history. The apostles started a church, a physical one whilst being members of a spiritual church. Maybe I'm missing the point (as I think I may be) but it seems to me much of the debate here would be much simpler with a measuring stick grounded in history. Preferably secular history.

TD Andreis

Let me guess. The Orthodox church?



Did you have anywhere else in mind? We're open to suggestions ;)

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: FountainPen on January 07, 2012, 03:49:41 PM
If you've read any of my posts you'll see that I'm a defender of the Word of God. The doctrine of the Father Son and Spirit is spilling out of the bible - so why would I not believe that? Normally, those that deny the trinity read writings or teachings outside of the bible. Eg. christadelphians, mormons, Jehovahs witnesses etc etc.

If you think these people get their teachings from the bible you better have a more thorough look at what they believe - and more importantly where they get it from.. I can assure you its not from the bible.


I'm not entering the basic issue of this thread, but I must point out that we've had a lot of recent discussion about "Word of God" vs "word of God". Yes, it is important - I think you'll find that the Orthodox members here would likely equate "Word of God" with Jesus Christ and "word of God" with the Holy Scriptures.

So would some of the "heretics" as well  ;)
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 07, 2012, 06:51:18 PM

It has everything to do with the church - and whether it is visible or invisible. Salvation is personal. No one attains salvation by being a part of a certain or particular 'group'. Many would have us all believe this but it is not so. Salvation is personal. We then commune with other believers all of the time.. Anywhere and everywhere.. Members of the Body of Christ. 24 hr/day, 7 day a week church.



Saint Ilarion (Troitsky) quoted earlier points out:
Quote
To come to believe in Christ, to become a Christian - this meant uniting with the Church. This is repeatedly expressed in the book of the Acts of the Apostles, where we read that the Lord daily added the saved to the Church (cf. Acts 2:47; 5:13-14).

Hi, well the first thing wrong here is you are applying things found in the 2nd chapter of Acts through to the 5th chapter of Acts to us as though that is for us. Look at who is being addressed here.. Israel. Men of Israel. People of the dispersion. Both Jews, and proselyzed Jews. Who was at pentecost? Jews. Israel. It was a Jewish festival. Not a gentile festival. Gentiles were not welcome at this point.
Did you forget about how Jesus preached to the Samaritans? And what of the OT prophecies that the good news would be preached to the Gentiles?

Yes. Isaiah in particular. But you've missed the fact that it didn't go down quite as Israel had planned. They thought their Messiah would come and they would rule with Him over us gentiles.. The gentiles could then be saved while they ruled with their Messiah.. This was what some thought.

But, for our sake, and according to the purpose of God to save gentiles,(this was planned from 'before the foundations of the earth' - or predestined to occur - the Body Of Christ was predestined not individuals as calvinists think)  they (as a nation) rejected and even crucified their Messiah.. Giving us an opportunity to be saved. Israel(the circumcision) were justified BY FAITH - through circumcision and works of the law, we (uncircumcision) are justified THROUGH faith. Or by the Faith of Jesus Christ.

Israel is no longer being dealt with as a 'nation'. Because now, there is neither Jew nor Greek.

And regarding the Samaritans - Matthew 10:5 -5These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:

The idea was not for the disciples to go to gentiles or the samaritans. They - the disciples, did not recognise Gods plan and purpose at this point. Jesus spoke to some samaritans in Sychar, the woman at the well, but they were isolated incidents, they were preached to by Jesus and the samaritan was persistent, showing her faith. This is why Jesus spoke to them, because of their child like faith in who He was.

John 4 is the story.. The disciples were a little shocked He was talking with the samaritan woman because Jews had nothing to do with them.

The mystery of Christ was not revealed until after Saul was converted.
Or was it that it was revealed at or even before Pentecost, but St. Paul was the first apostle to really understand this? We do have the record of the Roman centurion whose child Jesus healed from a distance and whom Jesus praised for his great faith, which is an example of how Jesus revealed His plan for the Gentiles. We also have the Great Commission, where Jesus commands his disciples to preach the Gospel to all nations. How is this not a revelation of His plan for the Gentiles?

Or was it that it was revealed before Paul? it has been in operation since the beginning of time. Nobody knew it, not fully at least, until it was revealed to Paul. Whether this just means the first to understand it well, the scriptures just don't seem to say that.

Now, the disciples were instructed to go and preach the gospel to all nations in Matthew 28 - the great commission. But what exactly are they preaching and what is going on? It is Peter preaching in Acts 2. He's constantly referring to the audience as 'ye men of Israel', 'ye men of judea'. He preaches baptism and repentance as a requirement for the remission of sins. At this point he also does not recognise gentiles are to become partakers of the covenant through our 'adoption'.. It isn't until God gives him a vision of a white sheet filled with what Peter knows to be (according to OT law) unclean animals. Peter and all of the Jews were, even after Christ died and ascended back to heaven, still practicing the law, observing sabbath days, pentecost was still taking place in Jerusalem among the Jews, circumcision was even still being taught. Gatherings in the temples. Everything as the law prescribed.

What does Paul - (taught by Jesus by revelation) have to say about this? Romans 6:14 14'For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace'.

We are no longer under law. Christ fulfilled the law. He lived under the law, taught the law, perfectly fulfilling it. There's nothing more we can do. This is not what Peter taught in Acts 2. Pauls letters take precedent as he was the last to receive direct  revelation. In his letters is revealed in full the 'manifold wisdom of God'. Paul corrected many including Peter because he was teaching jewish customs to gentiles.

Galatians 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

That faith is Jesus Christ.
The problem, though, is that you seem to be concluding from these events that the only reason the Gospel has gone to the Gentiles at all is because the Jews rejected it. You seem to think also that something was revealed to Paul that wasn't revealed to the Twelve and that Paul therefore takes precedent over the Twelve. I reject this point of view.

I seem to conclude that the only reason the gospel went to the gentiles is because the Jews rejected it? It was the plan of God from before the foundations of the earth! However God decided to reveal His plan is not up to any of us. Read Romans 11. Particularly verse 11 - I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall?(Israel) God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

When I say Paul takes precedent, I am speaking regarding us - as gentiles.. His letters are particularly addressed to gentiles, he was the 'apostle to the gentiles'.. The minister to the uncircumcision. Peter wasn't. Nor were the others. Peter was a minister to the circumcision particularly. James also. The beginning of James book is addressed to the House of Israel. If it is addressed to the house of Israel specifically, can I ask why nearly all of us try and apply its doctrine to ourselves? Would it be good of me to open a bible, not knowing anything and turning to Leviticus and then trying to apply Levitical law to myself now? No. It was for Israel at a particular time in history. There has been further revelation since Leviticus was written and we need to read the scriptures accordingly.

The manifold wisdom of God, even though not properly revealed until the apostle Paul - has certainly been in play since the beginning. It was not something that God 'improved' or had a 'mind change'. It was always there. From Abraham through to us. It is by Grace we have always been saved. It is Paul who is given this message. No one before him. To him first is given the gospel of the grace of God.

24But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.

Ephesians 3:1For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,2If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:3How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,4Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)5Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;6That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:7Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.

You have the free will to believe and reject what ever you like. If you can show me how the other disciples had the same deep revelation of the mystery of Christ - or the knowledge of the manifold wisdom of God the way Paul understood it and taught it - then I will also need to reject my own point of view.


Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 07, 2012, 08:11:53 PM
The problem, though, is that you seem to be concluding from these events that the only reason the Gospel has gone to the Gentiles at all is because the Jews rejected it. You seem to think also that something was revealed to Paul that wasn't revealed to the Twelve and that Paul therefore takes precedent over the Twelve. I reject this point of view.

I seem to conclude that the only reason the gospel went to the gentiles is because the Jews rejected it? It was the plan of God from before the foundations of the earth! However God decided to reveal His plan is not up to any of us. Read Romans 11. Particularly verse 11 - I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall?(Israel) God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

When I say Paul takes precedent, I am speaking regarding us - as gentiles.. His letters are particularly addressed to gentiles, he was the 'apostle to the gentiles'.. The minister to the uncircumcision. Peter wasn't. Nor were the others. Peter was a minister to the circumcision particularly. James also. The beginning of James book is addressed to the House of Israel. If it is addressed to the house of Israel specifically, can I ask why nearly all of us try and apply its doctrine to ourselves? Would it be good of me to open a bible, not knowing anything and turning to Leviticus and then trying to apply Levitical law to myself now? No. It was for Israel at a particular time in history. There has been further revelation since Leviticus was written and we need to read the scriptures accordingly.
What the logic of your argument implies within the context of this debate, though, is that the call to join the Church applies only to the Jews, not to Gentiles, since this doctrine of the Church appears within the first five chapters of Acts, which you claim apply only to Jews. What of St. Paul's doctrine of the Church found in Chapter 4 of his Epistle to the Ephesians and throughout his First Epistle to the Corinthians? How do you read that?

The manifold wisdom of God, even though not properly revealed until the apostle Paul - has certainly been in play since the beginning. It was not something that God 'improved' or had a 'mind change'. It was always there. From Abraham through to us. It is by Grace we have always been saved. It is Paul who is given this message. No one before him. To him first is given the gospel of the grace of God.
What evidence do you have that it was to Paul that the Gospel was first revealed and that he wasn't merely the first to realize fully its import to the Gentiles? Do you discount Christ's teaching of the Twelve?

You have the free will to believe and reject what ever you like. If you can show me how the other disciples had the same deep revelation of the mystery of Christ - or the knowledge of the manifold wisdom of God the way Paul understood it and taught it - then I will also need to reject my own point of view.
Maybe you just need to open your eyes to the fact that you're setting Paul in opposition to the Twelve and making him to be superior. It seems to me that one Marcion did this back in the 2nd Century, though to a greater extent than you, and is now condemned as a heretic for the conclusions he drew as a result of his rejection of the Twelve. (In fact, his false teachings were one of the prime impetuses behind the Church's collection of the Apostolic writings into what we know today as the New Testament, since Marcion rejected all but the Gospel of Luke, the Acts of the Apostles, and St. Paul's epistles.) What, for instance, do you have to say about St. John, whose Gospel shows the deepest insight into the nature of Christ and even uses the Greek concept of the Logos to describe how Christ Jesus is God? Is his insight somehow to be discarded as inferior because it doesn't meet up to your exalted image of the Apostle Paul?
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: biro on January 07, 2012, 08:19:51 PM
Huh? Is BGTF saying Paul was the first Apostle?

Uh, there are a few people who would like a word with you.

(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/icon_HolyApostles.jpg)
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Riddikulus on January 07, 2012, 08:29:09 PM
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 08, 2012, 12:02:31 AM
Hi people.. Apologies, this is going to be a long one.. But I think it is imperative we understand the covenants before anything I'm trying to say here can become more clear. I ask that if you really are interested in what I'm saying, or really are convinced I am wrong, please read this carefully. Attached are 3 images. Charts 1-3. They are each referenced throughout this post.

In Jeremiah 31 it says,

“31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”

This prophecy of Jeremiah tells us about a new covenant that the Lord is going to give unto the nation of Israel. Please notice again in verse 1,

“31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:”

Who is the Lord going to make this covenant with? He is going to make it with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, he is going to make it with the Jews which are also called the circumcision, the Israelites, the Hebrews.

Is he going to make this new covenant with the entire world?

The answer is a resounding NO.

Is he going to make this new covenant with the uncircumcised Gentiles?

Again, NO.

This new covenant is for Israel.

Don't get too excited yet.. There is of course much more to it than this. Please read on.

Now the main benefit of this new covenant is listed in verse 34 which says,

“…: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”

This covenant is about Israel receiving the permanent forgiveness of their sin and the Lord not remembering their sin any more. It is an everlasting covenant. If he were to remember their sin again, then it would not be an everlasting covenant.

In Isaiah 46 it says,

“12 Hearken unto me ye stouthearted, that are far from righteousness:13 I bring near my righteousness; and it shall not be far off, and my salvation shall not tarry: and I will place salvation in Zion for Israel my glory.”

Where is the Lord going to place salvation and who will it be for?

In Zion FOR ISRAEL.

Question: Does it say, “I will place salvation in Zion for the whole world?” No. Is he going to place it for the uncircumcised Gentiles? NO.

He very specifically says it will be for Israel.

In Malachi 3 it says,

“1 Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.”

Jesus quotes this verse and refers it to John the Baptist. In Matthew 11 it says,

“8 But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses.9 But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet.10 For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.”

So from Malachi 3:1 and Matthew 11 we see that John is the messenger of the new covenant. Jesus is not the messenger of the new covenant, Jesus is the mediator of the new covenant, John is the messenger. In Malachi 3:1 the Lord of hosts that is speaking is Jesus Christ, and the messenger that is to come before him is John the Baptist.

Regardless of who you feel is the messenger of the new covenant, the point is, the new covenant is now being offered to Israel when John the baptist comes on the scene.

In Luke 16 it says,

“16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.”

Since the time John came on the scene the kingdom is preached. John was preaching about 6 months before the Lord was. John is the messenger of the new covenant.

Once again, this new covenant has to do with Israel getting the forgiveness of their sin and God not remembering their sin anymore. In Luke 21 it says,

27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.”

When did the Lord say that they would get their redemption? When he comes back in a cloud and great glory. This is the second coming of Christ. This is when Israel will get their new covenant.

Has He returned yet?

In Acts 3 Peter is preaching the gospel of the kingdom and he says,

“19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.”

When will Israel get their sins blotted out? When the Lord comes back. This is the new covenant.

In Romans 11 Paul says,

“25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.”

When will Israel get their sins taken away? When the Deliverer shall roar out of Zion. Once again this is the second coming and is when Israel will receive their new covenant.

In Daniel 9 it says,

“24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.”

When will this happen? At the end of the seventieth week. This is when the Lord will finish the transgression and make an end of sins and make reconciliation for iniquity and bring in everlasting righteousness. Once again, this is Israel’s new covenant.

In Hebrews 9 it says,

“28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.”

When will the Hebrews receive their salvation? At the second coming of Christ.

In 1st Peter 1 it says,

“4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

10 Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:

13 Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;”

When will the Jews receive their salvation and their grace? When Jesus Christ is revealed from heaven at the second coming. Not until the fullness of the gentiles come in.

There are many verses that tell us that the new covenant is at the second coming of Christ. This is when Israel will receive the permanent forgiveness of their sins and God will remember their sin no more.

This new covenant was prophesied by Jeremiah and offered unto Israel by John the Baptist, Jesus Christ and the Apostles.

In Matthew 10 it says,

“5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

Why did Jesus tell the apostles not to go to the Gentiles? It appears that it was because they were offering the new covenant unto Israel. The new covenant was made for Israel, not the uncircumcised Gentiles. The uncircumcised Gentiles were strangers from the covenants of promise. Genesis 17.

In John 4, Jesus talked to a Gentile woman and told her,

“22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.”

Why did Jesus tell her that salvation was of the Jews? Because when Isaiah was alive Jesus told him to write,

“…I will place salvation in Zion for Israel my glory.”

So what we have here is the new covenant being offered unto the nation of Israel. This is the salvation that the Lord promised them. The new covenant was not promised to uncircumcised Gentiles, never was, never will be.

Let’s go ahead and look at time chart 1. This chart shows us in orange when John the Baptist came and began to preach the kingdom which is when Israel will receive the new covenant. Jesus and the apostles followed suit and this new covenant was to be offered unto Israel all the way to the end of the 70th week of Daniel’s prophecy.

In blue we have the new covenant church (or kingdom church if you prefer) this new covenant church is for Jews only, it does not include uncircumcised Gentiles, for they are strangers from the covenants of promise. The purple area shows the uncircumcised Gentiles. We have this church beginning at Acts 2 or the cross whichever you prefer. As long as you see it did start, the exact pinpoint of time is not crucial for now.

In the lower center in pink we see the everlasting covenant of circumcision, which separates the circumcision from the uncircumcision. God made this separation in Genesis 17. This is part of the middle wall of partition.

The 1st chart also shows the second coming of Christ and how Israel’s new covenant is given at this time.
On this chart the 69th and 70th weeks of Daniel are not separated by the dispensation of grace to show how things are supposed to line up. This is God offering the new covenant unto the nation of Israel.

On chart 2, we can see the separation of the 69th and 70th weeks of Daniel by the dispensation of grace given unto the Gentiles. As you can see, the one new man has been inserted into the church which is how God would save the Gentiles and join them with the Jews together in one body.

At the rapture, (and as far as I know, orthodox christians don't adhere to the rapture or the catching away full stop, but anyway), the one new man will be taken out of the way but the new covenant church will proceed through the tribulation. This is not a study on the rapture or the one new man but rather on the new covenant and the new covenant church, so we won’t go into those details here.

At the lower center of this chart we see the circumcision made without hands. This was accomplished by the one new man.

Also you will notice in orange again, that the offering of the new covenant has ceased. It has been replaced by the offering of the body of Christ to Jew and Gentile during the dispensation of grace. This is a spiritual new covenant rather than the new covenant of the letter. I'd be happy to discuss this in more detail if anyone is interested.

During the tribulation, there will be some uncircumcised Gentiles that bless Israel and they will be allowed into the kingdom but they will not be partakers with Israel. At the second coming of Christ, the Lord Jesus will separate the sheep from the goats. In Matthew 25 it says,

“31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.”

These Gentiles that bless Israel will be allowed into the kingdom but they will not, I repeat, will not be partakers with Israel. When the Lord comes back this is when Israel will receive their grace that was promised them, but the Lord will rule over the nations with a rod of iron. In Revelation 19 it says,

“15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.”

Also when he gets back, the uncircumcised Gentiles that made it through the tribulation will not be allowed into Jerusalem any more. In Isaiah 52 it says,

“1 Awake, awake; put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city: for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean.”

The uncircumcised Gentiles will not be able to go INTO Jerusalem, but they will be forced to come UNTO Jerusalem to worship the King. In Zechariah 14 it says,

“16 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.17 And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.18 And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.19 This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.20 In that day shall there be upon the bells of the horses, HOLINESS UNTO THE LORD; and the pots in the LORD'S house shall be like the bowls before the altar.21 Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the LORD of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts.”

If they do not come unto Jerusalem to worship the King at the feast of tabernacles the Lord will punish them with drought. Also in verse 21 it says that there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the Lord.

Also as Israel is receiving their grace that they were promised, the uncircumcised Gentiles will be receiving a law to follow from the Lord. In Isaiah 42 it says,

1“Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.2 He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street.3 A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth.4 He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law.”

During the 1000 year reign of Christ, while Israel receives their grace, the uncircumcised Gentiles that make it through the tribulation will be ruled with a rod of iron, will not be allowed to go into Jerusalem, will be forced to keep the feast of tabernacles or be punished, and they will be under a law that will be given to them by the Lord.

The uncircumcised Gentiles will be under a law, and the Jews will be under grace. The Jews will be the head and the Gentiles will be the tail.

The uncircumcised Gentiles WILL NOT, I repeat, WILL NOT be partakers with Israel. Just because God allows them into the kingdom does not make them partakers with the nation of Israel nor does it remove the everlasting covenant of circumcision.

Now at the end of the 1000 year reign God will make a new heaven and a new earth. The everlasting covenants that he gave will still be in effect such as the new covenant given to Israel and the covenant of circumcision.

God himself will descend from Heaven with the New Jerusalem. Inside the gates of the city will be a tree of life on each side of the river of life. Israel will dwell in the city as will the body of Christ, but there will be uncircumcised Gentiles outside of the city.

The fruit from the tree of life has something to do with allowing flesh to live forever. Adam in his sinful state could have eaten from the tree of life in the garden of Eden and lived forever. God had to kick him out of the garden so he would die.

Even so, when God brings down the New Jerusalem he will have a tree of life on each side of the river. In order for the people of the world that live outside the city, for them to be able to get to the tree of life they will have to do the Lord’s commandments. In Revelation 22 it says,

“14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.”

If they do not do the Lord’s commandments, they will not be allowed inside the gates of the New Jerusalem to get to the tree of life. If they cannot partake of the tree of life, they will eventually die. Death and hell have already been cast into the lake of fire, so when they die they will go straight to the lake of fire.

This is not salvation by grace through faith. This is not being partakers with Israel in their new covenant. These people that live outside the city, and if they do not do the Lord’s commandments, he WILL remember their sin. They will not have eternal life. Their eternal life is based upon partaking of the tree of life which is based upon doing the commandments of the Lord.

So what we have here is a clear understanding that the salvation that was offered to Israel is not the same salvation that is offered to the people outside of the New Jerusalem.

Israel’s salvation in their everlasting new covenant will be based upon grace and not remembering their sin anymore. The salvation of the people outside of the New Jerusalem will be based upon them having right to the tree of life based upon them doing the commandments of the Lord.

These are not the same. Let’s look at chart 3.

During this dispensation of grace that we are living in God has done something very special for us. We have been made partakers of Israel’s spiritual things by the one new man (the body of Christ). It is very unique, and we should be very, very thankful.

So what we have covered here is what the new covenant really is, who it was given to, and when it will come into effect. We have also seen that the grace that will be given to Israel at the new covenant will not be given to the uncircumcised Gentiles.

In Genesis 17 God separated man into two distinct entities, circumcision and uncircumcision. He said that this covenant would be in their flesh and that this would be an everlasting covenant and he meant it. He made covenants with the circumcision, not the uncircumcision. The uncircumcision were strangers from the covenants of promise.

Only through the one new man has God joined circumcision and uncircumcision into one body.

Once again, apologies for the extra long post.

Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: neon_knights on January 08, 2012, 12:34:15 AM
tl;dr
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Riddikulus on January 08, 2012, 12:39:18 AM
 :) ^^ I've skimmed ByGracethroughFaith's long post. This is basically dispensationalism, no?
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Asteriktos on January 08, 2012, 12:50:46 AM
^ That's what I thought as well... *shrugs*

Mid Acts dispensationalism?  :'(

No.

*Reads post again...*

Hi, well the first thing wrong here is you are applying things found in the 2nd chapter of Acts through to the 5th chapter of Acts to us as though that is for us. Look at who is being addressed here.. Israel. Men of Israel. People of the dispersion. Both Jews, and proselyzed Jews. Who was at pentecost? Jews. Israel. It was a Jewish festival. Not a gentile festival. Gentiles were not welcome at this point.

It is not until Peter has the vision from the Lord of all of the unclean animals coming down on the sheet that God shows Peter that salvation will be made available to the gentiles. Peter had no idea of this.

Israel rejected their new covenant church. I think you'll find that Israel was counted in 'unbelief' by the middle of the book of Acts with the stoning of Steven. This is why Christ is seen 'STANDING' at the right hand of the throne.. Not sitting as He did when He ascended.

But because of Israels rejection, comes out of that, our, gentile, salvation.

To understand how the church works for us as gentiles, we need to read Pauls letters. The fullness of the gospel is revealed to Paul. We can't look at pentecost and imagine that the place was flowing full with Jews and gentiles.. What we clearly see is that pentecost at Jerusalem was filled with Jews, and proselyzed Jews - only.

If we try and mix all things in the 'new testament' up together and apply everything in it to ourselves without recognizing the very clear distinction between Gods dealings with Israel as a nation and His dealings with us - the rest of the world, then we will be left confused.

1) Parts of NT not for us, they're for the Jews. Check.
2) At first Gentiles "were not welcome". Check.
2) Things changed around mid-acts. Check.

How is that not mid-Acts dispensationalism? That's like the very definition of the idea...  :police:
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Riddikulus on January 08, 2012, 01:01:40 AM
^ That's what I thought as well... *shrugs*

Mid Acts dispensationalism?  :'(

No.

*Reads post again...*

Hi, well the first thing wrong here is you are applying things found in the 2nd chapter of Acts through to the 5th chapter of Acts to us as though that is for us. Look at who is being addressed here.. Israel. Men of Israel. People of the dispersion. Both Jews, and proselyzed Jews. Who was at pentecost? Jews. Israel. It was a Jewish festival. Not a gentile festival. Gentiles were not welcome at this point.

It is not until Peter has the vision from the Lord of all of the unclean animals coming down on the sheet that God shows Peter that salvation will be made available to the gentiles. Peter had no idea of this.

Israel rejected their new covenant church. I think you'll find that Israel was counted in 'unbelief' by the middle of the book of Acts with the stoning of Steven. This is why Christ is seen 'STANDING' at the right hand of the throne.. Not sitting as He did when He ascended.

But because of Israels rejection, comes out of that, our, gentile, salvation.

To understand how the church works for us as gentiles, we need to read Pauls letters. The fullness of the gospel is revealed to Paul. We can't look at pentecost and imagine that the place was flowing full with Jews and gentiles.. What we clearly see is that pentecost at Jerusalem was filled with Jews, and proselyzed Jews - only.

If we try and mix all things in the 'new testament' up together and apply everything in it to ourselves without recognizing the very clear distinction between Gods dealings with Israel as a nation and His dealings with us - the rest of the world, then we will be left confused.

1) Parts of NT not for us, they're for the Jews. Check.
2) At first Gentiles "were not welcome". Check.
2) Things changed around mid-acts. Check.

How is that not mid-Acts dispensationalism? That's like the very definition of the idea...  :police:

Thanks, Asteriktos. So this teaching, or some earlier variation of it, started in the 19th Century. So for 1800+ years the Church missed this?  ???
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 08, 2012, 01:10:36 AM
Great. Even if it does resemble what some call 'mid acts' dispensationalism, lets just blow it off.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 08, 2012, 01:13:00 AM
By the way 'this teaching' - if you want to call it that, comes from the bible - not from man.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Riddikulus on January 08, 2012, 01:21:47 AM
Great. Even if it does resemble what some call 'mid acts' dispensationalism, lets just blow it off.


As I said, I have only skimmed your long post, but are so many similarities to Zionist Dispensationalism jump out at me that I can think of no other name for it. Unless it is perhaps Covenant Theology?

What support do you have from any Church Fathers for this doctrine?
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Ortho_cat on January 08, 2012, 01:32:24 AM
By the way 'this teaching' - if you want to call it that, comes from the bible - not from man.

Correction, it comes from an individual's interpretation/understanding of what the bible says. One teaches from the bible, and in order to do so, one must interpret it in a particular way.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Asteriktos on January 08, 2012, 01:36:26 AM
Great. Even if it does resemble what some call 'mid acts' dispensationalism, lets just blow it off.


I'm not blowing it off because I'm just too blind to see the truth in it. It's just that I used to be a Protestant and was a regular on a forum that had a large dispensationalist element, and I spent years watching and participating in debates on this stuff. Frankly, I have no interest in revisiting it... but I think you will find others here who will be more than willing to discuss it with you.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 08, 2012, 01:39:32 AM
Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 08, 2012, 01:41:11 AM
Great. Even if it does resemble what some call 'mid acts' dispensationalism, lets just blow it off.


I'm not blowing it off because I'm just too blind to see the truth in it. It's just that I used to be a Protestant and was a regular on a forum that had a large dispensationalist element, and I spent years watching and participating in debates on this stuff. Frankly, I have no interest in revisiting it... but I think you will find others here who will be more than willing to discuss it with you.

My objective is to speak to those who will listen. If you don't wish to revisit, that is up to you.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Riddikulus on January 08, 2012, 01:43:28 AM
The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.

Yeah, that's true.  ;)
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: wasamwillbe on January 08, 2012, 01:48:33 AM

Here is a shorter post

In some ways Humanism was not a philosophy per se, but rather a method of learning. In contrast to the medieval scholastic mode, which focused on resolving contradictions between authors, humanists would study ancient texts in the original, and appraise them through a combination of reasoning and empirical evidence.

Above all, humanists asserted "the genius of man ... the unique and extraordinary ability of the human mind."[42]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance

What comes from man?
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 08, 2012, 01:49:03 AM
By the way 'this teaching' - if you want to call it that, comes from the bible - not from man.

Correction, it comes from an individual's interpretation/understanding of what the bible says. One teaches from the bible, and in order to do so, one must interpret it in a particular way.

Correct. If an individual is to open the bible anywhere, and just try and teach out of it without dividing it rightly, there is going to be error and confusion. Hence my point earlier of somebody opening up to Leviticus and teaching people to live under the law cos thats what the bible says. I suppose thats why i understand you as the orthodox church like to stick together with what you have been taught and leave it at that.. Hold onto it no matter what..  I respect the zeal.. However, there is a book of authority, and it does not contradict itself. We need to study it to find the truth..

"Study, to show thyself approved to God". Do this friends. If you do, and I am wrong, you'll smash my 'teachings' to pieces, because there is one thing none of us can fight, and that is truth. Jesus Christ is Truth. The Word of God is like a 2 edged sword! Truth will win in the end. And I say that as humbly as I can, if I am outside the truth, I'm outside the truth. But the truth won't change because of any of us.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Riddikulus on January 08, 2012, 01:52:58 AM
By the way 'this teaching' - if you want to call it that, comes from the bible - not from man.

Correction, it comes from an individual's interpretation/understanding of what the bible says. One teaches from the bible, and in order to do so, one must interpret it in a particular way.

Correct. If an individual is to open the bible anywhere, and just try and teach out of it without dividing it rightly, there is going to be error and confusion. Hence my point earlier of somebody opening up to Leviticus and teaching people to live under the law cos thats what the bible says. I suppose thats why i understand you as the orthodox church like to stick together with what you have been taught and leave it at that.. Hold onto it no matter what..  I respect the zeal.. However, there is a book of authority, and it does not contradict itself. We need to study it to find the truth..

"Study, to show thyself approved to God". Do this friends. If you do, and I am wrong, you'll smash my 'teachings' to pieces, because there is one thing none of us can fight, and that is truth. Jesus Christ is Truth. The Word of God is like a 2 edged sword! Truth will win in the end. And I say that as humbly as I can, if I am outside the truth, I'm outside the truth. But the truth won't change because of any of us.

How do you know that 2Timothy 2:15 belongs in the bible?
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 08, 2012, 02:00:15 AM

Here is a shorter post

In some ways Humanism was not a philosophy per se, but rather a method of learning. In contrast to the medieval scholastic mode, which focused on resolving contradictions between authors, humanists would study ancient texts in the original, and appraise them through a combination of reasoning and empirical evidence.

Above all, humanists asserted "the genius of man ... the unique and extraordinary ability of the human mind."[42]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance

What comes from man?

Thanks for the short post.. Some people on here go way overboard! Lord have mercy..

I don't know.. What comes from man? Not really much we can brag about when we look at God. We are sinful and unrighteous, believers of vain philosophy, we have produced 'genius' university professors who don't even recognise God. I could go on.

1 Corinthians 2:14 springs to mind..  "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned".
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 08, 2012, 02:07:02 AM
By the way 'this teaching' - if you want to call it that, comes from the bible - not from man.

Correction, it comes from an individual's interpretation/understanding of what the bible says. One teaches from the bible, and in order to do so, one must interpret it in a particular way.

Correct. If an individual is to open the bible anywhere, and just try and teach out of it without dividing it rightly, there is going to be error and confusion. Hence my point earlier of somebody opening up to Leviticus and teaching people to live under the law cos thats what the bible says. I suppose thats why i understand you as the orthodox church like to stick together with what you have been taught and leave it at that.. Hold onto it no matter what..  I respect the zeal.. However, there is a book of authority, and it does not contradict itself. We need to study it to find the truth..

"Study, to show thyself approved to God". Do this friends. If you do, and I am wrong, you'll smash my 'teachings' to pieces, because there is one thing none of us can fight, and that is truth. Jesus Christ is Truth. The Word of God is like a 2 edged sword! Truth will win in the end. And I say that as humbly as I can, if I am outside the truth, I'm outside the truth. But the truth won't change because of any of us.

How do you know that 2Timothy 2:15 belongs in the bible?

I don't. But it is consistent with the rest of Pauls letters as far as my uneducated mind can assess. And secondly, that particular verse helped me understand things that didn't make much sense in the past. He raises what I understand to be a very important point on how we read the bible.

If it was written by Paul, it is the Word of God.. Paul received revelation directly from Jesus.. The only sections were this could be debated would be were he specifically says 'I speak as a man'.

The muslim sites I blog on have asked the same question. My answer doesn't satisfy them though..
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: wasamwillbe on January 08, 2012, 03:14:03 AM
Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
So since wolves enter among us we should each interpret scripture "in spirit and in truth" because then we will all arive at mid acts whatever that was, and that will not be the deception that destroys because we could never be that wolf in the flock?  Come on.  Scripture was an accumulation of letters written to the Churches by the apostles.  These churches submitted to the authority given to the Apostles, they kept these letters and passed them around and eventually the Body gathered these together and canonized them. The CHURCH canonized them because they maintained that authority that the apostles had because they handed it down to them.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 08, 2012, 03:21:53 AM
The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.

Yeah, that's true.  ;)

Wow!
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 08, 2012, 03:47:40 AM
Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
So since wolves enter among us we should each interpret scripture "in spirit and in truth" because then we will all arive at mid acts whatever that was, and that will not be the deception that destroys because we could never be that wolf in the flock because real truth can be arrived at through some real good rational exposition, oh yeah and that "spirit and truth" thing, and if every one really, really thought about it they'd see it to be true.  Oh and when Calvinist say this truth in interpretation thing, they're wrong.

No, you'll arrive at the truth.

It doesn't matter what we hear. Whatever we do hear, compare it to the scriptures. It is that simple.

What is this truth in interpretation thing that the calvinists speak of? While we talk about calvinists, one of the primary verses calvinists use is John 6:44 - "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day."

They use this verse to suggest that those who believe were picked out to believe outside of their own free will. They were chosen to be saved, others were chosen to die..

But then they simply ignore or 'spiritualise' John 12:32"And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me."

Its not hard to argue with a calvinist. They haven't a leg to stand on other than the scriptures that they use to support their view. And their belief is crippled in one single sentence..i.e John 12:32..

I don't mean to single them out and criticise them individually, however we men seem to find security in something that suits us, and stick with it even if it is proven to be totally wrong.

You can shout 'mid acts dispensationalist!', 'heretic!', 'a man who is not supported by church fathers!', 'protestant!' 'not a member of the orthodox church!' until the kingdom does come. This won't guide me into the truth if I'm in error. Show me using the scriptures - then I will submit.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 08, 2012, 04:14:28 AM
Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
So since wolves enter among us we should each interpret scripture "in spirit and in truth" because then we will all arive at mid acts whatever that was, and that will not be the deception that destroys because we could never be that wolf in the flock?  Come on.  Scripture was an accumulation of letters written to the Churches by the apostles.  These churches submitted to the authority given to the Apostles, they kept these letters and passed them around and eventually the Body gathered these together and canonized them. The CHURCH canonized them because they maintained that authority that the apostles had because they handed it down to them.

How could anyone not canonise what was canonised? All the books of the new testament were written by apostles and those who had direct contact with Christ.. Some books historical and factual, written by witnesses to the risen Christ, (still under law) i.e - Matthew, mark, Luke, yet there are some for today, which are written to us - NOW. i.e - Pauls letters. (not under law, under grace). Just because the men that lived back then put the bible together the way they did means what?.. Who would honestly debate the NT canon now? Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James - all apostles. All of them had contact with Christ.. All with their own style of writing - easily recognisable. All of them writing according to the purpose of God. This is why they are in the bible canon.

Ignatius of antiochs writings, to use an example, (I have nothing against this man) didn't make the canon though. Why? Read the first few paragraphs of his writings and the answer will be clear. He had no authority. Just like my writings and your writings.. No authority.. Often the writings can be profitable, but they hold no authority. Not like the authority given to the writers of the N.T.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: wasamwillbe on January 08, 2012, 04:20:39 AM
Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
So since wolves enter among us we should each interpret scripture "in spirit and in truth" because then we will all arive at mid acts whatever that was, and that will not be the deception that destroys because we could never be that wolf in the flock?  Come on.  Scripture was an accumulation of letters written to the Churches by the apostles.  These churches submitted to the authority given to the Apostles, they kept these letters and passed them around and eventually the Body gathered these together and canonized them. The CHURCH canonized them because they maintained that authority that the apostles had because they handed it down to them.

How could anyone not canonise what was canonised? All the books of the new testament were written by apostles and those who had direct contact with Christ.. Some books historical and factual, written by witnesses to the risen Christ, (still under law) i.e - Matthew, mark, Luke, yet there are some for today, which are written to us - NOW. i.e - Pauls letters. (not under law, under grace). Just because the men that lived back then put the bible together the way they did means what?.. Who would honestly debate the NT canon now? Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James - all apostles. All of them had contact with Christ.. All with their own style of writing - easily recognisable. All of them writing according to the purpose of God. This is why they are in the bible canon.

Ignatius of antiochs writings, to use an example, (I have nothing against this man) didn't make the canon though. Why? Read the first few paragraphs of his writings and the answer will be clear. He had no authority. Just like my writings and your writings.. No authority.. Often the writings can be profitable, but they hold no authority. Not like the authority given to the writers of the N.T.
So the bishops appointed by the apostles had no authority?
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: wasamwillbe on January 08, 2012, 04:22:51 AM
Yeah, sorry I modifed that message because it was too harsh, sorry about that.  

You won't find me defending Calvinism, I grew up Calvinist.  And I'm sorry but I know many a Calvinist who can rationalize as well as you or better.

You can claim scripture stands on it's own all you like but it doesn't.  The best debater does not arrive at Truth.  
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 08, 2012, 04:29:57 AM
Hi people.. Apologies, this is going to be a long one.. But I think it is imperative we understand the covenants before anything I'm trying to say here can become more clear. I ask that if you really are interested in what I'm saying, or really are convinced I am wrong, please read this carefully. Attached are 3 images. Charts 1-3. They are each referenced throughout this post.

Once again, apologies for the extra long post.
Okay. :-\ So what does any of this have to do with your implications that the call to join the Church applies only to Jews and that St. Paul is superior to the other Apostles?
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 08, 2012, 04:32:12 AM
Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
We know the Holy Fathers spoke copiously from the Scriptures, so what makes your use of the Scriptures different from theirs?
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 08, 2012, 04:33:51 AM
Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
So since wolves enter among us we should each interpret scripture "in spirit and in truth" because then we will all arive at mid acts whatever that was, and that will not be the deception that destroys because we could never be that wolf in the flock?  Come on.  Scripture was an accumulation of letters written to the Churches by the apostles.  These churches submitted to the authority given to the Apostles, they kept these letters and passed them around and eventually the Body gathered these together and canonized them. The CHURCH canonized them because they maintained that authority that the apostles had because they handed it down to them.

How could anyone not canonise what was canonised? All the books of the new testament were written by apostles and those who had direct contact with Christ.. Some books historical and factual, written by witnesses to the risen Christ, (still under law) i.e - Matthew, mark, Luke, yet there are some for today, which are written to us - NOW. i.e - Pauls letters. (not under law, under grace). Just because the men that lived back then put the bible together the way they did means what?.. Who would honestly debate the NT canon now? Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James - all apostles. All of them had contact with Christ.. All with their own style of writing - easily recognisable. All of them writing according to the purpose of God. This is why they are in the bible canon.

Ignatius of antiochs writings, to use an example, (I have nothing against this man) didn't make the canon though. Why? Read the first few paragraphs of his writings and the answer will be clear. He had no authority. Just like my writings and your writings.. No authority.. Often the writings can be profitable, but they hold no authority. Not like the authority given to the writers of the N.T.
So the bishops appointed by the apostles had no authority?

Again, read the last sentance.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 08, 2012, 04:35:44 AM
Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
So since wolves enter among us we should each interpret scripture "in spirit and in truth" because then we will all arive at mid acts whatever that was, and that will not be the deception that destroys because we could never be that wolf in the flock?  Come on.  Scripture was an accumulation of letters written to the Churches by the apostles.  These churches submitted to the authority given to the Apostles, they kept these letters and passed them around and eventually the Body gathered these together and canonized them. The CHURCH canonized them because they maintained that authority that the apostles had because they handed it down to them.

How could anyone not canonise what was canonised? All the books of the new testament were written by apostles and those who had direct contact with Christ.. Some books historical and factual, written by witnesses to the risen Christ, (still under law) i.e - Matthew, mark, Luke, yet there are some for today, which are written to us - NOW. i.e - Pauls letters. (not under law, under grace). Just because the men that lived back then put the bible together the way they did means what?.. Who would honestly debate the NT canon now? Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James - all apostles. All of them had contact with Christ.. All with their own style of writing - easily recognisable. All of them writing according to the purpose of God. This is why they are in the bible canon.

Ignatius of antiochs writings, to use an example, (I have nothing against this man) didn't make the canon though. Why? Read the first few paragraphs of his writings and the answer will be clear. He had no authority. Just like my writings and your writings.. No authority.. Often the writings can be profitable, but they hold no authority. Not like the authority given to the writers of the N.T.
If you have no authority, why are you here? ???
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 08, 2012, 04:45:19 AM
Yeah, sorry I modifed that message because it was too harsh, sorry about that.  

You won't find me defending Calvinism, I grew up Calvinist.  And I'm sorry but I know many a Calvinist who can rationalize as well as you or better.

You can claim scripture stands on it's own all you like but it doesn't.  The best debater does not arrive at Truth.  

Well at least we agree on something! The first part at least.. The second part...well...nah!
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 08, 2012, 04:46:25 AM
Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
So since wolves enter among us we should each interpret scripture "in spirit and in truth" because then we will all arive at mid acts whatever that was, and that will not be the deception that destroys because we could never be that wolf in the flock?  Come on.  Scripture was an accumulation of letters written to the Churches by the apostles.  These churches submitted to the authority given to the Apostles, they kept these letters and passed them around and eventually the Body gathered these together and canonized them. The CHURCH canonized them because they maintained that authority that the apostles had because they handed it down to them.

How could anyone not canonise what was canonised? All the books of the new testament were written by apostles and those who had direct contact with Christ.. Some books historical and factual, written by witnesses to the risen Christ, (still under law) i.e - Matthew, mark, Luke, yet there are some for today, which are written to us - NOW. i.e - Pauls letters. (not under law, under grace). Just because the men that lived back then put the bible together the way they did means what?.. Who would honestly debate the NT canon now? Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James - all apostles. All of them had contact with Christ.. All with their own style of writing - easily recognisable. All of them writing according to the purpose of God. This is why they are in the bible canon.

Ignatius of antiochs writings, to use an example, (I have nothing against this man) didn't make the canon though. Why? Read the first few paragraphs of his writings and the answer will be clear. He had no authority. Just like my writings and your writings.. No authority.. Often the writings can be profitable, but they hold no authority. Not like the authority given to the writers of the N.T.
If you have no authority, why are you here? ???

I repeat.. Read the last sentance.. If I don't back up what I say with scripture then I have no authority.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 08, 2012, 04:47:49 AM
Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
We know the Holy Fathers spoke copiously from the Scriptures, so what makes your use of the Scriptures different from theirs?

Type in to google a man named 'Zakir Naik'.. This man also speaks 'copious' amounts of scripture, but doesn't understand a word they say.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 08, 2012, 04:49:18 AM
Hi people.. Apologies, this is going to be a long one.. But I think it is imperative we understand the covenants before anything I'm trying to say here can become more clear. I ask that if you really are interested in what I'm saying, or really are convinced I am wrong, please read this carefully. Attached are 3 images. Charts 1-3. They are each referenced throughout this post.

Once again, apologies for the extra long post.
Okay. :-\ So what does any of this have to do with your implications that the call to join the Church applies only to Jews and that St. Paul is superior to the other Apostles?

None of that is what I implied. Feel free to read again..
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: wasamwillbe on January 08, 2012, 04:57:02 AM
Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
So since wolves enter among us we should each interpret scripture "in spirit and in truth" because then we will all arive at mid acts whatever that was, and that will not be the deception that destroys because we could never be that wolf in the flock?  Come on.  Scripture was an accumulation of letters written to the Churches by the apostles.  These churches submitted to the authority given to the Apostles, they kept these letters and passed them around and eventually the Body gathered these together and canonized them. The CHURCH canonized them because they maintained that authority that the apostles had because they handed it down to them.

How could anyone not canonise what was canonised? All the books of the new testament were written by apostles and those who had direct contact with Christ.. Some books historical and factual, written by witnesses to the risen Christ, (still under law) i.e - Matthew, mark, Luke, yet there are some for today, which are written to us - NOW. i.e - Pauls letters. (not under law, under grace). Just because the men that lived back then put the bible together the way they did means what?.. Who would honestly debate the NT canon now? Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James - all apostles. All of them had contact with Christ.. All with their own style of writing - easily recognisable. All of them writing according to the purpose of God. This is why they are in the bible canon.

Ignatius of antiochs writings, to use an example, (I have nothing against this man) didn't make the canon though. Why? Read the first few paragraphs of his writings and the answer will be clear. He had no authority. Just like my writings and your writings.. No authority.. Often the writings can be profitable, but they hold no authority. Not like the authority given to the writers of the N.T.
If you have no authority, why are you here? ???

I repeat.. Read the last sentance.. If I don't back up what I say with scripture then I have no authority.
What about when you use scripture incorrectly, oh, and your rational won't accept that you are.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 08, 2012, 04:59:00 AM
Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
So since wolves enter among us we should each interpret scripture "in spirit and in truth" because then we will all arive at mid acts whatever that was, and that will not be the deception that destroys because we could never be that wolf in the flock?  Come on.  Scripture was an accumulation of letters written to the Churches by the apostles.  These churches submitted to the authority given to the Apostles, they kept these letters and passed them around and eventually the Body gathered these together and canonized them. The CHURCH canonized them because they maintained that authority that the apostles had because they handed it down to them.

How could anyone not canonise what was canonised? All the books of the new testament were written by apostles and those who had direct contact with Christ.. Some books historical and factual, written by witnesses to the risen Christ, (still under law) i.e - Matthew, mark, Luke, yet there are some for today, which are written to us - NOW. i.e - Pauls letters. (not under law, under grace). Just because the men that lived back then put the bible together the way they did means what?.. Who would honestly debate the NT canon now? Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James - all apostles. All of them had contact with Christ.. All with their own style of writing - easily recognisable. All of them writing according to the purpose of God. This is why they are in the bible canon.

Ignatius of antiochs writings, to use an example, (I have nothing against this man) didn't make the canon though. Why? Read the first few paragraphs of his writings and the answer will be clear. He had no authority. Just like my writings and your writings.. No authority.. Often the writings can be profitable, but they hold no authority. Not like the authority given to the writers of the N.T.
If you have no authority, why are you here? ???

I repeat.. Read the last sentance.. If I don't back up what I say with scripture then I have no authority.
What about when you use scripture incorrectly, oh, and your rational won't accept that you are.

Not at all.. Like I have plead with you all time and time again. If I am using scripture incorrectly, correct me using scripture and I'll gladly stand corrected.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 08, 2012, 05:06:11 AM
Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
We know the Holy Fathers spoke copiously from the Scriptures, so what makes your use of the Scriptures different from theirs?

I really don't want to open up a can of worms right here right now.. There is enough going on.. Perhaps I might start a new post.. but if you really respect the early church fathers and hold their teachings as infallible and authoritative just as I do the scriptures, then listen to what Melito - Bishop of Sardis had to say..

Here is what Melito wrote around 170 A.D.:

We are not those who pay homage to stones, that are without sensation; but of the only God, who is before all and over all, and, moreover, we are worshippers of His Christ, who is veritably God the Word existing before all time (Melito. Translation by Roberts and Donaldson. From the apology addressed to Marcus Aurelius Antoninus. Online version copyright © 2001 Peter Kirby. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/melito.html 11/18/06).

For there are some men who are unable to rise from their mother earth, and therefore also do they make them gods. from the earth their mother; and they are condemned by the judgments of truth, forasmuch as they apply the name of Him who is unchangeable to those objects which are subject to change, and shrink not from calling those things gods which have been made by the hands of man, and dare to make an image of God whom they have not seen...

Who is this God? He who is Himself truth, and His word truth. And what is truth? That which is not fashioned, nor made, nor represented by art: that is, which has never been brought into existence, and is on that account called truth. If, therefore, a man worship that which is made with hands, it is not the truth that he worships, nor yet the word of truth..."

There are, however, persons who say: It is for the honour of God that we make the image: in order, that is, that we may worship the God who is concealed from our view. But they are unaware that God is in every country, and in every place, and is never absent, and that there is not anything done and He knoweth it not. Yet thou, despicable man! within whom He is, and without whom He is, and above whom He is, hast nevertheless gone and bought thee wood from the carpenter's, and it is carved and made into an image insulting to God. To this thou offerest sacrifice, and knowest not that the all-seeing eye seeth thee, and that the word of truth reproves thee, and says to thee: How can the unseen God be sculptured? Nay, it is the likeness of thyself that thou makest and worshippest. Because the wood has been sculptured, hast thou not the insight to perceive that it is still wood, or that the stone is still stone? The gold also the workman: taketh according to its weight in the balance. And when thou hast had it made into an image, why dose thou weigh it? Therefore thou art a lover of gold, and not a lover of God...

Again, there are persons who say: Whatsoever our fathers have bequeathed to us, that we reverence. Therefore, of course, it is, that those whose fathers have bequeathed them poverty strive to become rich! and those whose fathers did not instruct them, desire to be instructed, and to learn that which their fathers knew not! And why, forsooth, do the children of the blind see, and the children of the lame walk? Nay, it is not well for a man to follow his predecessors, if they be those whose course was evil; but rather that we should turn from that path of theirs, lest that which befell our predecessors should bring disaster upon us also. Wherefore, inquire whether thy father's course was good: and, if so, do thou also follow in his steps; but, if thy father's course was very evil, let thine be good, and so let it be with thy children after thee. Be grieved also for thy father because his course is evil, so long as thy grief may avail to help him. But, as for thy children, speak to them thus: There is a God, the Father of all, who never came into being, neither was ever made, and by whose will all things subsist...

And then shall those who have not known God, and those who have made them idols, bemoan themselves, when they shall see those idols of theirs being burnt up, together with themselves, and nothing shall be found to help them (Melito. Translation by Roberts and Donaldson. A DISCOURSE WHICH WAS IN THE PRESENCE OF ANTONINUS CAESAR, AND HE EXHORTED THE SAID CAESAR TO ACQUAINT HIMSELF WITH GOD, AND SHOWED TO HIM THE WAY OF TRUTH. Online version copyright © 2001 Peter Kirby. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/melito.html 11/18/06).

Like I said earlier.. All writings from all people can be profitable.. Perhaps this teaching from Melito might help enlighten us.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 08, 2012, 05:09:23 AM
Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
We know the Holy Fathers spoke copiously from the Scriptures, so what makes your use of the Scriptures different from theirs?

Type in to google a man named 'Zakir Naik'.. This man also speaks 'copious' amounts of scripture, but doesn't understand a word they say.
What makes you think you do?
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 08, 2012, 05:13:32 AM
Hi people.. Apologies, this is going to be a long one.. But I think it is imperative we understand the covenants before anything I'm trying to say here can become more clear. I ask that if you really are interested in what I'm saying, or really are convinced I am wrong, please read this carefully. Attached are 3 images. Charts 1-3. They are each referenced throughout this post.

Once again, apologies for the extra long post.
Okay. :-\ So what does any of this have to do with your implications that the call to join the Church applies only to Jews and that St. Paul is superior to the other Apostles?

None of that is what I implied. Feel free to read again..
Yes, I read your posts very carefully as I typed my reply. Maybe you need to read again what you posted, because it very clearly does imply that, because the call to join the Church is stated in Chapters 2-5 of Acts, it applies only to the Jews. And you explicitly stated that St. Paul takes precedent over the Twelve as pertains to the Gentiles. What is precedent if not superiority?
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 08, 2012, 05:16:33 AM
Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
So since wolves enter among us we should each interpret scripture "in spirit and in truth" because then we will all arive at mid acts whatever that was, and that will not be the deception that destroys because we could never be that wolf in the flock?  Come on.  Scripture was an accumulation of letters written to the Churches by the apostles.  These churches submitted to the authority given to the Apostles, they kept these letters and passed them around and eventually the Body gathered these together and canonized them. The CHURCH canonized them because they maintained that authority that the apostles had because they handed it down to them.

How could anyone not canonise what was canonised? All the books of the new testament were written by apostles and those who had direct contact with Christ.. Some books historical and factual, written by witnesses to the risen Christ, (still under law) i.e - Matthew, mark, Luke, yet there are some for today, which are written to us - NOW. i.e - Pauls letters. (not under law, under grace). Just because the men that lived back then put the bible together the way they did means what?.. Who would honestly debate the NT canon now? Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James - all apostles. All of them had contact with Christ.. All with their own style of writing - easily recognisable. All of them writing according to the purpose of God. This is why they are in the bible canon.

Ignatius of antiochs writings, to use an example, (I have nothing against this man) didn't make the canon though. Why? Read the first few paragraphs of his writings and the answer will be clear. He had no authority. Just like my writings and your writings.. No authority.. Often the writings can be profitable, but they hold no authority. Not like the authority given to the writers of the N.T.
If you have no authority, why are you here? ???

I repeat.. Read the last sentance.. If I don't back up what I say with scripture then I have no authority.
What about when you use scripture incorrectly, oh, and your rational won't accept that you are.

Not at all.. Like I have plead with you all time and time again. If I am using scripture incorrectly, correct me using scripture and I'll gladly stand corrected.
Sola scriptura... Is that teaching found in Scripture?
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 08, 2012, 05:19:45 AM
Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
We know the Holy Fathers spoke copiously from the Scriptures, so what makes your use of the Scriptures different from theirs?

I really don't want to open up a can of worms right here right now.. There is enough going on.. Perhaps I might start a new post.. but if you really respect the early church fathers and hold their teachings as infallible and authoritative just as I do the scriptures, then listen to what Melito - Bishop of Sardis had to say..
Say... to what? What are you arguing against in this post?

BTW, you do realize that we don't hold individual Church Fathers to be infallible?
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 08, 2012, 05:29:28 AM
Hi people.. Apologies, this is going to be a long one.. But I think it is imperative we understand the covenants before anything I'm trying to say here can become more clear. I ask that if you really are interested in what I'm saying, or really are convinced I am wrong, please read this carefully. Attached are 3 images. Charts 1-3. They are each referenced throughout this post.

Once again, apologies for the extra long post.
Okay. :-\ So what does any of this have to do with your implications that the call to join the Church applies only to Jews and that St. Paul is superior to the other Apostles?

None of that is what I implied. Feel free to read again..
Yes, I read your posts very carefully as I typed my reply. Maybe you need to read again what you posted, because it very clearly does imply that, because the call to join the Church is stated in Chapters 2-5 of Acts, it applies only to the Jews. And you explicitly stated that St. Paul takes precedent over the Twelve as pertains to the Gentiles. What is precedent if not superiority?

Precedent -a legal decision or form of proceeding serving as an authoritative rule or pattern in future similar or analogous cases.

Superiority -the quality or condition of being superior.

There is a difference my friend..

1 Timothy 1:15This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.16Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 08, 2012, 05:32:51 AM
Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
So since wolves enter among us we should each interpret scripture "in spirit and in truth" because then we will all arive at mid acts whatever that was, and that will not be the deception that destroys because we could never be that wolf in the flock?  Come on.  Scripture was an accumulation of letters written to the Churches by the apostles.  These churches submitted to the authority given to the Apostles, they kept these letters and passed them around and eventually the Body gathered these together and canonized them. The CHURCH canonized them because they maintained that authority that the apostles had because they handed it down to them.

How could anyone not canonise what was canonised? All the books of the new testament were written by apostles and those who had direct contact with Christ.. Some books historical and factual, written by witnesses to the risen Christ, (still under law) i.e - Matthew, mark, Luke, yet there are some for today, which are written to us - NOW. i.e - Pauls letters. (not under law, under grace). Just because the men that lived back then put the bible together the way they did means what?.. Who would honestly debate the NT canon now? Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James - all apostles. All of them had contact with Christ.. All with their own style of writing - easily recognisable. All of them writing according to the purpose of God. This is why they are in the bible canon.

Ignatius of antiochs writings, to use an example, (I have nothing against this man) didn't make the canon though. Why? Read the first few paragraphs of his writings and the answer will be clear. He had no authority. Just like my writings and your writings.. No authority.. Often the writings can be profitable, but they hold no authority. Not like the authority given to the writers of the N.T.
If you have no authority, why are you here? ???

I repeat.. Read the last sentance.. If I don't back up what I say with scripture then I have no authority.
What about when you use scripture incorrectly, oh, and your rational won't accept that you are.

Not at all.. Like I have plead with you all time and time again. If I am using scripture incorrectly, correct me using scripture and I'll gladly stand corrected.
Sola scriptura... Is that teaching found in Scripture?

I think sola scriptura needs to be understood in the sense that everything that is taught, referenced and accepted in Christianity must be supported by scripture..
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 08, 2012, 05:35:11 AM
Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
We know the Holy Fathers spoke copiously from the Scriptures, so what makes your use of the Scriptures different from theirs?

I really don't want to open up a can of worms right here right now.. There is enough going on.. Perhaps I might start a new post.. but if you really respect the early church fathers and hold their teachings as infallible and authoritative just as I do the scriptures, then listen to what Melito - Bishop of Sardis had to say..
Say... to what? What are you arguing against in this post?

BTW, you do realize that we don't hold individual Church Fathers to be infallible?

I realise that by this it simply means you pick and choose from their writings the ones which suit you.. or suit the orthodox church..
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 08, 2012, 05:37:04 AM
Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
We know the Holy Fathers spoke copiously from the Scriptures, so what makes your use of the Scriptures different from theirs?

Type in to google a man named 'Zakir Naik'.. This man also speaks 'copious' amounts of scripture, but doesn't understand a word they say.
What makes you think you do?

Because nobody has so far been able to put one scripture up on this post to prove me wrong.. Thats what I'm waiting for.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Shiny on January 08, 2012, 08:09:57 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/xAuyG.gif)

Here is my response to you:

(http://i.imgur.com/FDsSp.png)

You can send a seminary diploma to my inbox.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 08, 2012, 08:39:58 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/xAuyG.gif)

Here is my response to you:

(http://i.imgur.com/FDsSp.png)

You can send a seminary diploma to my inbox.


Very good! Did you draw that all by yourself? Oh, Obamas the antichrist is he? I'll keep that in mind.. Thanks for the input!
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: FountainPen on January 08, 2012, 11:58:15 AM
I don't see that there's any need to be childish Achronos. This is a worthwhile discussion and if you don't agree then say so or find another thread to occupy yourself with, rather than posting silly first grade graphics and language.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 08, 2012, 12:00:02 PM
Hi people.. Apologies, this is going to be a long one.. But I think it is imperative we understand the covenants before anything I'm trying to say here can become more clear. I ask that if you really are interested in what I'm saying, or really are convinced I am wrong, please read this carefully. Attached are 3 images. Charts 1-3. They are each referenced throughout this post.

Once again, apologies for the extra long post.
Okay. :-\ So what does any of this have to do with your implications that the call to join the Church applies only to Jews and that St. Paul is superior to the other Apostles?

None of that is what I implied. Feel free to read again..
Yes, I read your posts very carefully as I typed my reply. Maybe you need to read again what you posted, because it very clearly does imply that, because the call to join the Church is stated in Chapters 2-5 of Acts, it applies only to the Jews. And you explicitly stated that St. Paul takes precedent over the Twelve as pertains to the Gentiles. What is precedent if not superiority?

Precedent -a legal decision or form of proceeding serving as an authoritative rule or pattern in future similar or analogous cases.
But the way you use a word takes precedent over any dictionary definition you may like to post to win an argument.

Superiority -the quality or condition of being superior.

There is a difference my friend..

1 Timothy 1:15This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.16Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.
Okay. What are you trying to say here? Scripture needs interpretation.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: biro on January 08, 2012, 02:52:14 PM
Um, I hate to say this, but does BGTF have anything to do with a person whose name rhymes with Alfred Persson?

 ???

Just wondering.

(P.S., I thought Achronos' graphic was hilarious.)
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 08, 2012, 05:05:00 PM
Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
We know the Holy Fathers spoke copiously from the Scriptures, so what makes your use of the Scriptures different from theirs?

I really don't want to open up a can of worms right here right now.. There is enough going on.. Perhaps I might start a new post.. but if you really respect the early church fathers and hold their teachings as infallible and authoritative just as I do the scriptures, then listen to what Melito - Bishop of Sardis had to say..
Say... to what? What are you arguing against in this post?

BTW, you do realize that we don't hold individual Church Fathers to be infallible?

I realise that by this it simply means you pick and choose from their writings the ones which suit you.. or suit the orthodox church..
You do notice that I haven't posted any arguments from the Fathers and that the only citations I've made of authorities outside myself have been of the Christian Scriptures? (This has been intentional and is not merely an oversight on my part.) Between you and me, you're the only one who has made any attempt to quote a Father, and it was one you cherry picked to prove your point. You have heard the parable of the dog who ridiculed the cat for being covered with fur?
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 08, 2012, 05:05:59 PM
Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
We know the Holy Fathers spoke copiously from the Scriptures, so what makes your use of the Scriptures different from theirs?

Type in to google a man named 'Zakir Naik'.. This man also speaks 'copious' amounts of scripture, but doesn't understand a word they say.
What makes you think you do?

Because nobody has so far been able to put one scripture up on this post to prove me wrong.. Thats what I'm waiting for.
Don't hold your breath. For us to deem it worth our time to prove you wrong, you first bear a burden to prove yourself right.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Riddikulus on January 08, 2012, 05:07:15 PM
(P.S., I thought Achronos' graphic was hilarious.)

Forgive me, those it offends, but I thought it was hilarious too!! It was a great start to my Monday!  (I just wish I hadn't been drinking coffee at the time I read it! Looking around for something to wipe the computer screen with. ) :laugh:
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 08, 2012, 05:09:28 PM
Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
We know the Holy Fathers spoke copiously from the Scriptures, so what makes your use of the Scriptures different from theirs?

I really don't want to open up a can of worms right here right now.. There is enough going on.. Perhaps I might start a new post.. but if you really respect the early church fathers and hold their teachings as infallible and authoritative just as I do the scriptures, then listen to what Melito - Bishop of Sardis had to say..
So... back to this post. What makes your interpretation of the Scriptures different from (i.e., better than) that of the early Church Fathers? You still haven't answered this question.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Riddikulus on January 08, 2012, 05:19:31 PM
Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
We know the Holy Fathers spoke copiously from the Scriptures, so what makes your use of the Scriptures different from theirs?

I really don't want to open up a can of worms right here right now.. There is enough going on.. Perhaps I might start a new post.. but if you really respect the early church fathers and hold their teachings as infallible and authoritative just as I do the scriptures, then listen to what Melito - Bishop of Sardis had to say..
So... back to this post. What makes your interpretation of the Scriptures different from (i.e., better than) that of the early Church Fathers? You still haven't answered this question.

Especially considering they spoke and thought in the language of the NT text and never came up with what BGTF is *teaching*.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: FountainPen on January 08, 2012, 06:17:58 PM
(P.S., I thought Achronos' graphic was hilarious.)

Forgive me, those it offends, but I thought it was hilarious too!! It was a great start to my Monday!  (I just wish I hadn't been drinking coffee at the time I read it! Looking around for something to wipe the computer screen with. ) :laugh:

It was about as funny and almost as predictable as a "knock, knock" joke from a Christmas cracker.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Asteriktos on January 08, 2012, 06:21:17 PM
(P.S., I thought Achronos' graphic was hilarious.)

Forgive me, those it offends, but I thought it was hilarious too!! It was a great start to my Monday!  (I just wish I hadn't been drinking coffee at the time I read it! Looking around for something to wipe the computer screen with. ) :laugh:

It was about as funny and almost as predictable as a "knock, knock" joke from a Christmas cracker.

"Knock knock."
"Who's there?"
"Boo"
"Boo who"
"Oh stop it! There's no crying in theological discussion!"

(Yes, I love corny jokes) :P
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: FountainPen on January 08, 2012, 06:26:55 PM
Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
We know the Holy Fathers spoke copiously from the Scriptures, so what makes your use of the Scriptures different from theirs?

I really don't want to open up a can of worms right here right now.. There is enough going on.. Perhaps I might start a new post.. but if you really respect the early church fathers and hold their teachings as infallible and authoritative just as I do the scriptures, then listen to what Melito - Bishop of Sardis had to say..
Say... to what? What are you arguing against in this post?

BTW, you do realize that we don't hold individual Church Fathers to be infallible?

I realise that by this it simply means you pick and choose from their writings the ones which suit you.. or suit the orthodox church..

If it's any help to you, i have come to realise that my perception of the OC is not always correct,  I mean what i think they mean and what they do mean is sometimes very different.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Riddikulus on January 08, 2012, 06:32:03 PM
(P.S., I thought Achronos' graphic was hilarious.)

Forgive me, those it offends, but I thought it was hilarious too!! It was a great start to my Monday!  (I just wish I hadn't been drinking coffee at the time I read it! Looking around for something to wipe the computer screen with. ) :laugh:

It was about as funny and almost as predictable as a "knock, knock" joke from a Christmas cracker.

To each, their own. ;)
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: FountainPen on January 08, 2012, 06:34:20 PM

(P.S., I thought Achronos' graphic was hilarious.)

Forgive me, those it offends, but I thought it was hilarious too!! It was a great start to my Monday!  (I just wish I hadn't been drinking coffee at the time I read it! Looking around for something to wipe the computer screen with. ) :laugh:

It was about as funny and almost as predictable as a "knock, knock" joke from a Christmas cracker.

"Knock knock."
"Who's there?"
"Boo"
"Boo who"
"Oh stop it! There's no crying in theological discussion!"

(Yes, I love corny jokes) :P

Who's crying?

If you're going to interrupt the flow of an interesting thread, at least make it worth it.  ;)
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Asteriktos on January 08, 2012, 06:35:07 PM

Who's crying?

If you're going to interrupt the flow of an interesting thread, at least make it worth it.  ;)

Does this mean you're going to respond to my post (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,41917.msg689919.html#msg689919)? :)
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Riddikulus on January 08, 2012, 06:36:58 PM
Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
We know the Holy Fathers spoke copiously from the Scriptures, so what makes your use of the Scriptures different from theirs?

I really don't want to open up a can of worms right here right now.. There is enough going on.. Perhaps I might start a new post.. but if you really respect the early church fathers and hold their teachings as infallible and authoritative just as I do the scriptures, then listen to what Melito - Bishop of Sardis had to say..
Say... to what? What are you arguing against in this post?

BTW, you do realize that we don't hold individual Church Fathers to be infallible?

I realise that by this it simply means you pick and choose from their writings the ones which suit you.. or suit the orthodox church..

If it's any help to you, i have come to realise that my perception of the OC is not always correct,  I mean what i think they mean and what they do mean is sometimes very different.

Mindsets/Paradigms are confusing critters. Oftentimes, we say something in a mutual language which has a completely different meaning to the person hearing it.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Shiny on January 08, 2012, 07:56:09 PM
I don't see that there's any need to be childish Achronos. This is a worthwhile discussion and if you don't agree then say so or find another thread to occupy yourself with, rather than posting silly first grade graphics and language.
Well I had to lower my standards and compete against first grade graphics and language from the drivel that was posted before me.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 08, 2012, 08:32:38 PM
Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
We know the Holy Fathers spoke copiously from the Scriptures, so what makes your use of the Scriptures different from theirs?

Type in to google a man named 'Zakir Naik'.. This man also speaks 'copious' amounts of scripture, but doesn't understand a word they say.
What makes you think you do?

Because nobody has so far been able to put one scripture up on this post to prove me wrong.. Thats what I'm waiting for.
Don't hold your breath. For us to deem it worth our time to prove you wrong, you first bear a burden to prove yourself right.

I admire your humility.. Perhaps one day I might prove myself worthy to be proven wrong by you..
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 08, 2012, 08:35:29 PM
Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
We know the Holy Fathers spoke copiously from the Scriptures, so what makes your use of the Scriptures different from theirs?

I really don't want to open up a can of worms right here right now.. There is enough going on.. Perhaps I might start a new post.. but if you really respect the early church fathers and hold their teachings as infallible and authoritative just as I do the scriptures, then listen to what Melito - Bishop of Sardis had to say..
So... back to this post. What makes your interpretation of the Scriptures different from (i.e., better than) that of the early Church Fathers? You still haven't answered this question.

I haven't answered that question because it is not my aim to disprove anyones teachings. My aim is to show you how I understand the bible and then for you to prove me wrong using scripture if possible..
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 08, 2012, 08:41:41 PM
I don't see that there's any need to be childish Achronos. This is a worthwhile discussion and if you don't agree then say so or find another thread to occupy yourself with, rather than posting silly first grade graphics and language.
Well I had to lower my standards and compete against first grade graphics and language from the drivel that was posted before me.

Thankyou again. Thanks for coming down to my level. Its always nice when the intellectual high flyers come down to the level of peasants like myself.. But your graphics were so advanced though, alot of what you were trying to say flew right over the top of my head..



Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 08, 2012, 08:55:50 PM
Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
We know the Holy Fathers spoke copiously from the Scriptures, so what makes your use of the Scriptures different from theirs?

I really don't want to open up a can of worms right here right now.. There is enough going on.. Perhaps I might start a new post.. but if you really respect the early church fathers and hold their teachings as infallible and authoritative just as I do the scriptures, then listen to what Melito - Bishop of Sardis had to say..
Say... to what? What are you arguing against in this post?

BTW, you do realize that we don't hold individual Church Fathers to be infallible?

I realise that by this it simply means you pick and choose from their writings the ones which suit you.. or suit the orthodox church..

If it's any help to you, i have come to realise that my perception of the OC is not always correct,  I mean what i think they mean and what they do mean is sometimes very different.

I'm starting to recognise that I just don't have the intelligence or the brain power to come into, or even communicate respectfully with members of the orthodox church.

When people start telling me that they mean something very different to what I think they mean, or something different to what it actually says, whether it be writings from the E.C.F's or from the scriptures, or from the O.C then I have no choice but to humbly bow out.. Much to the delight of many I suppose.. But I thank all of you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me.

My intention was never to come in here and win arguments, even though it may seem that way, but to share the truth and grow together spiritually.

I'll pray for you all, the best I know how.

BGTF

Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 08, 2012, 09:03:10 PM
Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
We know the Holy Fathers spoke copiously from the Scriptures, so what makes your use of the Scriptures different from theirs?

I really don't want to open up a can of worms right here right now.. There is enough going on.. Perhaps I might start a new post.. but if you really respect the early church fathers and hold their teachings as infallible and authoritative just as I do the scriptures, then listen to what Melito - Bishop of Sardis had to say..
So... back to this post. What makes your interpretation of the Scriptures different from (i.e., better than) that of the early Church Fathers? You still haven't answered this question.

I haven't answered that question because it is not my aim to disprove anyones teachings. My aim is to show you how I understand the bible and then for you to prove me wrong using scripture if possible..
Sorry if I don't feel like playing that game. I just don't like it when someone comes to this forum thinking he can set the rules for debate. You say, "Prove me wrong." That comes across to me as displaying an attitude of, "I'm right until you can prove me wrong," which is, IMO, a rather arrogant thing to say and a violation of standard burden-of-proof rules. It's also a classic trait of Internet trolls. If you were to say something like, "This is what I believe. Please correct me if I'm wrong," then I think we would be much more responsive to you, since you would be showing an attitude of humility and a willingness to be corrected.

Also, when others do offer evidence that counters your opinion, you would do well to actually engage the rebuttal by articulating a defense against it. I really haven't seen you do that. All I've seen you do is use various dodgeball tactics to brush aside others' genuine attempts to prove you wrong, and then continue pondefecating. That kind of unwillingness to engage us makes it difficult for us to even want to discuss our point of view with you. Forgive my crass way of saying it, but using our Scriptures to engage you on your terms is  like casting pearls before swine only to then watch the swine trample the pearls under their feet.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Riddikulus on January 08, 2012, 09:32:13 PM
Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
We know the Holy Fathers spoke copiously from the Scriptures, so what makes your use of the Scriptures different from theirs?

I really don't want to open up a can of worms right here right now.. There is enough going on.. Perhaps I might start a new post.. but if you really respect the early church fathers and hold their teachings as infallible and authoritative just as I do the scriptures, then listen to what Melito - Bishop of Sardis had to say..
So... back to this post. What makes your interpretation of the Scriptures different from (i.e., better than) that of the early Church Fathers? You still haven't answered this question.

I haven't answered that question because it is not my aim to disprove anyones teachings. My aim is to show you how I understand the bible and then for you to prove me wrong using scripture if possible..

But how are you going to prove that you understand the bible better than those who spoke and thought in the language of the NT writings and the Septuagint? I'm assuming that you aren't a Koine speaker so you are working with a translation. From past experience, I have seen many so-called biblical experts do this and come up with some doozies; "teachings" that would have had early Christians tearing out their hair. Even if these so-called experts "understand Greek", as I have heard so many claim, they still manage to understand Greek in a way that is slanted to suit their own preconceptions.

I believe it's no coincidence that early heresies were weeded out by those who understood the language of the text, and that under the guidance of the Holy Spirit an accepted canon was formed, teachings regulated.* That we see a resurgence of heretical, or just plain silly opinions, particularly in groups and individuals that could not even be considered mainstream Protestant, is no surprise when they refuse to have any contact with any Christian ancestral roots. Because it is somehow beneath them to consider that someone else knows better than they do, they struggle to recreate a "Christianity" that no ancient believer would have possibly recognised as anything but gnostic mumbo-jumbo; something that fits their thinking instead of recreating their thinking to fit historical Christianity.

Using Dispensationalism as an example. Some English man sees something in his English translation that the Church has never considered doctrine. It's picked up and carried on in ignorance of that fact and made more important that the doctrines that have come down to us from the very beginning. It's no wonder that a group like the JWs appears out of the Sola Scriptura swamp, completely denying the doctrine of the Trinity because they "don't see the word "Trinity" in their bibles".  

Honestly, I have no axe to grind with you, but I do consider your opinions to be typical of a person who believes that the Holy Spirit is guiding you and you alone to understand the Scripture that was given to you by God, through the Church in the first place. (Yes, men - God works with men - what a shock!)

As Orthodox believers we have the Church for scriptual guidance, that's why we are completely confident that 2Timothy 2:15 belongs in the bible. What you say doesn't gel with what the Church teaches us. So, sorry to say you really are just wasting your time here if your purpose is to convince any Orthodox believer to accept your individual word over that of the historic Church which gives us Scripture and interprets it for us, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

*I can think of no better word than regulated. Perhaps someone can suggest something better?
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 08, 2012, 09:55:08 PM
Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
We know the Holy Fathers spoke copiously from the Scriptures, so what makes your use of the Scriptures different from theirs?

I really don't want to open up a can of worms right here right now.. There is enough going on.. Perhaps I might start a new post.. but if you really respect the early church fathers and hold their teachings as infallible and authoritative just as I do the scriptures, then listen to what Melito - Bishop of Sardis had to say..
So... back to this post. What makes your interpretation of the Scriptures different from (i.e., better than) that of the early Church Fathers? You still haven't answered this question.

I haven't answered that question because it is not my aim to disprove anyones teachings. My aim is to show you how I understand the bible and then for you to prove me wrong using scripture if possible..
Sorry if I don't feel like playing that game. I just don't like it when someone comes to this forum thinking he can set the rules for debate. You say, "Prove me wrong." That comes across to me as displaying an attitude of, "I'm right until you can prove me wrong," which is, IMO, a rather arrogant thing to say and a violation of standard burden-of-proof rules. It's also a classic trait of Internet trolls. If you were to say something like, "This is what I believe. Please correct me if I'm wrong," then I think we would be much more responsive to you, since you would be showing an attitude of humility and a willingness to be corrected.

Also, when others do offer evidence that counters your opinion, you would do well to actually engage the rebuttal by articulating a defense against it. I really haven't seen you do that. All I've seen you do is use various dodgeball tactics to brush aside others' genuine attempts to prove you wrong, and then continue pondefecating. That kind of unwillingness to engage us makes it difficult for us to even want to discuss our point of view with you. Forgive my crass way of saying it, but it's like casting pearls before swine only to then watch the swine trample the pearls under their feet.

I apologise. I didn't mean to come onto this forum and set any rules.. if I did, I truly apologise.. If my attitude comes across as 'I'm right until you prove me wrong', again, I apologise.. However, I was not attempting to prove I am right, I should not have used the words 'prove me wrong'.. But like I said, (using the wrong word), I am trying to share my simple understanding of the scripture - and if it be possible, to be corrected. If anything, I am trying to prove that the bible is right my friend.. Not me.

If my 'teachings' are different to (or better than, as you think I think) that of the O.C or the early fathers, would it not be possible to reference some of them so I can see who you are referring to and how my understanding differs from theirs?

I might be one you like to refer to as an 'internet troll' or 'swine'. Call me what you like. Think of me what you like. Ridicule and persecution would be more an accurate description of what I have experienced on this site. I Praise the Lord for that.. If there is just 1 person reading this thread and comes to the knowledge of Truth in Jesus Christ then it has been worthwhile. But you have made your opposition to the Truth clear, and again I reference scripture:

1 Corinthians 14:37If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.38But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Marc1152 on January 08, 2012, 09:57:12 PM
Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
So since wolves enter among us we should each interpret scripture "in spirit and in truth" because then we will all arive at mid acts whatever that was, and that will not be the deception that destroys because we could never be that wolf in the flock?  Come on.  Scripture was an accumulation of letters written to the Churches by the apostles.  These churches submitted to the authority given to the Apostles, they kept these letters and passed them around and eventually the Body gathered these together and canonized them. The CHURCH canonized them because they maintained that authority that the apostles had because they handed it down to them.

How could anyone not canonise what was canonised? All the books of the new testament were written by apostles and those who had direct contact with Christ.. Some books historical and factual, written by witnesses to the risen Christ, (still under law) i.e - Matthew, mark, Luke, yet there are some for today, which are written to us - NOW. i.e - Pauls letters. (not under law, under grace). Just because the men that lived back then put the bible together the way they did means what?.. Who would honestly debate the NT canon now? Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James - all apostles. All of them had contact with Christ.. All with their own style of writing - easily recognisable. All of them writing according to the purpose of God. This is why they are in the bible canon.

Ignatius of antiochs writings, to use an example, (I have nothing against this man) didn't make the canon though. Why? Read the first few paragraphs of his writings and the answer will be clear. He had no authority. Just like my writings and your writings.. No authority.. Often the writings can be profitable, but they hold no authority. Not like the authority given to the writers of the N.T.
If you have no authority, why are you here? ???

I repeat.. Read the last sentance.. If I don't back up what I say with scripture then I have no authority.
What about when you use scripture incorrectly, oh, and your rational won't accept that you are.

Not at all.. Like I have plead with you all time and time again. If I am using scripture incorrectly, correct me using scripture and I'll gladly stand corrected.
Sola scriptura... Is that teaching found in Scripture?

I think sola scriptura needs to be understood in the sense that everything that is taught, referenced and accepted in Christianity must be supported by scripture..

Every heresy that ever was or will be claim their idea's are found in Scripture.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 08, 2012, 10:09:15 PM
Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
So since wolves enter among us we should each interpret scripture "in spirit and in truth" because then we will all arive at mid acts whatever that was, and that will not be the deception that destroys because we could never be that wolf in the flock?  Come on.  Scripture was an accumulation of letters written to the Churches by the apostles.  These churches submitted to the authority given to the Apostles, they kept these letters and passed them around and eventually the Body gathered these together and canonized them. The CHURCH canonized them because they maintained that authority that the apostles had because they handed it down to them.

How could anyone not canonise what was canonised? All the books of the new testament were written by apostles and those who had direct contact with Christ.. Some books historical and factual, written by witnesses to the risen Christ, (still under law) i.e - Matthew, mark, Luke, yet there are some for today, which are written to us - NOW. i.e - Pauls letters. (not under law, under grace). Just because the men that lived back then put the bible together the way they did means what?.. Who would honestly debate the NT canon now? Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James - all apostles. All of them had contact with Christ.. All with their own style of writing - easily recognisable. All of them writing according to the purpose of God. This is why they are in the bible canon.

Ignatius of antiochs writings, to use an example, (I have nothing against this man) didn't make the canon though. Why? Read the first few paragraphs of his writings and the answer will be clear. He had no authority. Just like my writings and your writings.. No authority.. Often the writings can be profitable, but they hold no authority. Not like the authority given to the writers of the N.T.
If you have no authority, why are you here? ???

I repeat.. Read the last sentance.. If I don't back up what I say with scripture then I have no authority.
What about when you use scripture incorrectly, oh, and your rational won't accept that you are.

Not at all.. Like I have plead with you all time and time again. If I am using scripture incorrectly, correct me using scripture and I'll gladly stand corrected.
Sola scriptura... Is that teaching found in Scripture?

I think sola scriptura needs to be understood in the sense that everything that is taught, referenced and accepted in Christianity must be supported by scripture..

Every heresy that ever was or will be claim their idea's are found in Scripture.


And, more importantly, every heresy that ever was or ever will be can be proven to be heresy by using scripture also.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: HandmaidenofGod on January 08, 2012, 10:14:51 PM
If my 'teachings' are different to (or better than, as you think I think) that of the O.C or the early fathers, would it not be possible to reference some of them so I can see who you are referring to and how my understanding differs from theirs?

I might be one you like to refer to as an 'internet troll' or 'swine'. Call me what you like. Think of me what you like. Ridicule and persecution would be more an accurate description of what I have experienced on this site. I Praise the Lord for that.. If there is just 1 person reading this thread and comes to the knowledge of Truth in Jesus Christ then it has been worthwhile. But you have made your opposition to the Truth clear, and again I reference scripture:

1 Corinthians 14:37If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.38But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.


I wonder what makes you think that our teachings are wrong? Are you familiar with the teachings of the Orthodox Church? Have you studied the Early Church Fathers?

Are you familiar with how the Bible, which you rightly revere, came to be? (Here's a hint: It did not come from heaven leather-bound with the King James translation and the words of Christ in Red.)

You say that if one comes to the knowledge of Christ through your postings, well then Glory to God!

What makes you think that we do not know Christ?

Did you know that in the post-communal hymn of the Orthodox Church, we sing "We have seen the true light, we have received the Heavenly Spirit, we have found the true faith, worshiping the undivided Trinity, who has saved us!"?

Do you know who the Early Church Fathers are and why we pay attention to what they have to say? They aren't just a bunch of old men that we like to quote. There is a reason why we take their words seriously. Do you know why?

I am interested in how much you know about the Orthodox Church, that you have come to enlighten us to the truth.

Or is it you, who have come to be enlightened?
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: biro on January 08, 2012, 10:24:54 PM
http://shakespeare.mit.edu/merchant/merchant.1.3.html

ANTONIO

    Mark you this, Bassanio,
    The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
    An evil soul producing holy witness
    Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
    A goodly apple rotten at the heart:
    O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Marc1152 on January 08, 2012, 10:39:02 PM
Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
So since wolves enter among us we should each interpret scripture "in spirit and in truth" because then we will all arive at mid acts whatever that was, and that will not be the deception that destroys because we could never be that wolf in the flock?  Come on.  Scripture was an accumulation of letters written to the Churches by the apostles.  These churches submitted to the authority given to the Apostles, they kept these letters and passed them around and eventually the Body gathered these together and canonized them. The CHURCH canonized them because they maintained that authority that the apostles had because they handed it down to them.

How could anyone not canonise what was canonised? All the books of the new testament were written by apostles and those who had direct contact with Christ.. Some books historical and factual, written by witnesses to the risen Christ, (still under law) i.e - Matthew, mark, Luke, yet there are some for today, which are written to us - NOW. i.e - Pauls letters. (not under law, under grace). Just because the men that lived back then put the bible together the way they did means what?.. Who would honestly debate the NT canon now? Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James - all apostles. All of them had contact with Christ.. All with their own style of writing - easily recognisable. All of them writing according to the purpose of God. This is why they are in the bible canon.

Ignatius of antiochs writings, to use an example, (I have nothing against this man) didn't make the canon though. Why? Read the first few paragraphs of his writings and the answer will be clear. He had no authority. Just like my writings and your writings.. No authority.. Often the writings can be profitable, but they hold no authority. Not like the authority given to the writers of the N.T.
If you have no authority, why are you here? ???

I repeat.. Read the last sentance.. If I don't back up what I say with scripture then I have no authority.
What about when you use scripture incorrectly, oh, and your rational won't accept that you are.

Not at all.. Like I have plead with you all time and time again. If I am using scripture incorrectly, correct me using scripture and I'll gladly stand corrected.
Sola scriptura... Is that teaching found in Scripture?

I think sola scriptura needs to be understood in the sense that everything that is taught, referenced and accepted in Christianity must be supported by scripture..

Every heresy that ever was or will be claim their idea's are found in Scripture.


And, more importantly, every heresy that ever was or ever will be can be proven to be heresy by using scripture also.

By who? You or them? To your personal satisfaction or to their personal satisfaction?

By what authority do you get to be the judge?

Who are you again?
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 08, 2012, 10:56:04 PM
Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
We know the Holy Fathers spoke copiously from the Scriptures, so what makes your use of the Scriptures different from theirs?

I really don't want to open up a can of worms right here right now.. There is enough going on.. Perhaps I might start a new post.. but if you really respect the early church fathers and hold their teachings as infallible and authoritative just as I do the scriptures, then listen to what Melito - Bishop of Sardis had to say..
So... back to this post. What makes your interpretation of the Scriptures different from (i.e., better than) that of the early Church Fathers? You still haven't answered this question.

I haven't answered that question because it is not my aim to disprove anyones teachings. My aim is to show you how I understand the bible and then for you to prove me wrong using scripture if possible..
Sorry if I don't feel like playing that game. I just don't like it when someone comes to this forum thinking he can set the rules for debate. You say, "Prove me wrong." That comes across to me as displaying an attitude of, "I'm right until you can prove me wrong," which is, IMO, a rather arrogant thing to say and a violation of standard burden-of-proof rules. It's also a classic trait of Internet trolls. If you were to say something like, "This is what I believe. Please correct me if I'm wrong," then I think we would be much more responsive to you, since you would be showing an attitude of humility and a willingness to be corrected.

Also, when others do offer evidence that counters your opinion, you would do well to actually engage the rebuttal by articulating a defense against it. I really haven't seen you do that. All I've seen you do is use various dodgeball tactics to brush aside others' genuine attempts to prove you wrong, and then continue pondefecating. That kind of unwillingness to engage us makes it difficult for us to even want to discuss our point of view with you. Forgive my crass way of saying it, but it's like casting pearls before swine only to then watch the swine trample the pearls under their feet.

I apologise. I didn't mean to come onto this forum and set any rules.. if I did, I truly apologise.. If my attitude comes across as 'I'm right until you prove me wrong', again, I apologise.. However, I was not attempting to prove I am right, I should not have used the words 'prove me wrong'.. But like I said, (using the wrong word), I am trying to share my simple understanding of the scripture - and if it be possible, to be corrected. If anything, I am trying to prove that the bible is right my friend.. Not me.

If my 'teachings' are different to (or better than, as you think I think) that of the O.C or the early fathers, would it not be possible to reference some of them so I can see who you are referring to and how my understanding differs from theirs?

I might be one you like to refer to as an 'internet troll' or 'swine'. Call me what you like. Think of me what you like. Ridicule and persecution would be more an accurate description of what I have experienced on this site. I Praise the Lord for that.. If there is just 1 person reading this thread and comes to the knowledge of Truth in Jesus Christ then it has been worthwhile. But you have made your opposition to the Truth clear, and again I reference scripture:

1 Corinthians 14:37If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.38But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

A persecution complex is also not a good way to engender good will toward you on this site. No one is persecuting you here, so you can give up that canard right now.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 08, 2012, 10:58:36 PM
If my 'teachings' are different to (or better than, as you think I think) that of the O.C or the early fathers, would it not be possible to reference some of them so I can see who you are referring to and how my understanding differs from theirs?

I might be one you like to refer to as an 'internet troll' or 'swine'. Call me what you like. Think of me what you like. Ridicule and persecution would be more an accurate description of what I have experienced on this site. I Praise the Lord for that.. If there is just 1 person reading this thread and comes to the knowledge of Truth in Jesus Christ then it has been worthwhile. But you have made your opposition to the Truth clear, and again I reference scripture:

1 Corinthians 14:37If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.38But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.


I wonder what makes you think that our teachings are wrong? Are you familiar with the teachings of the Orthodox Church? Have you studied the Early Church Fathers?

Are you familiar with how the Bible, which you rightly revere, came to be? (Here's a hint: It did not come from heaven leather-bound with the King James translation and the words of Christ in Red.)

You say that if one comes to the knowledge of Christ through your postings, well then Glory to God!

What makes you think that we do not know Christ?

Did you know that in the post-communal hymn of the Orthodox Church, we sing "We have seen the true light, we have received the Heavenly Spirit, we have found the true faith, worshiping the undivided Trinity, who has saved us!"?

Do you know who the Early Church Fathers are and why we pay attention to what they have to say? They aren't just a bunch of old men that we like to quote. There is a reason why we take their words seriously. Do you know why?

I am interested in how much you know about the Orthodox Church, that you have come to enlighten us to the truth.

Or is it you, who have come to be enlightened?
Good point. One of the main reasons you, BGTF, started off on the wrong foot with me was your genuine shock that we don't believe as you do. How little you must actually know about us if our different approach to reading the Bible surprises you. ::)
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: biro on January 08, 2012, 11:20:16 PM
Quote from: ByGracethroughFaith
I apologise. I didn't mean to come onto this forum and set any rules.. if I did, I truly apologise.. If my attitude comes across as 'I'm right until you prove me wrong', again, I apologise.. However, I was not attempting to prove I am right, I should not have used the words 'prove me wrong'.. But like I said, (using the wrong word), I am trying to share my simple understanding of the scripture - and if it be possible, to be corrected. If anything, I am trying to prove that the bible is right my friend.. Not me.

If my 'teachings' are different to (or better than, as you think I think) that of the O.C or the early fathers, would it not be possible to reference some of them so I can see who you are referring to and how my understanding differs from theirs?

I might be one you like to refer to as an 'internet troll' or 'swine'. Call me what you like. Think of me what you like. Ridicule and persecution would be more an accurate description of what I have experienced on this site. I Praise the Lord for that.. If there is just 1 person reading this thread and comes to the knowledge of Truth in Jesus Christ then it has been worthwhile. But you have made your opposition to the Truth clear, and again I reference scripture:

1 Corinthians 14:37If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.38But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.


I was wondering what Alfred had been up to lately.  ::)
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: LBK on January 08, 2012, 11:37:55 PM

I was wondering what Alfred had been up to lately.  ::)

Be careful what you wish for ....  :P :P ;)
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: wasamwillbe on January 09, 2012, 12:47:29 AM
Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
So since wolves enter among us we should each interpret scripture "in spirit and in truth" because then we will all arive at mid acts whatever that was, and that will not be the deception that destroys because we could never be that wolf in the flock?  Come on.  Scripture was an accumulation of letters written to the Churches by the apostles.  These churches submitted to the authority given to the Apostles, they kept these letters and passed them around and eventually the Body gathered these together and canonized them. The CHURCH canonized them because they maintained that authority that the apostles had because they handed it down to them.

How could anyone not canonise what was canonised? All the books of the new testament were written by apostles and those who had direct contact with Christ.. Some books historical and factual, written by witnesses to the risen Christ, (still under law) i.e - Matthew, mark, Luke, yet there are some for today, which are written to us - NOW. i.e - Pauls letters. (not under law, under grace). Just because the men that lived back then put the bible together the way they did means what?.. Who would honestly debate the NT canon now? Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James - all apostles. All of them had contact with Christ.. All with their own style of writing - easily recognisable. All of them writing according to the purpose of God. This is why they are in the bible canon.

Ignatius of antiochs writings, to use an example, (I have nothing against this man) didn't make the canon though. Why? Read the first few paragraphs of his writings and the answer will be clear. He had no authority. Just like my writings and your writings.. No authority.. Often the writings can be profitable, but they hold no authority. Not like the authority given to the writers of the N.T.
If you have no authority, why are you here? ???

I repeat.. Read the last sentance.. If I don't back up what I say with scripture then I have no authority.
What about when you use scripture incorrectly, oh, and your rational won't accept that you are.

Not at all.. Like I have plead with you all time and time again. If I am using scripture incorrectly, correct me using scripture and I'll gladly stand corrected.
Sola scriptura... Is that teaching found in Scripture?

I think sola scriptura needs to be understood in the sense that everything that is taught, referenced and accepted in Christianity must be supported by scripture..

Every heresy that ever was or will be claim their idea's are found in Scripture.


And, more importantly, every heresy that ever was or ever will be can be proven to be heresy by using scripture also.

Yes but the heretics are not convinced.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 09, 2012, 01:31:16 AM
Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
We know the Holy Fathers spoke copiously from the Scriptures, so what makes your use of the Scriptures different from theirs?

I really don't want to open up a can of worms right here right now.. There is enough going on.. Perhaps I might start a new post.. but if you really respect the early church fathers and hold their teachings as infallible and authoritative just as I do the scriptures, then listen to what Melito - Bishop of Sardis had to say..
So... back to this post. What makes your interpretation of the Scriptures different from (i.e., better than) that of the early Church Fathers? You still haven't answered this question.

I haven't answered that question because it is not my aim to disprove anyones teachings. My aim is to show you how I understand the bible and then for you to prove me wrong using scripture if possible..
Sorry if I don't feel like playing that game. I just don't like it when someone comes to this forum thinking he can set the rules for debate. You say, "Prove me wrong." That comes across to me as displaying an attitude of, "I'm right until you can prove me wrong," which is, IMO, a rather arrogant thing to say and a violation of standard burden-of-proof rules. It's also a classic trait of Internet trolls. If you were to say something like, "This is what I believe. Please correct me if I'm wrong," then I think we would be much more responsive to you, since you would be showing an attitude of humility and a willingness to be corrected.

Also, when others do offer evidence that counters your opinion, you would do well to actually engage the rebuttal by articulating a defense against it. I really haven't seen you do that. All I've seen you do is use various dodgeball tactics to brush aside others' genuine attempts to prove you wrong, and then continue pondefecating. That kind of unwillingness to engage us makes it difficult for us to even want to discuss our point of view with you. Forgive my crass way of saying it, but it's like casting pearls before swine only to then watch the swine trample the pearls under their feet.

I apologise. I didn't mean to come onto this forum and set any rules.. if I did, I truly apologise.. If my attitude comes across as 'I'm right until you prove me wrong', again, I apologise.. However, I was not attempting to prove I am right, I should not have used the words 'prove me wrong'.. But like I said, (using the wrong word), I am trying to share my simple understanding of the scripture - and if it be possible, to be corrected. If anything, I am trying to prove that the bible is right my friend.. Not me.

If my 'teachings' are different to (or better than, as you think I think) that of the O.C or the early fathers, would it not be possible to reference some of them so I can see who you are referring to and how my understanding differs from theirs?

I might be one you like to refer to as an 'internet troll' or 'swine'. Call me what you like. Think of me what you like. Ridicule and persecution would be more an accurate description of what I have experienced on this site. I Praise the Lord for that.. If there is just 1 person reading this thread and comes to the knowledge of Truth in Jesus Christ then it has been worthwhile. But you have made your opposition to the Truth clear, and again I reference scripture:

1 Corinthians 14:37If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.38But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

A persecution complex is also not a good way to engender good will toward you on this site. No one is persecuting you here, so you can give up that canard right now.

A persecution complex.. I love it! I suppose I'm interpreting all the name calling and belittling the wrong way...

You guys are great!


Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 09, 2012, 01:37:17 AM
Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
We know the Holy Fathers spoke copiously from the Scriptures, so what makes your use of the Scriptures different from theirs?

I really don't want to open up a can of worms right here right now.. There is enough going on.. Perhaps I might start a new post.. but if you really respect the early church fathers and hold their teachings as infallible and authoritative just as I do the scriptures, then listen to what Melito - Bishop of Sardis had to say..
So... back to this post. What makes your interpretation of the Scriptures different from (i.e., better than) that of the early Church Fathers? You still haven't answered this question.

I haven't answered that question because it is not my aim to disprove anyones teachings. My aim is to show you how I understand the bible and then for you to prove me wrong using scripture if possible..
Sorry if I don't feel like playing that game. I just don't like it when someone comes to this forum thinking he can set the rules for debate. You say, "Prove me wrong." That comes across to me as displaying an attitude of, "I'm right until you can prove me wrong," which is, IMO, a rather arrogant thing to say and a violation of standard burden-of-proof rules. It's also a classic trait of Internet trolls. If you were to say something like, "This is what I believe. Please correct me if I'm wrong," then I think we would be much more responsive to you, since you would be showing an attitude of humility and a willingness to be corrected.

Also, when others do offer evidence that counters your opinion, you would do well to actually engage the rebuttal by articulating a defense against it. I really haven't seen you do that. All I've seen you do is use various dodgeball tactics to brush aside others' genuine attempts to prove you wrong, and then continue pondefecating. That kind of unwillingness to engage us makes it difficult for us to even want to discuss our point of view with you. Forgive my crass way of saying it, but it's like casting pearls before swine only to then watch the swine trample the pearls under their feet.

I apologise. I didn't mean to come onto this forum and set any rules.. if I did, I truly apologise.. If my attitude comes across as 'I'm right until you prove me wrong', again, I apologise.. However, I was not attempting to prove I am right, I should not have used the words 'prove me wrong'.. But like I said, (using the wrong word), I am trying to share my simple understanding of the scripture - and if it be possible, to be corrected. If anything, I am trying to prove that the bible is right my friend.. Not me.

If my 'teachings' are different to (or better than, as you think I think) that of the O.C or the early fathers, would it not be possible to reference some of them so I can see who you are referring to and how my understanding differs from theirs?

I might be one you like to refer to as an 'internet troll' or 'swine'. Call me what you like. Think of me what you like. Ridicule and persecution would be more an accurate description of what I have experienced on this site. I Praise the Lord for that.. If there is just 1 person reading this thread and comes to the knowledge of Truth in Jesus Christ then it has been worthwhile. But you have made your opposition to the Truth clear, and again I reference scripture:

1 Corinthians 14:37If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.38But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

A persecution complex is also not a good way to engender good will toward you on this site. No one is persecuting you here, so you can give up that canard right now.

A persecution complex.. I love it! I suppose I'm interpreting all the name calling and belittling the wrong way...
Yes, you are.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 09, 2012, 01:43:40 AM
Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
So since wolves enter among us we should each interpret scripture "in spirit and in truth" because then we will all arive at mid acts whatever that was, and that will not be the deception that destroys because we could never be that wolf in the flock?  Come on.  Scripture was an accumulation of letters written to the Churches by the apostles.  These churches submitted to the authority given to the Apostles, they kept these letters and passed them around and eventually the Body gathered these together and canonized them. The CHURCH canonized them because they maintained that authority that the apostles had because they handed it down to them.

How could anyone not canonise what was canonised? All the books of the new testament were written by apostles and those who had direct contact with Christ.. Some books historical and factual, written by witnesses to the risen Christ, (still under law) i.e - Matthew, mark, Luke, yet there are some for today, which are written to us - NOW. i.e - Pauls letters. (not under law, under grace). Just because the men that lived back then put the bible together the way they did means what?.. Who would honestly debate the NT canon now? Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James - all apostles. All of them had contact with Christ.. All with their own style of writing - easily recognisable. All of them writing according to the purpose of God. This is why they are in the bible canon.

Ignatius of antiochs writings, to use an example, (I have nothing against this man) didn't make the canon though. Why? Read the first few paragraphs of his writings and the answer will be clear. He had no authority. Just like my writings and your writings.. No authority.. Often the writings can be profitable, but they hold no authority. Not like the authority given to the writers of the N.T.
If you have no authority, why are you here? ???

I repeat.. Read the last sentance.. If I don't back up what I say with scripture then I have no authority.
What about when you use scripture incorrectly, oh, and your rational won't accept that you are.

Not at all.. Like I have plead with you all time and time again. If I am using scripture incorrectly, correct me using scripture and I'll gladly stand corrected.
Sola scriptura... Is that teaching found in Scripture?

I think sola scriptura needs to be understood in the sense that everything that is taught, referenced and accepted in Christianity must be supported by scripture..

Every heresy that ever was or will be claim their idea's are found in Scripture.


And, more importantly, every heresy that ever was or ever will be can be proven to be heresy by using scripture also.

By who? You or them? To your personal satisfaction or to their personal satisfaction?

By what authority do you get to be the judge?

Who are you again?

By who? Me or them? Neither!  By the Word of God. By what authority? By the Word of God!

Who am I? I'm a sinner who has been reconciled to God through Christ. Justified and sanctified by the faith of Christ. I'm an ambassador for Christ.. And I'm the righteousness of God by the Faith of Jesus Christ.

2 Corinthians 5:20Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.21For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 09, 2012, 01:44:30 AM
Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
We know the Holy Fathers spoke copiously from the Scriptures, so what makes your use of the Scriptures different from theirs?

I really don't want to open up a can of worms right here right now.. There is enough going on.. Perhaps I might start a new post.. but if you really respect the early church fathers and hold their teachings as infallible and authoritative just as I do the scriptures, then listen to what Melito - Bishop of Sardis had to say..
So... back to this post. What makes your interpretation of the Scriptures different from (i.e., better than) that of the early Church Fathers? You still haven't answered this question.

I haven't answered that question because it is not my aim to disprove anyones teachings. My aim is to show you how I understand the bible and then for you to prove me wrong using scripture if possible..
Sorry if I don't feel like playing that game. I just don't like it when someone comes to this forum thinking he can set the rules for debate. You say, "Prove me wrong." That comes across to me as displaying an attitude of, "I'm right until you can prove me wrong," which is, IMO, a rather arrogant thing to say and a violation of standard burden-of-proof rules. It's also a classic trait of Internet trolls. If you were to say something like, "This is what I believe. Please correct me if I'm wrong," then I think we would be much more responsive to you, since you would be showing an attitude of humility and a willingness to be corrected.

Also, when others do offer evidence that counters your opinion, you would do well to actually engage the rebuttal by articulating a defense against it. I really haven't seen you do that. All I've seen you do is use various dodgeball tactics to brush aside others' genuine attempts to prove you wrong, and then continue pondefecating. That kind of unwillingness to engage us makes it difficult for us to even want to discuss our point of view with you. Forgive my crass way of saying it, but it's like casting pearls before swine only to then watch the swine trample the pearls under their feet.

I apologise. I didn't mean to come onto this forum and set any rules.. if I did, I truly apologise.. If my attitude comes across as 'I'm right until you prove me wrong', again, I apologise.. However, I was not attempting to prove I am right, I should not have used the words 'prove me wrong'.. But like I said, (using the wrong word), I am trying to share my simple understanding of the scripture - and if it be possible, to be corrected. If anything, I am trying to prove that the bible is right my friend.. Not me.

If my 'teachings' are different to (or better than, as you think I think) that of the O.C or the early fathers, would it not be possible to reference some of them so I can see who you are referring to and how my understanding differs from theirs?

I might be one you like to refer to as an 'internet troll' or 'swine'. Call me what you like. Think of me what you like. Ridicule and persecution would be more an accurate description of what I have experienced on this site. I Praise the Lord for that.. If there is just 1 person reading this thread and comes to the knowledge of Truth in Jesus Christ then it has been worthwhile. But you have made your opposition to the Truth clear, and again I reference scripture:

1 Corinthians 14:37If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.38But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

A persecution complex is also not a good way to engender good will toward you on this site. No one is persecuting you here, so you can give up that canard right now.

A persecution complex.. I love it! I suppose I'm interpreting all the name calling and belittling the wrong way...
Yes, you are.

Lol!
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 09, 2012, 01:46:59 AM
Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
We know the Holy Fathers spoke copiously from the Scriptures, so what makes your use of the Scriptures different from theirs?

I really don't want to open up a can of worms right here right now.. There is enough going on.. Perhaps I might start a new post.. but if you really respect the early church fathers and hold their teachings as infallible and authoritative just as I do the scriptures, then listen to what Melito - Bishop of Sardis had to say..
So... back to this post. What makes your interpretation of the Scriptures different from (i.e., better than) that of the early Church Fathers? You still haven't answered this question.

I haven't answered that question because it is not my aim to disprove anyones teachings. My aim is to show you how I understand the bible and then for you to prove me wrong using scripture if possible..
Sorry if I don't feel like playing that game. I just don't like it when someone comes to this forum thinking he can set the rules for debate. You say, "Prove me wrong." That comes across to me as displaying an attitude of, "I'm right until you can prove me wrong," which is, IMO, a rather arrogant thing to say and a violation of standard burden-of-proof rules. It's also a classic trait of Internet trolls. If you were to say something like, "This is what I believe. Please correct me if I'm wrong," then I think we would be much more responsive to you, since you would be showing an attitude of humility and a willingness to be corrected.

Also, when others do offer evidence that counters your opinion, you would do well to actually engage the rebuttal by articulating a defense against it. I really haven't seen you do that. All I've seen you do is use various dodgeball tactics to brush aside others' genuine attempts to prove you wrong, and then continue pondefecating. That kind of unwillingness to engage us makes it difficult for us to even want to discuss our point of view with you. Forgive my crass way of saying it, but it's like casting pearls before swine only to then watch the swine trample the pearls under their feet.

I apologise. I didn't mean to come onto this forum and set any rules.. if I did, I truly apologise.. If my attitude comes across as 'I'm right until you prove me wrong', again, I apologise.. However, I was not attempting to prove I am right, I should not have used the words 'prove me wrong'.. But like I said, (using the wrong word), I am trying to share my simple understanding of the scripture - and if it be possible, to be corrected. If anything, I am trying to prove that the bible is right my friend.. Not me.

If my 'teachings' are different to (or better than, as you think I think) that of the O.C or the early fathers, would it not be possible to reference some of them so I can see who you are referring to and how my understanding differs from theirs?

I might be one you like to refer to as an 'internet troll' or 'swine'. Call me what you like. Think of me what you like. Ridicule and persecution would be more an accurate description of what I have experienced on this site. I Praise the Lord for that.. If there is just 1 person reading this thread and comes to the knowledge of Truth in Jesus Christ then it has been worthwhile. But you have made your opposition to the Truth clear, and again I reference scripture:

1 Corinthians 14:37If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.38But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

A persecution complex is also not a good way to engender good will toward you on this site. No one is persecuting you here, so you can give up that canard right now.

A persecution complex.. I love it! I suppose I'm interpreting all the name calling and belittling the wrong way...
Yes, you are.

Hang on.. What does 'yes you are' mean? Does it really mean 'yes you are'? Or should I not attempt to interpret what your saying here?
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: biro on January 09, 2012, 02:03:03 AM
Hi, Alfred. How've you been? 
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: LBK on January 09, 2012, 02:08:08 AM
Hi, Alfred. How've you been? 

Oooooo, you're heading for a 2 oz sinker between the eyes ....  ;) :laugh:
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: FormerReformer on January 09, 2012, 02:12:43 AM
Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
So since wolves enter among us we should each interpret scripture "in spirit and in truth" because then we will all arive at mid acts whatever that was, and that will not be the deception that destroys because we could never be that wolf in the flock?  Come on.  Scripture was an accumulation of letters written to the Churches by the apostles.  These churches submitted to the authority given to the Apostles, they kept these letters and passed them around and eventually the Body gathered these together and canonized them. The CHURCH canonized them because they maintained that authority that the apostles had because they handed it down to them.

How could anyone not canonise what was canonised? All the books of the new testament were written by apostles and those who had direct contact with Christ.. Some books historical and factual, written by witnesses to the risen Christ, (still under law) i.e - Matthew, mark, Luke, yet there are some for today, which are written to us - NOW. i.e - Pauls letters. (not under law, under grace). Just because the men that lived back then put the bible together the way they did means what?.. Who would honestly debate the NT canon now? Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James - all apostles. All of them had contact with Christ.. All with their own style of writing - easily recognisable. All of them writing according to the purpose of God. This is why they are in the bible canon.

Ignatius of antiochs writings, to use an example, (I have nothing against this man) didn't make the canon though. Why? Read the first few paragraphs of his writings and the answer will be clear. He had no authority. Just like my writings and your writings.. No authority.. Often the writings can be profitable, but they hold no authority. Not like the authority given to the writers of the N.T.
If you have no authority, why are you here? ???

I repeat.. Read the last sentance.. If I don't back up what I say with scripture then I have no authority.
What about when you use scripture incorrectly, oh, and your rational won't accept that you are.

Not at all.. Like I have plead with you all time and time again. If I am using scripture incorrectly, correct me using scripture and I'll gladly stand corrected.
Sola scriptura... Is that teaching found in Scripture?

I think sola scriptura needs to be understood in the sense that everything that is taught, referenced and accepted in Christianity must be supported by scripture..

Every heresy that ever was or will be claim their idea's are found in Scripture.


And, more importantly, every heresy that ever was or ever will be can be proven to be heresy by using scripture also.

By who? You or them? To your personal satisfaction or to their personal satisfaction?

By what authority do you get to be the judge?

Who are you again?

By who? Me or them? Neither!  By the Word of God. By what authority? By the Word of God!

Who am I? I'm a sinner who has been reconciled to God through Christ. Justified and sanctified by the faith of Christ. I'm an ambassador for Christ.. And I'm the righteousness of God by the Faith of Jesus Christ.

2 Corinthians 5:20Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.21For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

*sigh* back on the merry-go-round.

By "who are you" what we mean is by what authority should we take your interpretation of the word of God over that of men who learned from the Apostles of the very Word of God.

By the way, nice that you claim to be an ambassador of Christ and all, but... well, you're arguing with the Body of Christ- are you so sure your diplomatic papers are entirely in order?
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 09, 2012, 02:34:19 AM
Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
So since wolves enter among us we should each interpret scripture "in spirit and in truth" because then we will all arive at mid acts whatever that was, and that will not be the deception that destroys because we could never be that wolf in the flock?  Come on.  Scripture was an accumulation of letters written to the Churches by the apostles.  These churches submitted to the authority given to the Apostles, they kept these letters and passed them around and eventually the Body gathered these together and canonized them. The CHURCH canonized them because they maintained that authority that the apostles had because they handed it down to them.

How could anyone not canonise what was canonised? All the books of the new testament were written by apostles and those who had direct contact with Christ.. Some books historical and factual, written by witnesses to the risen Christ, (still under law) i.e - Matthew, mark, Luke, yet there are some for today, which are written to us - NOW. i.e - Pauls letters. (not under law, under grace). Just because the men that lived back then put the bible together the way they did means what?.. Who would honestly debate the NT canon now? Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James - all apostles. All of them had contact with Christ.. All with their own style of writing - easily recognisable. All of them writing according to the purpose of God. This is why they are in the bible canon.

Ignatius of antiochs writings, to use an example, (I have nothing against this man) didn't make the canon though. Why? Read the first few paragraphs of his writings and the answer will be clear. He had no authority. Just like my writings and your writings.. No authority.. Often the writings can be profitable, but they hold no authority. Not like the authority given to the writers of the N.T.
If you have no authority, why are you here? ???

I repeat.. Read the last sentance.. If I don't back up what I say with scripture then I have no authority.
What about when you use scripture incorrectly, oh, and your rational won't accept that you are.

Not at all.. Like I have plead with you all time and time again. If I am using scripture incorrectly, correct me using scripture and I'll gladly stand corrected.
Sola scriptura... Is that teaching found in Scripture?

I think sola scriptura needs to be understood in the sense that everything that is taught, referenced and accepted in Christianity must be supported by scripture..

Every heresy that ever was or will be claim their idea's are found in Scripture.


And, more importantly, every heresy that ever was or ever will be can be proven to be heresy by using scripture also.

By who? You or them? To your personal satisfaction or to their personal satisfaction?

By what authority do you get to be the judge?

Who are you again?

By who? Me or them? Neither!  By the Word of God. By what authority? By the Word of God!

Who am I? I'm a sinner who has been reconciled to God through Christ. Justified and sanctified by the faith of Christ. I'm an ambassador for Christ.. And I'm the righteousness of God by the Faith of Jesus Christ.

2 Corinthians 5:20Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.21For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

*sigh* back on the merry-go-round.

By "who are you" what we mean is by what authority should we take your interpretation of the word of God over that of men who learned from the Apostles of the very Word of God.

By the way, nice that you claim to be an ambassador of Christ and all, but... well, you're arguing with the Body of Christ- are you so sure your diplomatic papers are entirely in order?

Err.. As far as I'm aware, I don't think I'm 'arguing' with anyone.. Discussing. communicating, sharing, yes, guilty as charged! Besides, former reformer, all I did regarding your posts was answer your questions..

If you want to argue, go ahead.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 09, 2012, 02:49:18 AM
Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
We know the Holy Fathers spoke copiously from the Scriptures, so what makes your use of the Scriptures different from theirs?

I really don't want to open up a can of worms right here right now.. There is enough going on.. Perhaps I might start a new post.. but if you really respect the early church fathers and hold their teachings as infallible and authoritative just as I do the scriptures, then listen to what Melito - Bishop of Sardis had to say..
So... back to this post. What makes your interpretation of the Scriptures different from (i.e., better than) that of the early Church Fathers? You still haven't answered this question.

I haven't answered that question because it is not my aim to disprove anyones teachings. My aim is to show you how I understand the bible and then for you to prove me wrong using scripture if possible..
Sorry if I don't feel like playing that game. I just don't like it when someone comes to this forum thinking he can set the rules for debate. You say, "Prove me wrong." That comes across to me as displaying an attitude of, "I'm right until you can prove me wrong," which is, IMO, a rather arrogant thing to say and a violation of standard burden-of-proof rules. It's also a classic trait of Internet trolls. If you were to say something like, "This is what I believe. Please correct me if I'm wrong," then I think we would be much more responsive to you, since you would be showing an attitude of humility and a willingness to be corrected.

Also, when others do offer evidence that counters your opinion, you would do well to actually engage the rebuttal by articulating a defense against it. I really haven't seen you do that. All I've seen you do is use various dodgeball tactics to brush aside others' genuine attempts to prove you wrong, and then continue pondefecating. That kind of unwillingness to engage us makes it difficult for us to even want to discuss our point of view with you. Forgive my crass way of saying it, but it's like casting pearls before swine only to then watch the swine trample the pearls under their feet.

I apologise. I didn't mean to come onto this forum and set any rules.. if I did, I truly apologise.. If my attitude comes across as 'I'm right until you prove me wrong', again, I apologise.. However, I was not attempting to prove I am right, I should not have used the words 'prove me wrong'.. But like I said, (using the wrong word), I am trying to share my simple understanding of the scripture - and if it be possible, to be corrected. If anything, I am trying to prove that the bible is right my friend.. Not me.

If my 'teachings' are different to (or better than, as you think I think) that of the O.C or the early fathers, would it not be possible to reference some of them so I can see who you are referring to and how my understanding differs from theirs?

I might be one you like to refer to as an 'internet troll' or 'swine'. Call me what you like. Think of me what you like. Ridicule and persecution would be more an accurate description of what I have experienced on this site. I Praise the Lord for that.. If there is just 1 person reading this thread and comes to the knowledge of Truth in Jesus Christ then it has been worthwhile. But you have made your opposition to the Truth clear, and again I reference scripture:

1 Corinthians 14:37If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.38But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

A persecution complex is also not a good way to engender good will toward you on this site. No one is persecuting you here, so you can give up that canard right now.

A persecution complex.. I love it! I suppose I'm interpreting all the name calling and belittling the wrong way...
Yes, you are.

Hang on.. What does 'yes you are' mean? Does it really mean 'yes you are'? Or should I not attempt to interpret what your saying here?
No need to read anything into my statement. You're interpreting all the "name calling" and "belittling" the wrong way. Need I be more blunt?
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 09, 2012, 02:56:49 AM
Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
We know the Holy Fathers spoke copiously from the Scriptures, so what makes your use of the Scriptures different from theirs?

I really don't want to open up a can of worms right here right now.. There is enough going on.. Perhaps I might start a new post.. but if you really respect the early church fathers and hold their teachings as infallible and authoritative just as I do the scriptures, then listen to what Melito - Bishop of Sardis had to say..
So... back to this post. What makes your interpretation of the Scriptures different from (i.e., better than) that of the early Church Fathers? You still haven't answered this question.

I haven't answered that question because it is not my aim to disprove anyones teachings. My aim is to show you how I understand the bible and then for you to prove me wrong using scripture if possible..
Sorry if I don't feel like playing that game. I just don't like it when someone comes to this forum thinking he can set the rules for debate. You say, "Prove me wrong." That comes across to me as displaying an attitude of, "I'm right until you can prove me wrong," which is, IMO, a rather arrogant thing to say and a violation of standard burden-of-proof rules. It's also a classic trait of Internet trolls. If you were to say something like, "This is what I believe. Please correct me if I'm wrong," then I think we would be much more responsive to you, since you would be showing an attitude of humility and a willingness to be corrected.

Also, when others do offer evidence that counters your opinion, you would do well to actually engage the rebuttal by articulating a defense against it. I really haven't seen you do that. All I've seen you do is use various dodgeball tactics to brush aside others' genuine attempts to prove you wrong, and then continue pondefecating. That kind of unwillingness to engage us makes it difficult for us to even want to discuss our point of view with you. Forgive my crass way of saying it, but it's like casting pearls before swine only to then watch the swine trample the pearls under their feet.

I apologise. I didn't mean to come onto this forum and set any rules.. if I did, I truly apologise.. If my attitude comes across as 'I'm right until you prove me wrong', again, I apologise.. However, I was not attempting to prove I am right, I should not have used the words 'prove me wrong'.. But like I said, (using the wrong word), I am trying to share my simple understanding of the scripture - and if it be possible, to be corrected. If anything, I am trying to prove that the bible is right my friend.. Not me.

If my 'teachings' are different to (or better than, as you think I think) that of the O.C or the early fathers, would it not be possible to reference some of them so I can see who you are referring to and how my understanding differs from theirs?

I might be one you like to refer to as an 'internet troll' or 'swine'. Call me what you like. Think of me what you like. Ridicule and persecution would be more an accurate description of what I have experienced on this site. I Praise the Lord for that.. If there is just 1 person reading this thread and comes to the knowledge of Truth in Jesus Christ then it has been worthwhile. But you have made your opposition to the Truth clear, and again I reference scripture:

1 Corinthians 14:37If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.38But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

A persecution complex is also not a good way to engender good will toward you on this site. No one is persecuting you here, so you can give up that canard right now.

A persecution complex.. I love it! I suppose I'm interpreting all the name calling and belittling the wrong way...
Yes, you are.

Hang on.. What does 'yes you are' mean? Does it really mean 'yes you are'? Or should I not attempt to interpret what your saying here?
No need to read anything into my statement. You're interpreting all the "name calling" and "belittling" the wrong way. Need I be more blunt?

Why not. Scratch the itch!
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 09, 2012, 03:17:06 AM
Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
We know the Holy Fathers spoke copiously from the Scriptures, so what makes your use of the Scriptures different from theirs?

I really don't want to open up a can of worms right here right now.. There is enough going on.. Perhaps I might start a new post.. but if you really respect the early church fathers and hold their teachings as infallible and authoritative just as I do the scriptures, then listen to what Melito - Bishop of Sardis had to say..
So... back to this post. What makes your interpretation of the Scriptures different from (i.e., better than) that of the early Church Fathers? You still haven't answered this question.

I haven't answered that question because it is not my aim to disprove anyones teachings. My aim is to show you how I understand the bible and then for you to prove me wrong using scripture if possible..
Sorry if I don't feel like playing that game. I just don't like it when someone comes to this forum thinking he can set the rules for debate. You say, "Prove me wrong." That comes across to me as displaying an attitude of, "I'm right until you can prove me wrong," which is, IMO, a rather arrogant thing to say and a violation of standard burden-of-proof rules. It's also a classic trait of Internet trolls. If you were to say something like, "This is what I believe. Please correct me if I'm wrong," then I think we would be much more responsive to you, since you would be showing an attitude of humility and a willingness to be corrected.

Also, when others do offer evidence that counters your opinion, you would do well to actually engage the rebuttal by articulating a defense against it. I really haven't seen you do that. All I've seen you do is use various dodgeball tactics to brush aside others' genuine attempts to prove you wrong, and then continue pondefecating. That kind of unwillingness to engage us makes it difficult for us to even want to discuss our point of view with you. Forgive my crass way of saying it, but it's like casting pearls before swine only to then watch the swine trample the pearls under their feet.

I apologise. I didn't mean to come onto this forum and set any rules.. if I did, I truly apologise.. If my attitude comes across as 'I'm right until you prove me wrong', again, I apologise.. However, I was not attempting to prove I am right, I should not have used the words 'prove me wrong'.. But like I said, (using the wrong word), I am trying to share my simple understanding of the scripture - and if it be possible, to be corrected. If anything, I am trying to prove that the bible is right my friend.. Not me.

If my 'teachings' are different to (or better than, as you think I think) that of the O.C or the early fathers, would it not be possible to reference some of them so I can see who you are referring to and how my understanding differs from theirs?

I might be one you like to refer to as an 'internet troll' or 'swine'. Call me what you like. Think of me what you like. Ridicule and persecution would be more an accurate description of what I have experienced on this site. I Praise the Lord for that.. If there is just 1 person reading this thread and comes to the knowledge of Truth in Jesus Christ then it has been worthwhile. But you have made your opposition to the Truth clear, and again I reference scripture:

1 Corinthians 14:37If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.38But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

A persecution complex is also not a good way to engender good will toward you on this site. No one is persecuting you here, so you can give up that canard right now.

A persecution complex.. I love it! I suppose I'm interpreting all the name calling and belittling the wrong way...
Yes, you are.

Hang on.. What does 'yes you are' mean? Does it really mean 'yes you are'? Or should I not attempt to interpret what your saying here?
No need to read anything into my statement. You're interpreting all the "name calling" and "belittling" the wrong way. Need I be more blunt?

Why not. Scratch the itch!
Okay. You're not being persecuted for the content of your message.  Other Evangelicals who visit this board have shown themselves able to present their points of view with conviction and with very clear statements of why they disagree with us, yet with the utmost desire to truly understand what we believe and the maturity to not take our criticism of their beliefs personally. Such posters are very welcome here.

You, however, choose to pontificate without taking the time to really understand what we believe. When others criticize your point of view, you refuse to acknowledge that their criticism may be valid and keep right on pontificating. Either that or you take the criticism personally and cry that you're being persecuted. You're not acting like one who wants to enter into a genuine two-way discussion with us; rather, you're acting like a jackass and are merely reaping the fruit of your jackassery.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 09, 2012, 04:35:27 AM
Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
We know the Holy Fathers spoke copiously from the Scriptures, so what makes your use of the Scriptures different from theirs?

I really don't want to open up a can of worms right here right now.. There is enough going on.. Perhaps I might start a new post.. but if you really respect the early church fathers and hold their teachings as infallible and authoritative just as I do the scriptures, then listen to what Melito - Bishop of Sardis had to say..
So... back to this post. What makes your interpretation of the Scriptures different from (i.e., better than) that of the early Church Fathers? You still haven't answered this question.

I haven't answered that question because it is not my aim to disprove anyones teachings. My aim is to show you how I understand the bible and then for you to prove me wrong using scripture if possible..
Sorry if I don't feel like playing that game. I just don't like it when someone comes to this forum thinking he can set the rules for debate. You say, "Prove me wrong." That comes across to me as displaying an attitude of, "I'm right until you can prove me wrong," which is, IMO, a rather arrogant thing to say and a violation of standard burden-of-proof rules. It's also a classic trait of Internet trolls. If you were to say something like, "This is what I believe. Please correct me if I'm wrong," then I think we would be much more responsive to you, since you would be showing an attitude of humility and a willingness to be corrected.

Also, when others do offer evidence that counters your opinion, you would do well to actually engage the rebuttal by articulating a defense against it. I really haven't seen you do that. All I've seen you do is use various dodgeball tactics to brush aside others' genuine attempts to prove you wrong, and then continue pondefecating. That kind of unwillingness to engage us makes it difficult for us to even want to discuss our point of view with you. Forgive my crass way of saying it, but it's like casting pearls before swine only to then watch the swine trample the pearls under their feet.

I apologise. I didn't mean to come onto this forum and set any rules.. if I did, I truly apologise.. If my attitude comes across as 'I'm right until you prove me wrong', again, I apologise.. However, I was not attempting to prove I am right, I should not have used the words 'prove me wrong'.. But like I said, (using the wrong word), I am trying to share my simple understanding of the scripture - and if it be possible, to be corrected. If anything, I am trying to prove that the bible is right my friend.. Not me.

If my 'teachings' are different to (or better than, as you think I think) that of the O.C or the early fathers, would it not be possible to reference some of them so I can see who you are referring to and how my understanding differs from theirs?

I might be one you like to refer to as an 'internet troll' or 'swine'. Call me what you like. Think of me what you like. Ridicule and persecution would be more an accurate description of what I have experienced on this site. I Praise the Lord for that.. If there is just 1 person reading this thread and comes to the knowledge of Truth in Jesus Christ then it has been worthwhile. But you have made your opposition to the Truth clear, and again I reference scripture:

1 Corinthians 14:37If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.38But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

A persecution complex is also not a good way to engender good will toward you on this site. No one is persecuting you here, so you can give up that canard right now.

A persecution complex.. I love it! I suppose I'm interpreting all the name calling and belittling the wrong way...
Yes, you are.

Hang on.. What does 'yes you are' mean? Does it really mean 'yes you are'? Or should I not attempt to interpret what your saying here?
No need to read anything into my statement. You're interpreting all the "name calling" and "belittling" the wrong way. Need I be more blunt?

Why not. Scratch the itch!
Okay. You're not being persecuted for the content of your message.  Other Evangelicals who visit this board have shown themselves able to present their points of view with conviction and with very clear statements of why they disagree with us, yet with the utmost desire to truly understand what we believe and the maturity to not take our criticism of their beliefs personally. Such posters are very welcome here.

You, however, choose to pontificate without taking the time to really understand what we believe. When others criticize your point of view, you refuse to acknowledge that their criticism may be valid and keep right on pontificating. Either that or you take the criticism personally and cry that you're being persecuted. You're not acting like one who wants to enter into a genuine two-way discussion with us; rather, you're acting like a jackass and are merely reaping the fruit of your jackassery.

Good on you Peter!

Now I am a proponent of the scripture - obviously. But upon the advice of some sensible and polite people on this site I have gone about to read through some of the writings of the ante-nicene fathers. Just to see what they have to say and whether it matches up with the bible.

Anyway, I have been reading the 1st epistle of Clement of Rome - to the Corinthians. This apparently was written around 96.. In the 13 chapter of his epistle, headed 'an appeal to renounce obstinacy and schism' he says;

"My brothers, do let us have a little humility, let us forget our self assertion and braggadocio and stupid quarrelling, and do what the Bible tells us instead. The Holy Spirit says, The wise man is not to brag of his wisdom, nor the strong man of his strength, nor the rich man of his wealth; if a man must boast, he should boast of the Lord, seeking Him out and acting with justice and uprightness".

This is definitely great advice for me. Very encouraging and uplifting. Humility is something I do struggle with and what I am engaging in here on this thread would be hard to argue that I'm not quarrelling..  'Oh wretched man that I am'.. I thank Him for saving me.

Now I understand that there are various canons of scripture compiled over the years from the early church. The canon we have now, perhaps not until the mid 300's? Please correct me if I'm wrong. However, I also understand that the books in the N.T would have been mostly completed in the 1st century, no later than 150. The books and letters that were written were also apparently in circulation at the time of Clement. It is apparent that he was using these himself - at least according to his writings.. Again, please correct me if I'm wrong.

The book I am reading is called 'early christian writings'. Published by penguin. Translated into English.

I bought it a while ago, but haven't read much of it. It was recommended to me by a relative of mine who is 'orthodox'.

Has what Clement said above been translated correctly? Does he not say let us turn to what the bible says? Or have I again misinterpreted something?



Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Riddikulus on January 09, 2012, 04:51:29 AM
You might find this interesting... An Orthodox view on the Holy Scriptures -
Part I - All Scripture Is Inspired by God: Thoughts on the Old Testament Canon

and

Part II - Do not Add to His Words: Thoughts on the New Testament Canon

http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/orthodox_view_scriptures.htm



Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 09, 2012, 04:54:49 AM
You might find this interesting... An Orthodox view on the Holy Scriptures -
Part I - All Scripture Is Inspired by God: Thoughts on the Old Testament Canon

and

Part II - Do not Add to His Words: Thoughts on the New Testament Canon

http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/orthodox_view_scriptures.htm





Thanks for sharing.. I'll check it out.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: HandmaidenofGod on January 09, 2012, 05:01:17 AM
If my 'teachings' are different to (or better than, as you think I think) that of the O.C or the early fathers, would it not be possible to reference some of them so I can see who you are referring to and how my understanding differs from theirs?

I might be one you like to refer to as an 'internet troll' or 'swine'. Call me what you like. Think of me what you like. Ridicule and persecution would be more an accurate description of what I have experienced on this site. I Praise the Lord for that.. If there is just 1 person reading this thread and comes to the knowledge of Truth in Jesus Christ then it has been worthwhile. But you have made your opposition to the Truth clear, and again I reference scripture:

1 Corinthians 14:37If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.38But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.


I wonder what makes you think that our teachings are wrong? Are you familiar with the teachings of the Orthodox Church? Have you studied the Early Church Fathers?

Are you familiar with how the Bible, which you rightly revere, came to be? (Here's a hint: It did not come from heaven leather-bound with the King James translation and the words of Christ in Red.)

You say that if one comes to the knowledge of Christ through your postings, well then Glory to God!

What makes you think that we do not know Christ?

Did you know that in the post-communal hymn of the Orthodox Church, we sing "We have seen the true light, we have received the Heavenly Spirit, we have found the true faith, worshiping the undivided Trinity, who has saved us!"?

Do you know who the Early Church Fathers are and why we pay attention to what they have to say? They aren't just a bunch of old men that we like to quote. There is a reason why we take their words seriously. Do you know why?

I am interested in how much you know about the Prefix Church, that you have come to enlighten us to the truth.

Or is it you, who have come to be enlightened?

I am still waiting for a response to my questions.

Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 09, 2012, 05:12:35 AM
Actually, in my previous post, I spoke of clements 1st epistle. There was something in particular that caught my attention and I forgot to mention earlier.. It is also relevant to the title of this thread..

Opening of the letter:

"From the colony of the church of God at Rome - To the colony of the church of God at Corinth, called and sanctified by the will of God through our Lord Jesus Christ. All grace and peace to you from God almighty, through Jesus Christ.

The word 'colony' caught my attention straight off the bat. I continued reading and wanted to come back and check that out, but at the end of the letter I came across some notes from the translators - or the authors of this book - Maxwell Staniforth, and Andrew Louth - professor of patristic and byzantine studies. But I haven't a clue who they are.

I quote;

Notes. (Referring to the above quote)

Literally, the church of God which is 'transiently sojourning in Rome'. Clement is here using a technical term which denotes the temporary residents of a place, as distinct from its permanent inhabitants; for the Christians true home is not the earth, but in heaven. I have tried to express the idea by the word 'colony', in the sense in which we might speak of 'the french colony in London'.

End quote.

I suppose if there is a 'French colony in London, not all of the French would be living in the same place? They are scattered around, but they are still French people living in England, simply backed up by the fact that they are French.

My understanding is virtually the same with the Church. The Body of Christ.

Can anyone shed some light on this?
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 09, 2012, 05:18:54 AM
If my 'teachings' are different to (or better than, as you think I think) that of the O.C or the early fathers, would it not be possible to reference some of them so I can see who you are referring to and how my understanding differs from theirs?

I might be one you like to refer to as an 'internet troll' or 'swine'. Call me what you like. Think of me what you like. Ridicule and persecution would be more an accurate description of what I have experienced on this site. I Praise the Lord for that.. If there is just 1 person reading this thread and comes to the knowledge of Truth in Jesus Christ then it has been worthwhile. But you have made your opposition to the Truth clear, and again I reference scripture:

1 Corinthians 14:37If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.38But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.


I wonder what makes you think that our teachings are wrong? Are you familiar with the teachings of the Orthodox Church? Have you studied the Early Church Fathers?

Are you familiar with how the Bible, which you rightly revere, came to be? (Here's a hint: It did not come from heaven leather-bound with the King James translation and the words of Christ in Red.)

You say that if one comes to the knowledge of Christ through your postings, well then Glory to God!

What makes you think that we do not know Christ?

Did you know that in the post-communal hymn of the Orthodox Church, we sing "We have seen the true light, we have received the Heavenly Spirit, we have found the true faith, worshiping the undivided Trinity, who has saved us!"?

Do you know who the Early Church Fathers are and why we pay attention to what they have to say? They aren't just a bunch of old men that we like to quote. There is a reason why we take their words seriously. Do you know why?

I am interested in how much you know about the Prefix Church, that you have come to enlighten us to the truth.

Or is it you, who have come to be enlightened?

I am still waiting for a response to my questions.



I never said so bluntly orthodox teachings are wrong.
I am becoming familiar with the teachings of the orthodox church.
I am reading the ante-nicene fathers.
I am well aware the bible did not come down 'leather bound etc.
Yes, Glory be to God if someone comes to Christ.
I never said you don't know Christ. How do I know you?
No. I didn't know about the post communal hymn, but thanks for sharing.
I am currently reading the ante-nicene fathers.
I am interested in how much I know about the prefix church also - hence I'm here.
Perhaps I have come to be enlightened. Perhaps not.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: FountainPen on January 09, 2012, 05:22:02 AM

Who's crying?

If you're going to interrupt the flow of an interesting thread, at least make it worth it.  ;)

Does this mean you're going to respond to my post (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,41917.msg689919.html#msg689919)? :)

Yep
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: HandmaidenofGod on January 09, 2012, 05:25:36 AM
If my 'teachings' are different to (or better than, as you think I think) that of the O.C or the early fathers, would it not be possible to reference some of them so I can see who you are referring to and how my understanding differs from theirs?

I might be one you like to refer to as an 'internet troll' or 'swine'. Call me what you like. Think of me what you like. Ridicule and persecution would be more an accurate description of what I have experienced on this site. I Praise the Lord for that.. If there is just 1 person reading this thread and comes to the knowledge of Truth in Jesus Christ then it has been worthwhile. But you have made your opposition to the Truth clear, and again I reference scripture:

1 Corinthians 14:37If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.38But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.


I wonder what makes you think that our teachings are wrong? Are you familiar with the teachings of the Orthodox Church? Have you studied the Early Church Fathers?

Are you familiar with how the Bible, which you rightly revere, came to be? (Here's a hint: It did not come from heaven leather-bound with the King James translation and the words of Christ in Red.)

You say that if one comes to the knowledge of Christ through your postings, well then Glory to God!

What makes you think that we do not know Christ?

Did you know that in the post-communal hymn of the Orthodox Church, we sing "We have seen the true light, we have received the Heavenly Spirit, we have found the true faith, worshiping the undivided Trinity, who has saved us!"?

Do you know who the Early Church Fathers are and why we pay attention to what they have to say? They aren't just a bunch of old men that we like to quote. There is a reason why we take their words seriously. Do you know why?

I am interested in how much you know about the Prefix Church, that you have come to enlighten us to the truth.

Or is it you, who have come to be enlightened?

I am still waiting for a response to my questions.



I never said so bluntly orthodox teachings are wrong.
I am becoming familiar with the teachings of the orthodox church.
I am reading the ante-nicene fathers.
I am well aware the bible did not come down 'leather bound etc.
Yes, Glory be to God if someone comes to Christ.
I never said you don't know Christ. How do I know you?
No. I didn't know about the post communal hymn, but thanks for sharing.
I am currently reading the ante-nicene fathers.
I am interested in how much I know about the prefix church also - hence I'm here.
Perhaps I have come to be enlightened. Perhaps not.

Thank you for your responses.  You may find reading The Orthodox Church by Timothy Ware to be helpful in your studies.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 09, 2012, 05:50:00 AM
If my 'teachings' are different to (or better than, as you think I think) that of the O.C or the early fathers, would it not be possible to reference some of them so I can see who you are referring to and how my understanding differs from theirs?

I might be one you like to refer to as an 'internet troll' or 'swine'. Call me what you like. Think of me what you like. Ridicule and persecution would be more an accurate description of what I have experienced on this site. I Praise the Lord for that.. If there is just 1 person reading this thread and comes to the knowledge of Truth in Jesus Christ then it has been worthwhile. But you have made your opposition to the Truth clear, and again I reference scripture:

1 Corinthians 14:37If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.38But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.


I wonder what makes you think that our teachings are wrong? Are you familiar with the teachings of the Orthodox Church? Have you studied the Early Church Fathers?

Are you familiar with how the Bible, which you rightly revere, came to be? (Here's a hint: It did not come from heaven leather-bound with the King James translation and the words of Christ in Red.)

You say that if one comes to the knowledge of Christ through your postings, well then Glory to God!

What makes you think that we do not know Christ?

Did you know that in the post-communal hymn of the Orthodox Church, we sing "We have seen the true light, we have received the Heavenly Spirit, we have found the true faith, worshiping the undivided Trinity, who has saved us!"?

Do you know who the Early Church Fathers are and why we pay attention to what they have to say? They aren't just a bunch of old men that we like to quote. There is a reason why we take their words seriously. Do you know why?

I am interested in how much you know about the Prefix Church, that you have come to enlighten us to the truth.

Or is it you, who have come to be enlightened?

I am still waiting for a response to my questions.



I never said so bluntly orthodox teachings are wrong.
I am becoming familiar with the teachings of the orthodox church.
I am reading the ante-nicene fathers.
I am well aware the bible did not come down 'leather bound etc.
Yes, Glory be to God if someone comes to Christ.
I never said you don't know Christ. How do I know you?
No. I didn't know about the post communal hymn, but thanks for sharing.
I am currently reading the ante-nicene fathers.
I am interested in how much I know about the prefix church also - hence I'm here.
Perhaps I have come to be enlightened. Perhaps not.

Thank you for your responses.  You may find reading The Orthodox Church by Timothy Ware to be helpful in your studies.

Not a problem.. I by no means meant to disregard your questions, but as you are probably aware, there are many people tackling me on this thread and I have had a lot to respond to.. I think there are still some questions I have missed but if anyone awaiting my answers is reading this, I will get to them. Perhaps remind me again if possible.

Thanks
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 09, 2012, 06:12:24 AM
If someone could please help me understand this:

I'm in to Polycarp now, Chapter 10 of his epistle to the Phillipians:

"Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood,(56) and being attached to one another, joined together in the truth, exhibiting the meekness of the Lord in your intercourse with one another, and despising no one. When you can do good, defer it not, because "alms delivers from death."

This sounds great really.. Did he quote from Tobit?

It is better to give alms than to lay up gold: for alms delivers from death, and shall purge away all sin. (Tobit 12:8-9; see also Tobit 4:8-10)

Now, just a humble question.. Is there any way of making the above writings work with the below? I might be missing something.

And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing. (1 Corinthians 13:3)

Thanks
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 09, 2012, 07:48:09 AM
Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
We know the Holy Fathers spoke copiously from the Scriptures, so what makes your use of the Scriptures different from theirs?

I really don't want to open up a can of worms right here right now.. There is enough going on.. Perhaps I might start a new post.. but if you really respect the early church fathers and hold their teachings as infallible and authoritative just as I do the scriptures, then listen to what Melito - Bishop of Sardis had to say..
So... back to this post. What makes your interpretation of the Scriptures different from (i.e., better than) that of the early Church Fathers? You still haven't answered this question.

I haven't answered that question because it is not my aim to disprove anyones teachings. My aim is to show you how I understand the bible and then for you to prove me wrong using scripture if possible..

But how are you going to prove that you understand the bible better than those who spoke and thought in the language of the NT writings and the Septuagint? I'm assuming that you aren't a Koine speaker so you are working with a translation. From past experience, I have seen many so-called biblical experts do this and come up with some doozies; "teachings" that would have had early Christians tearing out their hair. Even if these so-called experts "understand Greek", as I have heard so many claim, they still manage to understand Greek in a way that is slanted to suit their own preconceptions.

I believe it's no coincidence that early heresies were weeded out by those who understood the language of the text, and that under the guidance of the Holy Spirit an accepted canon was formed, teachings regulated.* That we see a resurgence of heretical, or just plain silly opinions, particularly in groups and individuals that could not even be considered mainstream Protestant, is no surprise when they refuse to have any contact with any Christian ancestral roots. Because it is somehow beneath them to consider that someone else knows better than they do, they struggle to recreate a "Christianity" that no ancient believer would have possibly recognised as anything but gnostic mumbo-jumbo; something that fits their thinking instead of recreating their thinking to fit historical Christianity.

Using Dispensationalism as an example. Some English man sees something in his English translation that the Church has never considered doctrine. It's picked up and carried on in ignorance of that fact and made more important that the doctrines that have come down to us from the very beginning. It's no wonder that a group like the JWs appears out of the Sola Scriptura swamp, completely denying the doctrine of the Trinity because they "don't see the word "Trinity" in their bibles".  

Honestly, I have no axe to grind with you, but I do consider your opinions to be typical of a person who believes that the Holy Spirit is guiding you and you alone to understand the Scripture that was given to you by God, through the Church in the first place. (Yes, men - God works with men - what a shock!)

As Orthodox believers we have the Church for scriptual guidance, that's why we are completely confident that 2Timothy 2:15 belongs in the bible. What you say doesn't gel with what the Church teaches us. So, sorry to say you really are just wasting your time here if your purpose is to convince any Orthodox believer to accept your individual word over that of the historic Church which gives us Scripture and interprets it for us, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

*I can think of no better word than regulated. Perhaps someone can suggest something better?

Sorry, I did forget to respond to this also. I definitely, and without doubt, understand your point. Truly.

This may well be the case. And it makes perfect sense to want to stick with something that seems to have continued on throughout the centuries until now. Unbroken. Ancestral roots. Yes.. I'm not against the idea at all - even though it may appear that way.

I suppose, I have to look at it from 3 points of view. Unfortunately, nobody can deny that there are 3 main avenues of belief in Christianity. Of course, we all agree that there is only 1 way and 1 truth though. Not 3. These are Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Protestantism.

Catholics claim to be the true church, orthodox and protestants disagree. Orthodox claim to be the true church, catholics and protestants disagree and obviously, the same applies with protestants. So what does a truth seeker do? Just stick with how he was raised? Or does he investigate? If one is to investigate what do we do? Well I suppose we all have our ways of doing that. Some don't want to seek the truth. Often, the truth is hard to accept, but no amount of denying it will change it..

Regulation, as you put it, certainly can keep things uniform. I agree here. But were there are regs, there are always reg breakers. Someone erred along the way, someone broke the rules, hence the schism. Catholics would say you strayed, you would say they strayed. Both have their arguments, but the fact remains. Somebody erred..Then of course came the reformation. Which caused 'protestantism'. Sola fide and sola scriptura.. And from there developed some 33000 denominations alot of those, actually,most of those stemming from a misuse of the bible. (I'm not saying I am perfect, or better at understanding than anyone else btw.)

Now, you said JW's came out of the sola scriptura swamp.. Well yes.. They did. Or at least, thats what they have us believe. But has it not been stomped on? Their bibles, (I can't recall the translation) have been totally mistranslated, blatantly, and virtually re-written by their founder no less. But did the same thing not happen in the early churches? Marcion for example? Did he come out of the sola scriptura swamp? No. But just as Marcions heresies were stomped on, likewise, the JW's teachings have been 'stomped on'. People still believe them, but people believe in buddha too. There are even people who follow Marcions ideas. There was another man, it was basically pentecostalism as it is today but back then. That got stomped on. But its come back.

Now, is it really wrong of me, or any of us, to want to check the teachings of anyone against the bible? Even if it is from the earliest of the earliest christians? Can what they say not be compared to the bible?

In my own experience, reading the bible is not like reading any other book. Its as though the pages are literally alive. Every time I read it I learn more. Things I didn't understand yesterday are understood tomorrow, and more light is revealed. I believe that is the Spirit of God, who works in us through His Word. There are also spiritual gifts that God has given to His people, apostles, evangelists, pastors, teachers and prophets. Just because somebody calls themselves a prophet, or an evangelist, means nothing.. I need to hear what they are teaching, and compare it to the bible. Then we can know whether they are put there by God or not.

Hopefully from this, you might be able to see here that I don't think the truth is revealed to me and me alone, but through teachers, pastors, evangelists, through the churches - both historical and present, and, most importantly, by the Word of God and the Spirit.

Thats how we can discern the errors of the J.W's, mormons and any other branches of protestantism that deny the fundamentals of the Christian faith. i.e. Jesus Christ is God, the doctrine of the Trinity, Christs death and resurrection, His payment for sin, and so on.

My purpose here is not to convince you of anything. Just to humbly learn about your faith and explain the problems that I might have understanding it. Just as you may do the same with me.

Dialogue between believers. Hopefully for the edification of all of us.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Melodist on January 09, 2012, 08:48:37 AM
It is better to give alms than to lay up gold: for alms delivers from death, and shall purge away all sin. (Tobit 12:8-9; see also Tobit 4:8-10)

Now, just a humble question.. Is there any way of making the above writings work with the below? I might be missing something.

And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing. (1 Corinthians 13:3)

Doing something you know to be good, and doing it out of love are not in mutual exclusion to each other, especially when the definition of "love" is an act of self sacrifice for the benefit of someone else, and love covers the mutlitude of sins.

Just a thought.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: genesisone on January 09, 2012, 09:49:16 AM

Now I am a proponent of the scripture - obviously. But upon the advice of some sensible and polite people on this site I have gone about to read through some of the writings of the ante-nicene fathers. Just to see what they have to say and whether it matches up with the bible.

Anyway, I have been reading the 1st epistle of Clement of Rome - to the Corinthians. This apparently was written around 96.. In the 13 chapter of his epistle, headed 'an appeal to renounce obstinacy and schism' he says;

"My brothers, do let us have a little humility, let us forget our self assertion and braggadocio and stupid quarrelling, and do what the Bible tells us instead. The Holy Spirit says, The wise man is not to brag of his wisdom, nor the strong man of his strength, nor the rich man of his wealth; if a man must boast, he should boast of the Lord, seeking Him out and acting with justice and uprightness".

This is definitely great advice for me. Very encouraging and uplifting. Humility is something I do struggle with and what I am engaging in here on this thread would be hard to argue that I'm not quarrelling..  'Oh wretched man that I am'.. I thank Him for saving me.

Now I understand that there are various canons of scripture compiled over the years from the early church. The canon we have now, perhaps not until the mid 300's? Please correct me if I'm wrong. However, I also understand that the books in the N.T would have been mostly completed in the 1st century, no later than 150. The books and letters that were written were also apparently in circulation at the time of Clement. It is apparent that he was using these himself - at least according to his writings.. Again, please correct me if I'm wrong.

The book I am reading is called 'early christian writings'. Published by penguin. Translated into English.

I bought it a while ago, but haven't read much of it. It was recommended to me by a relative of mine who is 'orthodox'.

Has what Clement said above been translated correctly? Does he not say let us turn to what the bible says? Or have I again misinterpreted something?

To answer this question (simply, I trust without going into the discussion at hand): The version of the ante-Nicene Fathers that I have is The Apostolic Fathers, edited by Jack N. Sparks. The Letter of Clement is translated by Holt H. Graham and Robert M. Grant.

The pertinent point from chapter 13 is "let us be humble and put away all pretension....and let us do what is written" (italics added). As you yourself pointed out, "bible" (sic) is not really accurate. There were many writings in circulation even in the first and second centuries. That's why it took the collective wisdom of the Church under the direction of the Holy Spirit to establish a canon of Scripture. Clement would likely have been familiar with the books that comprise the Septuagint as an Old Testament, and who can know which Apostolic and post-Apostolic writings. His equivalent of our New Testament was not likely the 27 books we list today.

None of us here will argue with the centrality and authority of the Holy Scriptures, but we Orthodox will understand them within the context of the entire Tradition that has been handed down, including the words of St Clement and others. I commend you for digging more deeply.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Marc1152 on January 09, 2012, 11:37:03 AM
Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
We know the Holy Fathers spoke copiously from the Scriptures, so what makes your use of the Scriptures different from theirs?

I really don't want to open up a can of worms right here right now.. There is enough going on.. Perhaps I might start a new post.. but if you really respect the early church fathers and hold their teachings as infallible and authoritative just as I do the scriptures, then listen to what Melito - Bishop of Sardis had to say..
So... back to this post. What makes your interpretation of the Scriptures different from (i.e., better than) that of the early Church Fathers? You still haven't answered this question.

I haven't answered that question because it is not my aim to disprove anyones teachings. My aim is to show you how I understand the bible and then for you to prove me wrong using scripture if possible..
Sorry if I don't feel like playing that game. I just don't like it when someone comes to this forum thinking he can set the rules for debate. You say, "Prove me wrong." That comes across to me as displaying an attitude of, "I'm right until you can prove me wrong," which is, IMO, a rather arrogant thing to say and a violation of standard burden-of-proof rules. It's also a classic trait of Internet trolls. If you were to say something like, "This is what I believe. Please correct me if I'm wrong," then I think we would be much more responsive to you, since you would be showing an attitude of humility and a willingness to be corrected.

Also, when others do offer evidence that counters your opinion, you would do well to actually engage the rebuttal by articulating a defense against it. I really haven't seen you do that. All I've seen you do is use various dodgeball tactics to brush aside others' genuine attempts to prove you wrong, and then continue pondefecating. That kind of unwillingness to engage us makes it difficult for us to even want to discuss our point of view with you. Forgive my crass way of saying it, but it's like casting pearls before swine only to then watch the swine trample the pearls under their feet.

I apologise. I didn't mean to come onto this forum and set any rules.. if I did, I truly apologise.. If my attitude comes across as 'I'm right until you prove me wrong', again, I apologise.. However, I was not attempting to prove I am right, I should not have used the words 'prove me wrong'.. But like I said, (using the wrong word), I am trying to share my simple understanding of the scripture - and if it be possible, to be corrected. If anything, I am trying to prove that the bible is right my friend.. Not me.

If my 'teachings' are different to (or better than, as you think I think) that of the O.C or the early fathers, would it not be possible to reference some of them so I can see who you are referring to and how my understanding differs from theirs?

I might be one you like to refer to as an 'internet troll' or 'swine'. Call me what you like. Think of me what you like. Ridicule and persecution would be more an accurate description of what I have experienced on this site. I Praise the Lord for that.. If there is just 1 person reading this thread and comes to the knowledge of Truth in Jesus Christ then it has been worthwhile. But you have made your opposition to the Truth clear, and again I reference scripture:

1 Corinthians 14:37If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.38But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

A persecution complex is also not a good way to engender good will toward you on this site. No one is persecuting you here, so you can give up that canard right now.

A persecution complex.. I love it! I suppose I'm interpreting all the name calling and belittling the wrong way...

You guys are great!




We love the heretic but reject the heresy.

What other way could there possibly be ?
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: primuspilus on January 09, 2012, 11:39:07 AM
Quote
A persecution complex.. I love it! I suppose I'm interpreting all the name calling and belittling the wrong way...

You guys are great!

A spade is a spade. Hop off the cross. We dont mean you're evil, just incorrect.

PP
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: FatherGiryus on January 09, 2012, 11:50:12 AM
What do you mean by 'work?'  The Scriptures and Tradition have always held both these concepts.  What exactly is confusing you?

Now, just a humble question.. Is there any way of making the above writings work with the below? I might be missing something.

Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 09, 2012, 01:25:30 PM
We love the heretic but reject the heresy.

What other way could there possibly be ?

A spade is a spade. Hop off the cross. We dont mean you're evil, just incorrect.

PP
Y'all can get off his back now. I think he got the message. ;)
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: primuspilus on January 09, 2012, 01:31:09 PM
We love the heretic but reject the heresy.

What other way could there possibly be ?

A spade is a spade. Hop off the cross. We dont mean you're evil, just incorrect.

PP
Y'all can get off his back now. I think he got the message. ;)
Yessir
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Riddikulus on January 09, 2012, 05:34:11 PM
Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
We know the Holy Fathers spoke copiously from the Scriptures, so what makes your use of the Scriptures different from theirs?

I really don't want to open up a can of worms right here right now.. There is enough going on.. Perhaps I might start a new post.. but if you really respect the early church fathers and hold their teachings as infallible and authoritative just as I do the scriptures, then listen to what Melito - Bishop of Sardis had to say..
So... back to this post. What makes your interpretation of the Scriptures different from (i.e., better than) that of the early Church Fathers? You still haven't answered this question.

I haven't answered that question because it is not my aim to disprove anyones teachings. My aim is to show you how I understand the bible and then for you to prove me wrong using scripture if possible..

But how are you going to prove that you understand the bible better than those who spoke and thought in the language of the NT writings and the Septuagint? I'm assuming that you aren't a Koine speaker so you are working with a translation. From past experience, I have seen many so-called biblical experts do this and come up with some doozies; "teachings" that would have had early Christians tearing out their hair. Even if these so-called experts "understand Greek", as I have heard so many claim, they still manage to understand Greek in a way that is slanted to suit their own preconceptions.

I believe it's no coincidence that early heresies were weeded out by those who understood the language of the text, and that under the guidance of the Holy Spirit an accepted canon was formed, teachings regulated.* That we see a resurgence of heretical, or just plain silly opinions, particularly in groups and individuals that could not even be considered mainstream Protestant, is no surprise when they refuse to have any contact with any Christian ancestral roots. Because it is somehow beneath them to consider that someone else knows better than they do, they struggle to recreate a "Christianity" that no ancient believer would have possibly recognised as anything but gnostic mumbo-jumbo; something that fits their thinking instead of recreating their thinking to fit historical Christianity.

Using Dispensationalism as an example. Some English man sees something in his English translation that the Church has never considered doctrine. It's picked up and carried on in ignorance of that fact and made more important that the doctrines that have come down to us from the very beginning. It's no wonder that a group like the JWs appears out of the Sola Scriptura swamp, completely denying the doctrine of the Trinity because they "don't see the word "Trinity" in their bibles".  

Honestly, I have no axe to grind with you, but I do consider your opinions to be typical of a person who believes that the Holy Spirit is guiding you and you alone to understand the Scripture that was given to you by God, through the Church in the first place. (Yes, men - God works with men - what a shock!)

As Orthodox believers we have the Church for scriptual guidance, that's why we are completely confident that 2Timothy 2:15 belongs in the bible. What you say doesn't gel with what the Church teaches us. So, sorry to say you really are just wasting your time here if your purpose is to convince any Orthodox believer to accept your individual word over that of the historic Church which gives us Scripture and interprets it for us, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

*I can think of no better word than regulated. Perhaps someone can suggest something better?

Sorry, I did forget to respond to this also. I definitely, and without doubt, understand your point. Truly.

This may well be the case. And it makes perfect sense to want to stick with something that seems to have continued on throughout the centuries until now. Unbroken. Ancestral roots. Yes.. I'm not against the idea at all - even though it may appear that way.

I suppose, I have to look at it from 3 points of view. Unfortunately, nobody can deny that there are 3 main avenues of belief in Christianity. Of course, we all agree that there is only 1 way and 1 truth though. Not 3. These are Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Protestantism.

Catholics claim to be the true church, orthodox and protestants disagree. Orthodox claim to be the true church, catholics and protestants disagree and obviously, the same applies with protestants. So what does a truth seeker do? Just stick with how he was raised? Or does he investigate? If one is to investigate what do we do? Well I suppose we all have our ways of doing that. Some don't want to seek the truth. Often, the truth is hard to accept, but no amount of denying it will change it..


Well, I suppose this is where the language issue came into play for me; along with the history of the Church and the schisms. When I look back, I was on the cusp of converting to Catholicism, but still reading and searching at the time.

Look, I don't want to offend anyone on the forum, but from what I came to understand is that the Western Church, while still a beloved sister of the universal Church, lost contact with the Greek speaking East, for various reasons; barbarians, mainly! This made contact with the East more and more difficult, Greek, which had always been so important to the educated Roman, was increasingly lost to a society that was now ruled by Germanic barbarians; Christians, yes, but not as Phillhellenic as the Greek-admiring Romans. In the chaos that ensued, the Church was affected.

It is my belief and the belief of others that once this connection with the Greek speaking East was lost they were open to the same misunderstandings as any Sola Scriptura advocate today. Communications must have been affected, so that there was not as much opportunity for the Greek speaking Fathers to say "Hang about, that's never been understood that way!" Without this free contact with the other Patriarchs Medieval Catholicism, it seems to the Orthodox, went on a tangent of its own. It took years to lead to a complete break, but we claim (and ok, that's our claim) the Catholics drifted... on a raft, so to speak... cut off from the Universal Church and becoming more and more autonomous due to Germanic influences.

Quote
Regulation, as you put it, certainly can keep things uniform. I agree here. But were there are regs, there are always reg breakers. Someone erred along the way, someone broke the rules, hence the schism. Catholics would say you strayed, you would say they strayed. Both have their arguments, but the fact remains. Somebody erred..Then of course came the reformation. Which caused 'protestantism'. Sola fide and sola scriptura.. And from there developed some 33000 denominations alot of those, actually,most of those stemming from a misuse of the bible. (I'm not saying I am perfect, or better at understanding than anyone else btw.)


Well, think about it. With the printing press, came the individual's access to translations in their own tongue. And there, you have a recipe for the Reformation. An oversimplified explanation, I know, but...

Quote
Now, you said JW's came out of the sola scriptura swamp.. Well yes.. They did. Or at least, thats what they have us believe. But has it not been stomped on? Their bibles, (I can't recall the translation) have been totally mistranslated, blatantly, and virtually re-written by their founder no less. But did the same thing not happen in the early churches? Marcion for example? Did he come out of the sola scriptura swamp? No. But just as Marcions heresies were stomped on, likewise, the JW's teachings have been 'stomped on'. People still believe them, but people believe in buddha too. There are even people who follow Marcions ideas. There was another man, it was basically pentecostalism as it is today but back then. That got stomped on. But its come back.

But Marcian could be stomped out with everyone having a common language; a common Church. JWs persist in their mistranslations, partly due to ignorance, partly due to arrogance. They refuse to consider themselves bound to look to their ancestors with any need to listen to what they were saying. Like so many of that strain that has come out of the Baptist branch over the last couple of centuries, they would prefer to distort the words of their ancestors and make them liars for their own ends, recreating a Greek unrecognisable to anyone to make their translation "divinely inspired". They have *discovered* that the "pagan ancients", who were only pseudoChristians in corrupt system, were too spiritually blind to realise. This alone, should give one pause before accepting any set of doctrines that are a muddled rehash of what was settled by the Ancient Church.

Quote
Now, is it really wrong of me, or any of us, to want to check the teachings of anyone against the bible? Even if it is from the earliest of the earliest christians? Can what they say not be compared to the bible?

How can you do that without a paradigm that sees scripture through their eyes? At best, you can only hope that the guidance you receive is the Holy Spirit and not something more sinister keeping you away from the source of truth.

Quote
In my own experience, reading the bible is not like reading any other book. Its as though the pages are literally alive. Every time I read it I learn more. Things I didn't understand yesterday are understood tomorrow, and more light is revealed. I believe that is the Spirit of God, who works in us through His Word. There are also spiritual gifts that God has given to His people, apostles, evangelists, pastors, teachers and prophets. Just because somebody calls themselves a prophet, or an evangelist, means nothing.. I need to hear what they are teaching, and compare it to the bible. Then we can know whether they are put there by God or not.

Reading the bible is no different to reading any other book, if you come to it in translation (not guaranteed to be inspired, for a start), and with preconceptions. Any two people reading a modern book will pick up particular themes that interests them. We each take away from reading what we what to see. The bible is not so different. It's a book. Without context and correct understanding it can be a weapon. I remember in my lost years a lot of contact with my family's church. The whole denomination was Pauline epistle mad. Christ almost faded into the background in favour of preaching Paul and usually in the most moralistic manner that I find completely missing in the NT. So people, do see different things.

I hope that this makes sense to you. Here in Australia it is just around 7:30am and the heat is already broken through the "I British, I know, but I simply can't bear this heat" barrier. And if I've really made a hash of this, you could add cognitive decline to the heat factor!  :laugh:


Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Shiny on January 10, 2012, 08:48:00 AM
Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
We know the Holy Fathers spoke copiously from the Scriptures, so what makes your use of the Scriptures different from theirs?

I really don't want to open up a can of worms right here right now.. There is enough going on.. Perhaps I might start a new post.. but if you really respect the early church fathers and hold their teachings as infallible and authoritative just as I do the scriptures, then listen to what Melito - Bishop of Sardis had to say..
So... back to this post. What makes your interpretation of the Scriptures different from (i.e., better than) that of the early Church Fathers? You still haven't answered this question.

I haven't answered that question because it is not my aim to disprove anyones teachings. My aim is to show you how I understand the bible and then for you to prove me wrong using scripture if possible..
Sorry if I don't feel like playing that game. I just don't like it when someone comes to this forum thinking he can set the rules for debate. You say, "Prove me wrong." That comes across to me as displaying an attitude of, "I'm right until you can prove me wrong," which is, IMO, a rather arrogant thing to say and a violation of standard burden-of-proof rules. It's also a classic trait of Internet trolls. If you were to say something like, "This is what I believe. Please correct me if I'm wrong," then I think we would be much more responsive to you, since you would be showing an attitude of humility and a willingness to be corrected.

Also, when others do offer evidence that counters your opinion, you would do well to actually engage the rebuttal by articulating a defense against it. I really haven't seen you do that. All I've seen you do is use various dodgeball tactics to brush aside others' genuine attempts to prove you wrong, and then continue pondefecating. That kind of unwillingness to engage us makes it difficult for us to even want to discuss our point of view with you. Forgive my crass way of saying it, but it's like casting pearls before swine only to then watch the swine trample the pearls under their feet.

I apologise. I didn't mean to come onto this forum and set any rules.. if I did, I truly apologise.. If my attitude comes across as 'I'm right until you prove me wrong', again, I apologise.. However, I was not attempting to prove I am right, I should not have used the words 'prove me wrong'.. But like I said, (using the wrong word), I am trying to share my simple understanding of the scripture - and if it be possible, to be corrected. If anything, I am trying to prove that the bible is right my friend.. Not me.

If my 'teachings' are different to (or better than, as you think I think) that of the O.C or the early fathers, would it not be possible to reference some of them so I can see who you are referring to and how my understanding differs from theirs?

I might be one you like to refer to as an 'internet troll' or 'swine'. Call me what you like. Think of me what you like. Ridicule and persecution would be more an accurate description of what I have experienced on this site. I Praise the Lord for that.. If there is just 1 person reading this thread and comes to the knowledge of Truth in Jesus Christ then it has been worthwhile. But you have made your opposition to the Truth clear, and again I reference scripture:

1 Corinthians 14:37If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.38But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

A persecution complex is also not a good way to engender good will toward you on this site. No one is persecuting you here, so you can give up that canard right now.

A persecution complex.. I love it! I suppose I'm interpreting all the name calling and belittling the wrong way...

You guys are great!



He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Marc1152 on January 12, 2012, 05:34:02 PM
first off that has nothing to do with the invisible church, Secondly no one has neglected the fact that Theosis is a personal struggle, however as a community we celebrate the sacraments, Not to mention you cannot progress through much of Theosis without community. ALSO If you paid a little bit of attention you would notice they are called monastic communities. One monk is anothers neighbor...

It has everything to do with the church - and whether it is visible or invisible. Salvation is personal. No one attains salvation by being a part of a certain or particular 'group'. Many would have us all believe this but it is not so. Salvation is personal. We then commune with other believers all of the time.. Anywhere and everywhere.. Members of the Body of Christ. 24 hr/day, 7 day a week church.

Pardon my lack of attention. Monks, monastics, however you would like to refer to them.. I'm not particularly familiar with them. They are people just like me and you. They choose to do whatever they like to do.

And Peter, do you defend yourself with the 'why just focus on this verse' routine? Ofcourse it is not the only verse that talks of Salvation. The church is the issue in this thread is it not? I used this verse to question a post written to suggest we need to work out our salvation in community - and I used it to compare what this person said and what the Word of God says about it..

In my first post did I not quote 1 Corinthians 3:16? “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?”

And

1 Corinthians 6:19What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
20For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

Can we focus on these verses also? Or do they also have nothing to do with the Church?



Fixed quote tags  -PtA
It has everything to do with the church - and whether it is visible or invisible. Salvation is personal. No one attains salvation by being a part of a certain or particular 'group'. Many would have us all believe this but it is not so. Salvation is personal. We then commune with other believers all of the time.. Anywhere and everywhere.. Members of the Body of Christ. 24 hr/day, 7 day a week church.


A couple of years ago I had a co-worker  make a comment to me along the lines of the Church is everywhere 24/7.

I was leaving to go to a weekday liturgy. She said something like: "My Church is everywhere. This office is a Church to me"

I stopped and decided to pick up the glove. I said "Hmmmm...I don't see an alter here. Where's do you put the confessional? Where is the choir? Is there a Priest that will drop by later?"

She snarled, I snarled.. So much for ecumenical dialogue.

The base assumption running through all of this is that we are Spirits trapped in a mundane physical body. We do not as Orthodox see the physical World as essentially evil. We see it as fallen, which is very different.

 That line of march has not played out very well for those groups who take it to it's logical conclusion, gnostics and others like Christian Science folks.  Buyer beware
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: HandmaidenofGod on January 12, 2012, 09:46:17 PM
A couple of years ago I had a co-worker  make a comment to me along the lines of the Church is everywhere 24/7.

I was leaving to go to a weekday liturgy. She said something like: "My Church is everywhere. This office is a Church to me"

I stopped and decided to pick up the glove. I said "Hmmmm...I don't see an alter here. Where's do you put the confessional? Where is the choir? Is there a Priest that will drop by later?"

She snarled, I snarled.. So much for ecumenical dialogue.

The base assumption running through all of this is that we are Spirits trapped in a mundane physical body. We do not as Orthodox see the physical World as essentially evil. We see it as fallen, which is very different.

 That line of march has not played out very well for those groups who take it to it's logical conclusion, gnostics and others like Christian Science folks.  Buyer beware

I've heard other say something similar, "I don't need to go to Church, I can talk to God wherever I want." My stepfather always says he doesn't need to go to Church, all he needs to do is take a walk in the woods to talk to God.

It's true, we don't need to go to a physical Church to talk to pray, we can pray anywhere, anytime. St. Paul tells us to pray without ceasing.

Some ascetics have actually mastered that, amazingly enough.

But we don't go to Church just to pray, although that it is part of it. We go for fellowship with other Christians, education through the reading of scripture and the homily, and of course the Eucharist, something we can't partake of by ourselves.

There is also something particularly uplifting about corporate worship that we just don't get when we are home alone in our prayer corner. My sister says that when she goes to Church on Sunday morning, it's like someone hits the "reset" button in her, and she can begin the week anew.

Also, as humans, we designate activities to certain places. After all, we can exercise at home or in the woods, but how many of us have gym memberships? (And how many of us don't use them! lol)

Sure, my stepfather could go in the woods to talk to God. But in the 9 years I've known him, I've never seen him go out for a hike once.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 13, 2012, 06:09:22 AM
It is better to give alms than to lay up gold: for alms delivers from death, and shall purge away all sin. (Tobit 12:8-9; see also Tobit 4:8-10)

Now, just a humble question.. Is there any way of making the above writings work with the below? I might be missing something.

And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing. (1 Corinthians 13:3)

Doing something you know to be good, and doing it out of love are not in mutual exclusion to each other, especially when the definition of "love" is an act of self sacrifice for the benefit of someone else, and love covers the mutlitude of sins.

Just a thought.

Melodist.. Thanks for the thought. I'll share my thoughts and then ask you a question.

When I see this verse, it clearly says that it IS possible to

1.bestow all my goods to feed the poor yet have not love
2. give my body to be burned yet have not love

If I do the above things (or really an good work I imagine?) without love, it profits me nothing.

Can you see why I find it difficult to see what you're saying? Your'e saying they are not mutually exclusive, yet the scripture says they are..
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Melodist on January 13, 2012, 06:45:14 AM
Doing something you know to be good, and doing it out of love are not in mutual exclusion to each other, especially when the definition of "love" is an act of self sacrifice for the benefit of someone else, and love covers the mutlitude of sins.

Just a thought.

Melodist.. Thanks for the thought. I'll share my thoughts and then ask you a question.

When I see this verse, it clearly says that it IS possible to

1.bestow all my goods to feed the poor yet have not love
2. give my body to be burned yet have not love

If I do the above things (or really an good work I imagine?) without love, it profits me nothing.

Can you see why I find it difficult to see what you're saying? Your'e saying they are not mutually exclusive, yet the scripture says they are..

Scripture doesn't say that they are mutually exclusive, only that it is possible to have one without the other. Christ said that someone can have no greater love than to lay down their life for someone, yet if this action is done without love, then it profits nothing. Not all giving is done out of love. It can be done for pride and recognition, it can be done expecting something in return, it can be done for any number of reasons. Christian charity is done out of love (they are actually the same word biblically speaking) as a reflection of the love that God has shown us. It is in being conformed to Christ by acting out of love for the benefit of others that our acts of charity bring us any profit at all. And biblically speaking, love isn't something that you feel, but something that you do. Also the sheep on Christ's right hand were given glory for the acts of charity that they had done where the goats on the left received condemnation for their failure to to do such things when given the opportunity.

Or as you said..

If I do the above things (or really an good work I imagine?) without love, it profits me nothing.

They must be done without love in order to profit nothing. That means that with love, they are profitable. The same passage you cite says that faith that can move mountains profits nothing without love, does this mean that faith and love are mutually exclusive to each other?
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 13, 2012, 07:08:57 AM
When trying to understand the eucharist - as it is called in the orthodox and catholic churches, we need to continue reading past verse 58 to see what is really meant here.. There appears to be a gross misunderstanding on the disciples behalf resulting in them 'walking no longer with Him'.(v66.)

I think the confusion began right here and is written in John 6.

John 6:59These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.60Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?61When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?62What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.64But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.65And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.66From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.67Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?68Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

Now the Bible tells us that His Words are what we live on. Matthew 4:4 - But he(Jesus)answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.

Unfortunately, it has been misunderstood from the time of John 6. But these verses say that someone who does not truly BELIEVE Christ, can not understand spiritual things.

"For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.. " Disciples - betrayed Jesus. Disciples, misunderstood Jesus. That may sound disrespectful to some, but I mean no disrespect. I'm just trying to state the facts.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: LBK on January 13, 2012, 07:18:42 AM

Quote
Now the Bible tells us that His Words are what we live on.

The Bible, indeed Christ Himself, also says: Unless you eat My body and drink My blood, you have no life in you. Try again, BGTF.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: FountainPen on January 13, 2012, 07:58:04 AM
When trying to understand the eucharist - as it is called in the orthodox and catholic churches, we need to continue reading past verse 58 to see what is really meant here.. There appears to be a gross misunderstanding on the disciples behalf resulting in them 'walking no longer with Him'.(v66.)

I think the confusion began right here and is written in John 6.

John 6:59These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.60Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?61When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?62What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.64But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.65And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.66From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.67Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?68Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

Now the Bible tells us that His Words are what we live on. Matthew 4:4 - But he(Jesus)answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.

Unfortunately, it has been misunderstood from the time of John 6. But these verses say that someone who does not truly BELIEVE Christ, can not understand spiritual things.

"For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.. " Disciples - betrayed Jesus. Disciples, misunderstood Jesus. That may sound disrespectful to some, but I mean no disrespect. I'm just trying to state the facts.


I agree with you about the Orthodox/Catholic misunderstanding of the verses and i would add that though scripture says that we live on every word, it doesn't say that's all that sustains us.

However, if we agree that they have misunderstood the bread and the wine, surely in the many years before the reformation, we would have to agree then that the gates of hell did prevail against the church and suffered the entire church to believe 'another gospel'? That's the claim of Orthodoxy anyway.

My guess is that because the verses in Matthew 16 are misunderstood, about Peter and the "rock" that the church is being built upon (revelation) then that answers the above quandry for me anyway.

Christ is building His church on the revelation of who He is, something that flesh and blood cannot reveal to people, that's what the gates of hell cannot prevail against.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 13, 2012, 09:03:15 AM

Quote
Now the Bible tells us that His Words are what we live on.

The Bible, indeed Christ Himself, also says: Unless you eat My body and drink My blood, you have no life in you. Try again, BGTF.

"the words I have spoken to you are spirit" (6:63). As with each of the seven miracles in John’s Gospel, Jesus uses the miracle to convey a spiritual truth. Here in John 6 Jesus has just multiplied the loaves and fish and uses an analogy to teach the necessity of spiritual nourishment. This is consistent with His teaching on how we are to worship God. "God is Spirit and His worshippers must worship in spirit and in truth" (John 4:24).

As we worship Christ He is present spiritually, not physically. In fact, Jesus can only be bodily present at one place at one time. His omnipresence refers only to His spirit. It is impossible for Christ to be bodily present in thousands of Catholic and orthodox Churches around the world. When Jesus is received spiritually, one time in the heart, there is no need to receive him physically, over and over again in the stomach.

Jesus began the discourse by saying whoever comes to Him and believes in Him will not hunger or thirst. Thus the eating and drinking are symbolic of coming to Him in faith.

Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.

There is another serious problem for those who fail to recognise Jesus analogy. They must realize that after they have consumed the physical body of Christ, it then decomposes during the digestive cycle. This goes against God’s promise to never let His Holy Son see decay (Acts 2:27).

It is clear from the Scriptures that the words referring to the eating and drinking of the body and blood of Jesus are to be understood in a spiritual, not physical sense. Worshipping a wafer carries the same consequence for Catholics and Orthodox as worshipping a golden calf did for the Israelites.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 13, 2012, 09:18:05 AM
It is not enough for us to to know about Jesus. We'd better make sure that he knows US. In Matthew chapter seven we see a group of hellbound religious people who want to get into the kingdom, but Jesus told them, "I never KNEW you." We must know the Lord ACCORDING TO HIS WORD, not according to our leaders.

Isaiah 9:16 For the leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed.
Matthew 15:14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 13, 2012, 09:26:16 AM
Jesus' flesh is food because his flesh was crucified on the cross to pay for our death penalty of hell and the lake of fire--this is eternal death. If we repent and believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and obey him according to his word, we will not experience spiritual death. We will go to heaven--this is eternal life. Believing/internalizing/eating this fact gives us eternal life. We need physical bread to stay alive, we need belief in Him and his sacrifice (spiritual bread) so that we can live forever.

What about the blood? Jesus' blood is lifesaving drink indeed because without the shedding of blood, there is no remission (forgiveness) of sins. We need blood, the blood of Jesus alone. The blood forgives our sins and washes them away forever so that we can live with a holy and just God who NEVER sins and will not live with sin. Hebrews 9:22 says that blood is required in order to get forgiveness of sins/remission,

"And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission."

Once again, if we accept Jesus, internalize him, we eat him, we have ETERNAL LIFE. The people were talking about physical life, Jesus was talking about SPIRITUAL life. Look back at the passage--when asked what we have to do to do the works of God, Jesus said,

"He that BELIEVETH on me hath everlasting LIFE."
When we believe on Jesus Christ, he actually lives inside of us, never to be purged like physical bread.

Because I believe, Jesus lives in me.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 13, 2012, 09:31:35 AM
 "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" They are still thinking about physical life and physical bread. Jesus is talking about spiritual life and spiritual bread. He has told them over and over that the work of God is to believe on him and they repeatedly refuse to believe on him and persist in seeking physical bread.

In v. 55, Jesus said, "My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." Many people were offended at the thought of what they perceived as cannibalism. Because of their unbelief, they were still thinking in the physical realm.

What about the disciples that left him? Was it because they had to literally eat his flesh and drink his blood? No! They left because just like the others they did not believe in the Lord. Because they did not believe, they could not understand what Jesus was saying (see I Cor 2:14).
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 13, 2012, 09:36:26 AM
In verse 63, Jesus asked the disciples that murmured, "Doth this offend you? It is the SPIRIT that quickeneth (gives life); THE FLESH PROFITETH NOTHING: the words that I speak unto you, THEY ARE SPIRIT, and they are life." He told them plainly that he was not talking literally. He said, "...the words that I speak unto you, THEY ARE SPIRIT." He also told them here that the physical flesh profits NOTHING! The heretical doctrine of transubstantiation and the eucharist is a direct contradiction to the word of God for it says that this supposedly transubstantiated bread does profit.

This is a Roman Catholic institution, Orthodox practice it also, but when the catholics teach the eucharist they purposely leave out verses 63-64 when claiming that John 6 is about the eucharist. The word, "eucharist" is not even in the Bible. There is no concept of the eucharist in Bible--but there is in pagan religion.

Straight exposition from the Bible. We are talking about the difference between life and death here. It would behoove any Catholic or Orthodox to check this out and decide if they want to continue trusting the eucharist for their eternal life instead of trusting the real Jesus who loves them and died for them.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 13, 2012, 10:50:57 AM
In verse 63, Jesus asked the disciples that murmured, "Doth this offend you? It is the SPIRIT that quickeneth (gives life); THE FLESH PROFITETH NOTHING: the words that I speak unto you, THEY ARE SPIRIT, and they are life." He told them plainly that he was not talking literally. He said, "...the words that I speak unto you, THEY ARE SPIRIT." He also told them here that the physical flesh profits NOTHING! The heretical doctrine of transubstantiation and the eucharist is a direct contradiction to the word of God for it says that this supposedly transubstantiated bread does profit.

This is a Roman Catholic institution, Orthodox practice it also, but when the catholics teach the eucharist they purposely leave out verses 63-64 when claiming that John 6 is about the eucharist. The word, "eucharist" is not even in the Bible. There is no concept of the eucharist in Bible--but there is in pagan religion.
Oh, but this is where you're wrong. Eucharist is essentially Greek for "giving thanks", and the giving of thanks is one of the main themes seen on almost every page of the New Testament.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 13, 2012, 10:54:49 AM
It is better to give alms than to lay up gold: for alms delivers from death, and shall purge away all sin. (Tobit 12:8-9; see also Tobit 4:8-10)

Now, just a humble question.. Is there any way of making the above writings work with the below? I might be missing something.

And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing. (1 Corinthians 13:3)

Doing something you know to be good, and doing it out of love are not in mutual exclusion to each other, especially when the definition of "love" is an act of self sacrifice for the benefit of someone else, and love covers the mutlitude of sins.

Just a thought.

Melodist.. Thanks for the thought. I'll share my thoughts and then ask you a question.

When I see this verse, it clearly says that it IS possible to

1.bestow all my goods to feed the poor yet have not love
2. give my body to be burned yet have not love

If I do the above things (or really an good work I imagine?) without love, it profits me nothing.

Can you see why I find it difficult to see what you're saying? Your'e saying they are not mutually exclusive, yet the scripture says they are..
How do the verses you point out logically call love and the performing of works of mercy mutually exclusive? To prove mutual exclusivity by definition, you must prove that one who performs works of mercy has no love, and that one who has love does not perform works of mercy. If it's possible to perform works of mercy AND have love, then your logic is refuted. It seems to me you're creating a false dichotomy where there really is none.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: FountainPen on January 13, 2012, 11:06:30 AM
There is another serious problem for those who fail to recognise Jesus analogy. They must realize that after they have consumed the physical body of Christ, it then decomposes during the digestive cycle. This goes against God’s promise to never let His Holy Son see decay (Acts 2:27).

In verse 63, Jesus asked the disciples that murmured, "Doth this offend you? It is the SPIRIT that quickeneth (gives life); THE FLESH PROFITETH NOTHING: the words that I speak unto you, THEY ARE SPIRIT, and they are life." He told them plainly that he was not talking literally. He said, "...the words that I speak unto you, THEY ARE SPIRIT." He also told them here that the physical flesh profits NOTHING! The heretical doctrine of transubstantiation and the eucharist is a direct contradiction to the word of God for it says that this supposedly transubstantiated bread does profit.

I've never seen an adequate response to these points at all BGTF.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 13, 2012, 11:09:30 AM
In verse 63, Jesus asked the disciples that murmured, "Doth this offend you? It is the SPIRIT that quickeneth (gives life); THE FLESH PROFITETH NOTHING: the words that I speak unto you, THEY ARE SPIRIT, and they are life." He told them plainly that he was not talking literally. He said, "...the words that I speak unto you, THEY ARE SPIRIT." He also told them here that the physical flesh profits NOTHING! The heretical doctrine of transubstantiation and the eucharist is a direct contradiction to the word of God for it says that this supposedly transubstantiated bread does profit.
It's a contradiction to the Scriptures to say the Eucharist profits us ONLY if the consecrated bread and wine are actually NOT the Body and Blood of Christ, but I see no reason in the Scriptures to believe that this is necessarily true. Now, can you tell us why we should trust your interpretation of the Scriptures and not that which has been handed on to us from the ancient Church? What you're preaching is certainly NOT from the Scriptures alone.

We had very similar arguments with a guy named Alfred Persson, hence the reason why some have taken to calling you that name. You might do well to read the arguments we posted against his twisting of Scripture, how he responded, and what ultimately happened to him. I think you may learn a lot that will profit you.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: FormerReformer on January 13, 2012, 11:38:18 AM


As we worship Christ He is present spiritually, not physically. In fact, Jesus can only be bodily present at one place at one time. His omnipresence refers only to His spirit. It is impossible for Christ to be bodily present in thousands of Catholic and orthodox Churches around the world. When Jesus is received spiritually, one time in the heart, there is no need to receive him physically, over and over again in the stomach.




Scriptural reference for "receiving Jesus spiritually, one time in the heart", please?

Quote
There is another serious problem for those who fail to recognise Jesus analogy. They must realize that after they have consumed the physical body of Christ, it then decomposes during the digestive cycle. This goes against God’s promise to never let His Holy Son see decay (Acts 2:27).

We have to realize that? It seems to me there's only one person here who is thinking physically and not spiritually- the Orthodox position is that when we eat Him it is He who does the consuming. This spiritual food is not digested then eliminated, it spreads to every part of our bodies and souls, quickening eternal life and drawing us closer to Him and each other.

This is a Roman Catholic institution, Orthodox practice it also, but when the catholics teach the eucharist they purposely leave out verses 63-64 when claiming that John 6 is about the eucharist. The word, "eucharist" is not even in the Bible. There is no concept of the eucharist in Bible--but there is in pagan religion.
Oh, but this is where you're wrong. Eucharist is essentially Greek for "giving thanks", and the giving of thanks is one of the main themes seen on almost every page of the New Testament.

Starting with Mark 14:23 "καὶ λαβὼν ποτήριον εὐχαριστήσας ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς, καὶ ἔπιον ἐξ αὐτοῦ πάντες". "And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it." So, not only is BGTF wrong about the concept of the Eucharist, he's also wrong about the word Eucharist.

Quote
In verse 63, Jesus asked the disciples that murmured, "Doth this offend you? It is the SPIRIT that quickeneth (gives life); THE FLESH PROFITETH NOTHING: the words that I speak unto you, THEY ARE SPIRIT, and they are life." He told them plainly that he was not talking literally. He said, "...the words that I speak unto you, THEY ARE SPIRIT." He also told them here that the physical flesh profits NOTHING! The heretical doctrine of transubstantiation and the eucharist is a direct contradiction to the word of God for it says that this supposedly transubstantiated bread does profit.

Let's see... "the words I speak... are Spirit" does not equal "This is my Body, but only if interpreted metaphorically and in no sense whatsoever a real way". Indeed, by denying that Christ's words at the Institution aren't meant to be taken literally you are not placing the Spiritual above the physical, you are saying that which is Spiritual is only metaphorical, that is to say, that the Spirit is not real.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: FatherGiryus on January 13, 2012, 12:27:22 PM
Where did you get your physiological training?    :D

Seriously, digestion begins with absorption, not decay.  Defecation is made up of those things not absorbed.

However, I think the both of you are confusing the Orthodox position with the RCC.  He do not have 'transubstantiation.'  We have always maintained that it is a Mystery how the bread and wine can be Body and Blood, just as it is a Mystery how Baptism can effect such a change in us.

Now, as to you reference to John 6, the term 'flesh' (Greek sarx) is used to refer to Jesus' Body.  Is it without 'profit?'  If so, did He die in vain?  After all, He did die in the flesh, didn't He.  The Incarnation is important, isn't it?

I'm sorry, but you are missing the entire point of his words: in this paragraph, He was talking about the difference between the manna and His Body.  Manna was a physical (fleshly) food, whereas His Body is a spiritual food, but that does not make it non-material.  You are reading into His words a polarity that is not there.  Otherwise, He would not have needed to institute the Last Supper, correct?  We merely could read the Scriptures and they would suffice.

Instead, He institutes Baptism (with real water, not just words!), Chrismation (with real oil, not just words!), the Eucharist (with real bread and wine, not just words!)... do you see the pattern?


There is another serious problem for those who fail to recognise Jesus analogy. They must realize that after they have consumed the physical body of Christ, it then decomposes during the digestive cycle. This goes against God’s promise to never let His Holy Son see decay (Acts 2:27).

In verse 63, Jesus asked the disciples that murmured, "Doth this offend you? It is the SPIRIT that quickeneth (gives life); THE FLESH PROFITETH NOTHING: the words that I speak unto you, THEY ARE SPIRIT, and they are life." He told them plainly that he was not talking literally. He said, "...the words that I speak unto you, THEY ARE SPIRIT." He also told them here that the physical flesh profits NOTHING! The heretical doctrine of transubstantiation and the eucharist is a direct contradiction to the word of God for it says that this supposedly transubstantiated bread does profit.

I've never seen an adequate response to these points at all BGTF.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: FatherGiryus on January 13, 2012, 12:32:07 PM
So, you are saying that the Church exists without people, as some kind of ideal?

<snip>
However, if we agree that they have misunderstood the bread and the wine, surely in the many years before the reformation, we would have to agree then that the gates of hell did prevail against the church and suffered the entire church to believe 'another gospel'? That's the claim of Orthodoxy anyway.

My guess is that because the verses in Matthew 16 are misunderstood, about Peter and the "rock" that the church is being built upon (revelation) then that answers the above quandry for me anyway.

Christ is building His church on the revelation of who He is, something that flesh and blood cannot reveal to people, that's what the gates of hell cannot prevail against.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: FatherGiryus on January 13, 2012, 12:41:27 PM
But, dear one, I do read the Bible and I read these words and I see the Eucharist right there in the hands of our Lord.  I see His commandment to eat and drink... Him!  These commandments I follow, and yet you say I sin?

Yes, it is more than bread and wine, it is what he says it is, His Body and Blood.  How... I can't say.  I can't explain even how the brain works (neither can scientists, for that matter) yet I know that it exists and that it 'works.'  I would not say that because I cannot understand how a ball of fat and nerves can think and hold a million memories, then it must not exist!

The mysteries of God are witnessed in the Scripture, but the Scripture does not explain them.  This is the gulf between us: you are reading into the Scriptures things that are not there, ideas that came later out of the reformation.

This Platonic idea that spirit and material are opposites does not wash with us.  The point of John 6 is that physical food is not enough: we need spiritual food, with is spiritual AND physical, not merely one or the other.  Christ provides both.He does not nourish only one part of us, but the body He fashioned for us as much as the soul and the spirit.


In verse 63, Jesus asked the disciples that murmured, "Doth this offend you? It is the SPIRIT that quickeneth (gives life); THE FLESH PROFITETH NOTHING: the words that I speak unto you, THEY ARE SPIRIT, and they are life." He told them plainly that he was not talking literally. He said, "...the words that I speak unto you, THEY ARE SPIRIT." He also told them here that the physical flesh profits NOTHING! The heretical doctrine of transubstantiation and the eucharist is a direct contradiction to the word of God for it says that this supposedly transubstantiated bread does profit.

This is a Roman Catholic institution, Orthodox practice it also, but when the catholics teach the eucharist they purposely leave out verses 63-64 when claiming that John 6 is about the eucharist. The word, "eucharist" is not even in the Bible. There is no concept of the eucharist in Bible--but there is in pagan religion.

Straight exposition from the Bible. We are talking about the difference between life and death here. It would behoove any Catholic or Orthodox to check this out and decide if they want to continue trusting the eucharist for their eternal life instead of trusting the real Jesus who loves them and died for them.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: HandmaidenofGod on January 13, 2012, 01:19:15 PM
When trying to understand the eucharist - as it is called in the orthodox and catholic churches, we need to continue reading past verse 58 to see what is really meant here.. There appears to be a gross misunderstanding on the disciples behalf resulting in them 'walking no longer with Him'.(v66.)

It's interesting, because you are not the first on this board to come and try to enlighten us about this "misunderstanding." In fact, there are several threads on this forum that address this very topic.

I am going to share with you a post I made in response to the same accusation a while back.

The post is from the thread "This Food We Call the Eucharist" (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19850.0.html). I believe it would be profitable for you to read the thread, as it addresses the Orthodox beliefs regarding the Eucharist, and the Protestant mis-interpretation of our beliefs.

The post below starts with a quote from another poster on this forum who expressed a similar concern to yours. I picked up on it, created a thread to address it, and the rest, as they say, is history.


I didn't really misunderstand you, but maybe I was being just a little bit naughty. You see, we also think Christ is present, but spiritually.
One of us is misunderstanding what actually happens at the Eucharist, but I do not believe that the true blessing which God gives is dependent on our correct and accurate theological understanding. If you are right, I am sure we too partake of his body and blood; if we are right, I am equally sure you partake of the blessings won by his body and blood given for us all at Calvary.

I thought this topic worth examining, thus I created this thread.  ;D

In the above statement you are saying that one of us is misunderstanding the true meaning of the Eucharist, but it doesn’t matter who is right or who is wrong, for God will bless us both because of it. That is relativism my friend, something that endangers our very soul.

Up for discussion is not whether or not Christ instituted the Lord’s Supper (or as we know it, the Mystical Supper), but whether or not it is the body and blood of Christ.

Let us examine the Orthodox understanding of the Eucharist, and what role it plays in our walk with Christ.
The Orthodox Church believes that during the Divine Liturgy, the Eucharistic gifts of bread and wine become for us the body and blood of Christ. This is in accordance with Scripture and Holy Tradition.

Consider the following verses:

Quote
John 6:52-57 (New King James Version)
52 The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?”
53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me.

If the Eucharist were intended to just be a “remembrance” or a memorial tribute to Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, why would Christ promise eternal life to whomever partook of His body and His blood? Christ is speaking in quite literal terms here. He even says, “My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.” (v. 55) Christ came down to restore man back to its original form before the fall. How can man be restored if he does not partake of the Living God? Christ clearly states that if God is to abide in us, we must partake of His body and blood, “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.” (v. 56)

Quote
1 Corinthians 10:16-17 (New King James Version)
16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 17 For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.

Quote
1 Corinthians 11:26-28 (New King James Version)
26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.
27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.

St. Paul was not present when Christ instituted the Mystical Supper, yet he understands the gravity of the sacrament. It’s so serious, that he warns the Corinthians that “whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.” (v. 27)

Guilty of crucifying Christ?! That’s a pretty heavy charge for abusing something that is just a “memorial.” 

Also, notice that St. Paul doesn’t refer to the elements strictly as bread and wine, but rather as “the blood of Christ” and the “body of Christ” in 1 Corinthians 10:16, and as “cup of the Lord” in 1 Corinthians 11:27.

Now, many times Protestants like to pull the verse from the book of Luke to prove that the Mystical Supper is “just a memorial.”
 
Quote
Luke 22:19-20 (New King James Version)
19 And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”
20 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.

The Orthodox Church recognizes that we do partake of the Eucharist in remembrance of Christ. Just not the way you think we do. Consider this quote from OCA.org (http://www.oca.org/OCchapter.asp?SID=2&ID=103):

Quote
Remembering Christ, and offering all things to God in and through him, the Church is filled with the presence of the Holy Spirit. At the Divine Liturgy, the Holy Spirit comes "upon us and upon the gifts here offered." Everything is filled with the Kingdom of God. In God's Kingdom nothing is forgotten. All is remembered, and is thereby made alive. Thus, at this moment in the Divine Liturgy the faithful, remembering Christ, remember all men and all things in him, especially Christ's mother, the Holy Theotokos, and all of the saints… It is necessary to remember once again that remembrance in the Orthodox Church, and particularly the remembrance of God and by God, has a very special meaning. According to the Orthodox Faith, expressed and revealed in the Bible and the Liturgy, divine remembrance means glory and life, while divine forgetfulness means corruption and death. In Christ, God remembers man and his world. Remembering Christ, man remembers God and his Kingdom. Thus the remembrances of the Divine Liturgy are themselves a form of living communion between heaven and earth.

Furthermore, in every Divine Liturgy, we don’t just remember and commemorate Christ’s death; we remember His entire LIFE. Consider these prayers said during the Epiklesis (where the priest asks the Holy Spirit to come down and transform the gifts):

Quote
Priest : Together with these blessed powers, merciful Master, we also proclaim and say: You are holy and most holy, You and Your only begotten Son and Your Holy Spirit. You are holy and most holy, and sublime is Your glory. You so loved Your world that You gave Your only begotten Son so that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. He came and fulfilled the divine plan for us. On the night when He was delivered up, or rather when He gave Himself up for the life of the world, He took bread in His holy, pure, and blameless hands, gave thanks, blessed, sanctified, broke and gave it to His holy disciples and apostles, saying:

Take, eat, this is my Body which is broken for you for the forgiveness of sins.

People: Amen.

Priest : Likewise, after supper, He took the cup, saying:

Drink of it all of you; this is my Blood of the new Covenant which is shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins.

People:  Amen.

Priest : Remembering, therefore, this command of the Savior, and all that came to pass for our sake, the cross, the tomb, the resurrection on the third day, the ascension into heaven, the enthronement at the right hand of the Father, and the second, glorious coming,

Now, one may say, “well that’s all well and good, but Christ didn’t REALLY mean it was His body and blood. After all, when He said “I am the door” in John 10:7 He didn’t mean He was a wooden plank!”

And this is true. Christ isn’t a wooden plank.  ;) But if you look at the verse of “the door” in context, the Bible tells us that Christ was speaking in allegorical terms.

Quote
John 10:6-10 (New King James Version)
6 Jesus used this illustration, but they did not understand the things which He spoke to them.
7 Then Jesus said to them again, “Most assuredly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. 8 All who ever came before Me[a] are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them. 9 I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. 10 The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.

Furthermore, the Church has never inferred that Christ was a door. On the other hand, the Church has always believed that the bread and wine ARE transformed into the body and blood of Christ.

Consider the following quotes from the Early Church Fathers:

Quote
"Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead."

St. Ignatius of Antioch "Letter to the Smyrnaeans", paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

Quote
"This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus."

St. Justin Martyr "First Apology", Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155.

In Conclusion, partaking of the body and blood of Christ and understanding the meaning of the Eucharist is not just a nice tradition held in the Church, rather it is something that is critical to our salvation. This is a belief that is both in accordance with Scripture and Holy Tradition.

Your thoughts?

And so, now the ball is in your court. What are your thoughts?

As Fountain Pen pointed out, if you are right, that means that until Zwingli came along, the Church had the wrong interpretation of the Eucharist. That means that in addition to the Apostles, the Early Church Fathers, Luther, Calvin, and all those involved in the Reformation of the Church of England had it wrong, and Zwingli was the first to get it right.

Would Christ really allow His Church, His Bride, to be dissuaded for that long?

Me thinks not.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: katherineofdixie on January 13, 2012, 01:21:18 PM
Christ is building His church on the revelation of who He is, something that flesh and blood cannot reveal to people, that's what the gates of hell cannot prevail against.

I'm pretty sure you didn't mean by this that the Incarnation was unnecessary? Because that's what it sounds like.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: HandmaidenofGod on January 13, 2012, 01:30:28 PM
The heretical doctrine of transubstantiation and the eucharist is a direct contradiction to the word of God for it says that this supposedly transubstantiated bread does profit. This is a Roman Catholic institution, Orthodox practice it also,

No we don't. Please, don't educate us on our beliefs.

We are well aware of them, thank you.

The Orthodox Church has intentionally never come out with such a doctrine. It becomes the body and blood of Christ. How that happens is a mystery.

If you're going to state what the Orthodox Church teaches, at least have the decency to cite a source.

Straight exposition from the Bible. We are talking about the difference between life and death here. It would behoove any Catholic or Orthodox to check this out and decide if they want to continue trusting the eucharist for their eternal life instead of trusting the real Jesus who loves them and died for them.

Again, you are misinterpreting and misstating both Orthodox and Catholic teaching here.

Seriously, where are you getting this stuff from? Can you cite a page in Catholic catechism or quote a page from the Early Church Fathers that professes such babble?

Where have we ever stated that we do not believe in Christ? Where have we ever stated that we do not believe He is the path to salvation?

Frankly, I am insulted by your insinuation and misrepresentation of our faith. If you want to disagree with what we believe, that is fine. But disagree with what we actually believe. Not what you THINK we believe.

Dispute the facts, not the fiction that is in your head.

Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 13, 2012, 03:04:43 PM
There is another serious problem for those who fail to recognise Jesus analogy. They must realize that after they have consumed the physical body of Christ, it then decomposes during the digestive cycle. This goes against God’s promise to never let His Holy Son see decay (Acts 2:27).

In verse 63, Jesus asked the disciples that murmured, "Doth this offend you? It is the SPIRIT that quickeneth (gives life); THE FLESH PROFITETH NOTHING: the words that I speak unto you, THEY ARE SPIRIT, and they are life." He told them plainly that he was not talking literally. He said, "...the words that I speak unto you, THEY ARE SPIRIT." He also told them here that the physical flesh profits NOTHING! The heretical doctrine of transubstantiation and the eucharist is a direct contradiction to the word of God for it says that this supposedly transubstantiated bread does profit.

I've never seen an adequate response to these points at all BGTF.
A question for you and BGTF both: Your dichotomy between spirit and flesh within the Person of Jesus Christ, where do you find it in the Bible?
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Volnutt on January 13, 2012, 03:15:17 PM
And yet we are redeemed by the blood of Jesus. If "the flesh profits nothing" means what you claim it to mean here then Christ coming and suffering in the flesh is entirely pointless.

The divinized, resurrected flesh of Christ does not digest and it is not eliminated. It is consumed in a miraculous way according to Orthodoxy. In the same way Jesus was able to appear in locked rooms and to hide his appearance and be lifted into the heavens, so this also is possible with God.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: primuspilus on January 13, 2012, 03:42:07 PM
Quote
it is impossible for Christ
Anytime this is said one should be very wary. My friend, you have a more fundamental problem.

PP
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 13, 2012, 04:04:54 PM
Quote
it is impossible for Christ
Anytime this is said one should be very wary. My friend, you have a more fundamental problem.

PP
Indeed! I saw in his post a projection of the limitations of our pre-resurrection earthly flesh onto the deified post-resurrection flesh of our Savior (the glorified flesh that defied that inconvenient law of physics that keeps us from "walking" through locked doors or big stones).
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Volnutt on January 13, 2012, 04:06:29 PM
When trying to understand the eucharist - as it is called in the orthodox and catholic churches, we need to continue reading past verse 58 to see what is really meant here.. There appears to be a gross misunderstanding on the disciples behalf resulting in them 'walking no longer with Him'.(v66.)

I think the confusion began right here and is written in John 6.

John 6:59These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.60Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?61When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?62What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.64But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.65And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.66From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.67Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?68Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

Now the Bible tells us that His Words are what we live on. Matthew 4:4 - But he(Jesus)answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.

Unfortunately, it has been misunderstood from the time of John 6. But these verses say that someone who does not truly BELIEVE Christ, can not understand spiritual things.

"For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.. " Disciples - betrayed Jesus. Disciples, misunderstood Jesus. That may sound disrespectful to some, but I mean no disrespect. I'm just trying to state the facts.


I agree with you about the Orthodox/Catholic misunderstanding of the verses and i would add that though scripture says that we live on every word, it doesn't say that's all that sustains us.

However, if we agree that they have misunderstood the bread and the wine, surely in the many years before the reformation, we would have to agree then that the gates of hell did prevail against the church and suffered the entire church to believe 'another gospel'? That's the claim of Orthodoxy anyway.
If nobody believes in Christ, then yes the gates of Hell have triumphed. I don't see how that verse can be made to say anything else.

Furthermore, if you do recognize that nobody believed in a symbolic Eucharist prior to the Reformation, why do you believe in it? Surely going against the unanimous known witness of the church for 1500 years is not a good idea, even if you are right about what's at stake here a la' Matthew 16.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: primuspilus on January 13, 2012, 04:07:56 PM
This is always the problem when you try to scholasicize God. He doesn't need men's logical conclusions.

NOTE: If an RC's took that as alsight against them (the s-word), it was not. I just had no other way to explain my thoughts on the matter. So sorry :)

PP
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: witega on January 13, 2012, 04:11:37 PM
Quote
it is impossible for Christ
Anytime this is said one should be very wary. My friend, you have a more fundamental problem.

PP
Indeed! I saw in his post a projection of the limitations of our pre-resurrection earthly flesh onto the deified post-resurrection flesh of our Savior (the glorified flesh that defied that inconvenient law of physics that keeps us from "walking" through locked doors or big stones).

Or the miracle of the fishes and the loaves (which many Fathers directly associate with Communion). The fish and the loaves didn't even have to be deified themselves for Almighty God to ignore the limitations of the laws of physics.

Really, before this discussiong goes further we should establish--ByGraceThroughFaith, do you believe that Jesus Christ was actually God Himself? And do you belief that God is omnipotent or limited?
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: primuspilus on January 13, 2012, 04:15:29 PM
Quote
it is impossible for Christ
Anytime this is said one should be very wary. My friend, you have a more fundamental problem.

PP
Indeed! I saw in his post a projection of the limitations of our pre-resurrection earthly flesh onto the deified post-resurrection flesh of our Savior (the glorified flesh that defied that inconvenient law of physics that keeps us from "walking" through locked doors or big stones).

Or the miracle of the fishes and the loaves (which many Fathers directly associate with Communion). The fish and the loaves didn't even have to be deified themselves for Almighty God to ignore the limitations of the laws of physics.

Really, before this discussiong goes further we should establish--ByGraceThroughFaith, do you believe that Jesus Christ was actually God Himself? And do you belief that God is omnipotent or limited?
Good question.

PP
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: primuspilus on January 13, 2012, 05:26:13 PM
**could not modify**

I do find it ironic that those who state Bible alone, but then pick and choose what is to be taken literally and what is not.


PP
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: katherineofdixie on January 13, 2012, 05:31:25 PM
**could not modify**

I do find it ironic that those who state Bible alone, but then pick and choose what is to be taken literally and what is not.


PP

One of the things that always puzzles me is that there appears to be no consistent hermaneutic at work. It always seems to come down to "it's symbolic because I say it is."
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: FountainPen on January 13, 2012, 05:33:46 PM
There is another serious problem for those who fail to recognise Jesus analogy. They must realize that after they have consumed the physical body of Christ, it then decomposes during the digestive cycle. This goes against God’s promise to never let His Holy Son see decay (Acts 2:27).

In verse 63, Jesus asked the disciples that murmured, "Doth this offend you? It is the SPIRIT that quickeneth (gives life); THE FLESH PROFITETH NOTHING: the words that I speak unto you, THEY ARE SPIRIT, and they are life." He told them plainly that he was not talking literally. He said, "...the words that I speak unto you, THEY ARE SPIRIT." He also told them here that the physical flesh profits NOTHING! The heretical doctrine of transubstantiation and the eucharist is a direct contradiction to the word of God for it says that this supposedly transubstantiated bread does profit.

I've never seen an adequate response to these points at all BGTF.
A question for you and BGTF both: Your dichotomy between spirit and flesh within the Person of Jesus Christ, where do you find it in the Bible?

PETER! This is why i feel i rarely get a sensible straight answer to bible verses that are there right in front of our eyes. It's not good to deflect giving an answer by asking a question or voicing a criticism. If someone asks you to give a reasonable response to a few verses of scripture then that is precisely what they need. To do anything less is tantamount to giving someone a snake when they have asked for bread!
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: FountainPen on January 13, 2012, 05:36:32 PM
**could not modify**

I do find it ironic that those who state Bible alone, but then pick and choose what is to be taken literally and what is not.


PP

One of the things that always puzzles me is that there appears to be no consistent hermaneutic at work. It always seems to come down to "it's symbolic because I say it is."

I beleive BGTF and myself have explained exactly why this is practiced as a symbolic representation of a spiritual truth. Scripture seems to indicate it.


NB. In answer to your other question, no i didn't mean to imply the incarnation was not necessary, sorry.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: primuspilus on January 13, 2012, 05:40:33 PM
**could not modify**

I do find it ironic that those who state Bible alone, but then pick and choose what is to be taken literally and what is not.


PP

One of the things that always puzzles me is that there appears to be no consistent hermaneutic at work. It always seems to come down to "it's symbolic because I say it is."

I beleive BGTF and myself have explained exactly why this is practiced as a symbolic representation of a spiritual truth. Scripture seems to indicate it.


NB. In answer to your other question, no i didn't mean to imply the incarnation was not necessary, sorry.
Scripture in no way indicates that the Eucharist was symbolic. Please provide proof from scripture that it was symbolic. Please tell me why, when so many left Christ after He spoke about his body and blood, he did not say, "wait!" "it was symbolic!"

Also, if the Eucharist was symbolic, why did people who were trained by the Apostoles themselves also say it was literal?

You cant get any more literal then "This IS my body."

PP
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: primuspilus on January 13, 2012, 05:43:12 PM
**cant modify, sorry**

Also, be careful of this scholastic stuff, because you'll eventually coe to something ridiculous like:

"Jesus was human, therefore had 46 chromosomes...he got 23 from Mary so God DID have sex with Mary! He had to get the other 23 from God!"

Be careful.

PP
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Asteriktos on January 13, 2012, 05:46:44 PM
**cant modify, sorry**

Also, be careful of this scholastic stuff, because you'll eventually coe to something ridiculous like:

"Jesus was human, therefore had 46 chromosomes...he got 23 from Mary so God DID have sex with Mary! He had to get the other 23 from God!"

Be careful.

PP

Wait a minute! Where did he get...  . .  :P
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: primuspilus on January 13, 2012, 05:48:12 PM
**cant modify, sorry**

Also, be careful of this scholastic stuff, because you'll eventually coe to something ridiculous like:

"Jesus was human, therefore had 46 chromosomes...he got 23 from Mary so God DID have sex with Mary! He had to get the other 23 from God!"

Be careful.

PP


Wait a minute! Where did he get...  . .  :P
*sigh* so it begins :)

PP
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: FountainPen on January 13, 2012, 05:50:14 PM
When trying to understand the eucharist - as it is called in the orthodox and catholic churches, we need to continue reading past verse 58 to see what is really meant here.. There appears to be a gross misunderstanding on the disciples behalf resulting in them 'walking no longer with Him'.(v66.)

I think the confusion began right here and is written in John 6.

John 6:59These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.60Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?61When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?62What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.64But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.65And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.66From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.67Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?68Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

Now the Bible tells us that His Words are what we live on. Matthew 4:4 - But he(Jesus)answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.

Unfortunately, it has been misunderstood from the time of John 6. But these verses say that someone who does not truly BELIEVE Christ, can not understand spiritual things.

"For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.. " Disciples - betrayed Jesus. Disciples, misunderstood Jesus. That may sound disrespectful to some, but I mean no disrespect. I'm just trying to state the facts.


I agree with you about the Orthodox/Catholic misunderstanding of the verses and i would add that though scripture says that we live on every word, it doesn't say that's all that sustains us.

However, if we agree that they have misunderstood the bread and the wine, surely in the many years before the reformation, we would have to agree then that the gates of hell did prevail against the church and suffered the entire church to believe 'another gospel'? That's the claim of Orthodoxy anyway.
If nobody believes in Christ, then yes the gates of Hell have triumphed. I don't see how that verse can be made to say anything else.

Furthermore, if you do recognize that nobody believed in a symbolic Eucharist prior to the Reformation, why do you believe in it? Surely going against the unanimous known witness of the church for 1500 years is not a good idea, even if you are right about what's at stake here a la' Matthew 16.

As i've been frequently reminded, biblical verses might not just mean one thing, they can mean many things.

I believe that there was always a remnant of people who believed correctly within the church as it gradually went off course and that remnant finally shook off most of the religious trappings that had distracted and stifled her for years. First when Rome made the break and finally when the Reformation occurred.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: FatherGiryus on January 13, 2012, 05:58:43 PM
Clearly, this 'seems' is an opinion we do not share.  In the case of the Eucharist, even Luther did not believe in this symbolical notion.

The fact that this concept of symbol as you are using it is not present in the Scriptures themselves indicates that it is not a Scriptural concept.

Nowhere does God say 'This is...' and have it not be so.  Jesus Christ is the Son of God.  For Him to say such words is pretty serious, don't you agree?



I beleive BGTF and myself have explained exactly why this is practiced as a symbolic representation of a spiritual truth. Scripture seems to indicate it.

Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 13, 2012, 05:58:55 PM
There is another serious problem for those who fail to recognise Jesus analogy. They must realize that after they have consumed the physical body of Christ, it then decomposes during the digestive cycle. This goes against God’s promise to never let His Holy Son see decay (Acts 2:27).

In verse 63, Jesus asked the disciples that murmured, "Doth this offend you? It is the SPIRIT that quickeneth (gives life); THE FLESH PROFITETH NOTHING: the words that I speak unto you, THEY ARE SPIRIT, and they are life." He told them plainly that he was not talking literally. He said, "...the words that I speak unto you, THEY ARE SPIRIT." He also told them here that the physical flesh profits NOTHING! The heretical doctrine of transubstantiation and the eucharist is a direct contradiction to the word of God for it says that this supposedly transubstantiated bread does profit.

I've never seen an adequate response to these points at all BGTF.
A question for you and BGTF both: Your dichotomy between spirit and flesh within the Person of Jesus Christ, where do you find it in the Bible?

PETER! This is why i feel i rarely get a sensible straight answer to bible verses that are there right in front of our eyes. It's not good to deflect giving an answer by asking a question or voicing a criticism. If someone asks you to give a reasonable response to a few verses of scripture then that is precisely what they need. To do anything less is tantamount to giving someone a snake when they have asked for bread!

Or giving you bread when you asked for a snake. ;)
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: primuspilus on January 13, 2012, 06:01:19 PM
Quote
As i've been frequently reminded, biblical verses might not just mean one thing, they can mean many things.

I believe that there was always a remnant of people who believed correctly within the church as it gradually went off course and that remnant finally shook off most of the religious trappings that had distracted and stifled her for years. First when Rome made the break and finally when the Reformation occurred
So in other words, there is no proof to back up your claim. I suggest you can go with the simpler answer. The Church never left. People left the Church.

PP
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: FountainPen on January 13, 2012, 06:01:46 PM
And yet we are redeemed by the blood of Jesus. If "the flesh profits nothing" means what you claim it to mean here then Christ coming and suffering in the flesh is entirely pointless.

The divinized, resurrected flesh of Christ does not digest and it is not eliminated. It is consumed in a miraculous way according to Orthodoxy. In the same way Jesus was able to appear in locked rooms and to hide his appearance and be lifted into the heavens, so this also is possible with God.

When it comes to the difficult answers, it's a "mystery".
Here, a song just for you  ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgee3IGYZsU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgee3IGYZsU)

Of course it is possible, all things are possible with God. You can't say just because there are accounts of miracles that have happened in scripture, that it provides an answer for what's going on in the Eucharist. That's just guessing.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: primuspilus on January 13, 2012, 06:03:41 PM
And yet we are redeemed by the blood of Jesus. If "the flesh profits nothing" means what you claim it to mean here then Christ coming and suffering in the flesh is entirely pointless.

The divinized, resurrected flesh of Christ does not digest and it is not eliminated. It is consumed in a miraculous way according to Orthodoxy. In the same way Jesus was able to appear in locked rooms and to hide his appearance and be lifted into the heavens, so this also is possible with God.

When it comes to the difficult answers, it's a "mystery".

Of course it is possible, all things are possible with God. You can't say just because there are accounts of miracles that have happened in scripture, that it provides an answer for what's going on in the Eucharist. That's just guessing.

No guesses, Christ said it is his body and blood, so did the apostoles, so did those who learned at the apostoles feet, all the way through history to the present day.

The burden of proof is on those who say that the Churc hhas been wrong since the beginning. A burden that has never been satisfied.

PP
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Melodist on January 13, 2012, 06:07:34 PM
Christ said "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.", and here are the wods that are spirit and life - "For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." That word for "indeed" is the same word we use at Easter to describe the reality of Christ's resurrection. Also Christ changes the word for "eat" in the middle of this particular discourse. He starts out using word typically used throughout the NT and then switches to a word that literally means to make a crunching sound as you chew and is used outside of this passage only in Matt 24:38 - "For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking". and John 13:18 - "He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me" and is used by Christ in John 6 only when referring to eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood and only after "The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying How can this man give us his flesh to eat".

If Christ's words are life, then these are His words in the immediate context of that passage "I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.". He didn't save the world by giving a series of sermons or teaching philosophy, He saved the world by giving Himself to be (bodily) crucified and (bodily) raised from the dead.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: FountainPen on January 13, 2012, 06:08:15 PM
There is another serious problem for those who fail to recognise Jesus analogy. They must realize that after they have consumed the physical body of Christ, it then decomposes during the digestive cycle. This goes against God’s promise to never let His Holy Son see decay (Acts 2:27).

In verse 63, Jesus asked the disciples that murmured, "Doth this offend you? It is the SPIRIT that quickeneth (gives life); THE FLESH PROFITETH NOTHING: the words that I speak unto you, THEY ARE SPIRIT, and they are life." He told them plainly that he was not talking literally. He said, "...the words that I speak unto you, THEY ARE SPIRIT." He also told them here that the physical flesh profits NOTHING! The heretical doctrine of transubstantiation and the eucharist is a direct contradiction to the word of God for it says that this supposedly transubstantiated bread does profit.

I've never seen an adequate response to these points at all BGTF.
A question for you and BGTF both: Your dichotomy between spirit and flesh within the Person of Jesus Christ, where do you find it in the Bible?

PETER! This is why i feel i rarely get a sensible straight answer to bible verses that are there right in front of our eyes. It's not good to deflect giving an answer by asking a question or voicing a criticism. If someone asks you to give a reasonable response to a few verses of scripture then that is precisely what they need. To do anything less is tantamount to giving someone a snake when they have asked for bread!

Or giving you bread when you asked for a snake. ;)

Don't be ridiculous! Why would anyone ask for a snake. If you're saying that because you feel i'm being insincere then don't respond to my posts unless you have something official to say. It's really that simple ;)
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Volnutt on January 13, 2012, 06:09:31 PM
When trying to understand the eucharist - as it is called in the orthodox and catholic churches, we need to continue reading past verse 58 to see what is really meant here.. There appears to be a gross misunderstanding on the disciples behalf resulting in them 'walking no longer with Him'.(v66.)

I think the confusion began right here and is written in John 6.

John 6:59These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.60Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?61When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?62What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.64But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.65And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.66From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.67Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?68Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

Now the Bible tells us that His Words are what we live on. Matthew 4:4 - But he(Jesus)answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.

Unfortunately, it has been misunderstood from the time of John 6. But these verses say that someone who does not truly BELIEVE Christ, can not understand spiritual things.

"For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.. " Disciples - betrayed Jesus. Disciples, misunderstood Jesus. That may sound disrespectful to some, but I mean no disrespect. I'm just trying to state the facts.


I agree with you about the Orthodox/Catholic misunderstanding of the verses and i would add that though scripture says that we live on every word, it doesn't say that's all that sustains us.

However, if we agree that they have misunderstood the bread and the wine, surely in the many years before the reformation, we would have to agree then that the gates of hell did prevail against the church and suffered the entire church to believe 'another gospel'? That's the claim of Orthodoxy anyway.
If nobody believes in Christ, then yes the gates of Hell have triumphed. I don't see how that verse can be made to say anything else.

Furthermore, if you do recognize that nobody believed in a symbolic Eucharist prior to the Reformation, why do you believe in it? Surely going against the unanimous known witness of the church for 1500 years is not a good idea, even if you are right about what's at stake here a la' Matthew 16.

As i've been frequently reminded, biblical verses might not just mean one thing, they can mean many things.
Sure, but not contradictory things. If there are no non-heretics left on earth, then isn't a church on earth either.
Quote
I believe that there was always a remnant of people who believed correctly within the church as it gradually went off course and that remnant finally shook off most of the religious trappings that had distracted and stifled her for years. First when Rome made the break and finally when the Reformation occurred.
Then show me their writings or the writings of a Church Father arguing against them. Show me a historian who agrees with you. I'm sorry, but arguments from silence are a sucker's game. The burden of proof is on the "protesters" to show us there is something amiss.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Volnutt on January 13, 2012, 06:12:40 PM
And yet we are redeemed by the blood of Jesus. If "the flesh profits nothing" means what you claim it to mean here then Christ coming and suffering in the flesh is entirely pointless.

The divinized, resurrected flesh of Christ does not digest and it is not eliminated. It is consumed in a miraculous way according to Orthodoxy. In the same way Jesus was able to appear in locked rooms and to hide his appearance and be lifted into the heavens, so this also is possible with God.

When it comes to the difficult answers, it's a "mystery".

Of course it is possible, all things are possible with God. You can't say just because there are accounts of miracles that have happened in scripture, that it provides an answer for what's going on in the Eucharist. That's just guessing.
You guys are the ones saying the Real Presence is impossible, not us. Again, burden of proof. Do you also believe the Trinity is illogical like a Muslim?
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Shanghaiski on January 13, 2012, 07:03:58 PM
When trying to understand the eucharist - as it is called in the orthodox and catholic churches, we need to continue reading past verse 58 to see what is really meant here.. There appears to be a gross misunderstanding on the disciples behalf resulting in them 'walking no longer with Him'.(v66.)

I think the confusion began right here and is written in John 6.

John 6:59These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.60Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?61When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?62What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.64But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.65And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.66From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.67Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?68Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

Now the Bible tells us that His Words are what we live on. Matthew 4:4 - But he(Jesus)answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.

Unfortunately, it has been misunderstood from the time of John 6. But these verses say that someone who does not truly BELIEVE Christ, can not understand spiritual things.

"For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.. " Disciples - betrayed Jesus. Disciples, misunderstood Jesus. That may sound disrespectful to some, but I mean no disrespect. I'm just trying to state the facts.


I agree with you about the Orthodox/Catholic misunderstanding of the verses and i would add that though scripture says that we live on every word, it doesn't say that's all that sustains us.

However, if we agree that they have misunderstood the bread and the wine, surely in the many years before the reformation, we would have to agree then that the gates of hell did prevail against the church and suffered the entire church to believe 'another gospel'? That's the claim of Orthodoxy anyway.
If nobody believes in Christ, then yes the gates of Hell have triumphed. I don't see how that verse can be made to say anything else.

Furthermore, if you do recognize that nobody believed in a symbolic Eucharist prior to the Reformation, why do you believe in it? Surely going against the unanimous known witness of the church for 1500 years is not a good idea, even if you are right about what's at stake here a la' Matthew 16.

As i've been frequently reminded, biblical verses might not just mean one thing, they can mean many things.

I believe that there was always a remnant of people who believed correctly within the church as it gradually went off course and that remnant finally shook off most of the religious trappings that had distracted and stifled her for years. First when Rome made the break and finally when the Reformation occurred.

Scripture means what the Church says it means. The Pope of Rome and the Reformers are not in the Church and therefore come up with their own interpretations.

As for the Church going "off course," the Lord said that not even the gates of hell would prevail against it. A visible, unified, hierarchical Church, the Orthodox Church, was established by the Lord and His Holy Apostles, has lasted until today, and will last until the Lord returns.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: biro on January 13, 2012, 07:06:09 PM
And yet we are redeemed by the blood of Jesus. If "the flesh profits nothing" means what you claim it to mean here then Christ coming and suffering in the flesh is entirely pointless.

The divinized, resurrected flesh of Christ does not digest and it is not eliminated. It is consumed in a miraculous way according to Orthodoxy. In the same way Jesus was able to appear in locked rooms and to hide his appearance and be lifted into the heavens, so this also is possible with God.

When it comes to the difficult answers, it's a "mystery".
Here, a song just for you  ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgee3IGYZsU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgee3IGYZsU)

Of course it is possible, all things are possible with God. You can't say just because there are accounts of miracles that have happened in scripture, that it provides an answer for what's going on in the Eucharist. That's just guessing.

Was the Gospel According to St. John just a guess?


Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition
(DRA)

John 6


 1After these things Jesus went over the sea of Galilee, which is that of Tiberias.

    2And a great multitude followed him, because they saw the miracles which he did on them that were diseased.

    3Jesus therefore went up into a mountain, and there he sat with his disciples.

    4Now the pasch, the festival day of the Jews, was near at hand.

    5When Jesus therefore had lifted up his eyes, and seen that a very great multitude cometh to him, he said to Philip: Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat?

    6And this he said to try him; for he himself knew what he would do.

    7Philip answered him: Two hundred pennyworth of bread is not sufficient for them, that every one may take a little.

    8One of his disciples, Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, saith to him:

    9There is a boy here that hath five barley loaves, and two fishes; but what are these among so many?

    10Then Jesus said: Make the men sit down. Now there was much grass in the place. The men therefore sat down, in number about five thousand.

    11And Jesus took the loaves: and when he had given thanks, he distributed to them that were set down. In like manner also of the fishes, as much as they would.

    12And when they were filled, he said to his disciples: Gather up the fragments that remain, lest they be lost.

    13They gathered up therefore, and filled twelve baskets with the fragments of the five barley loaves, which remained over and above to them that had eaten.

    14Now those men, when they had seen what a miracle Jesus had done, said: This is of a truth the prophet, that is to come into the world.

    15Jesus therefore, when he knew that they would come to take him by force, and make him king, fled again into the mountain himself alone.

    16And when evening was come, his disciples went down to the sea.

    17And when they had gone up into a ship, they went over the sea to Capharnaum; and it was now dark, and Jesus was not come unto them.

    18And the sea arose, by reason of a great wind that blew.

    19When they had rowed therefore about five and twenty or thirty furlongs, they see Jesus walking upon the sea, and drawing nigh to the ship, and they were afraid.

    20But he saith to them: It is I; be not afraid.

    21They were willing therefore to take him into the ship; and presently the ship was at the land to which they were going.

    22The next day, the multitude that stood on the other side of the sea, saw that there was no other ship there but one, and that Jesus had not entered into the ship with his disciples, but that his disciples were gone away alone.

    23But other ships came in from Tiberias; nigh unto the place where they had eaten the bread, the Lord giving thanks.

    24When therefore the multitude saw that Jesus was not there, nor his disciples, they took shipping, and came to Capharnaum, seeking for Jesus.

    25And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him: Rabbi, when camest thou hither?

    26Jesus answered them, and said: Amen, amen I say to you, you seek me, not because you have seen miracles, but because you did eat of the loaves, and were filled.

    27Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto life everlasting, which the Son of man will give you. For him hath God, the Father, sealed.

    28They said therefore unto him: What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?

    29Jesus answered, and said to them: This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he hath sent.

    30They said therefore to him: What sign therefore dost thou shew, that we may see, and may believe thee? What dost thou work?

    31Our fathers did eat manna in the desert, as it is written: He gave them bread from heaven to eat.

    32Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you; Moses gave you not bread from heaven, but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.

    33For the bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life to the world.

    34They said therefore unto him: Lord, give us always this bread.

    35And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst.

    36But I said unto you, that you also have seen me, and you believe not.

    37All that the Father giveth to me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me, I will not cast out.

    38Because I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me.

    39Now this is the will of the Father who sent me: that of all that he hath given me, I should lose nothing; but should raise it up again in the last day.

    40And this is the will of my Father that sent me: that every one who seeth the Son, and believeth in him, may have life everlasting, and I will raise him up in the last day.

    41The Jews therefore murmured at him, because he had said: I am the living bread which came down from heaven.

    42And they said: Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How then saith he, I came down from heaven?

    43Jesus therefore answered, and said to them: Murmur not among yourselves.

    44No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him; and I will raise him up in the last day.

    45It is written in the prophets: And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard of the Father, and hath learned, cometh to me.

    46Not that any man hath seen the Father; but he who is of God, he hath seen the Father.

    47Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life.

    48I am the bread of life.

    49Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead.

    50This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.

    51I am the living bread which came down from heaven.

    52If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.

    53The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

    54Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.

    55He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

    56For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.

    57He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.

    58As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me.

    59This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.

    60These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.

    61Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it?

    62But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you?

    63If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

    64It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life.

    65But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him.

    66And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father.

    67After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him.

    68Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away?

    69And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

    70And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.

    71Jesus answered them: Have not I chosen you twelve; and one of you is a devil?

    72Now he meant Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon: for this same was about to betray him, whereas he was one of the twelve.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Shanghaiski on January 13, 2012, 07:06:40 PM
And yet we are redeemed by the blood of Jesus. If "the flesh profits nothing" means what you claim it to mean here then Christ coming and suffering in the flesh is entirely pointless.

The divinized, resurrected flesh of Christ does not digest and it is not eliminated. It is consumed in a miraculous way according to Orthodoxy. In the same way Jesus was able to appear in locked rooms and to hide his appearance and be lifted into the heavens, so this also is possible with God.

When it comes to the difficult answers, it's a "mystery".

Of course it is possible, all things are possible with God. You can't say just because there are accounts of miracles that have happened in scripture, that it provides an answer for what's going on in the Eucharist. That's just guessing.

No guesses, Christ said it is his body and blood, so did the apostoles, so did those who learned at the apostoles feet, all the way through history to the present day.

The burden of proof is on those who say that the Churc hhas been wrong since the beginning. A burden that has never been satisfied.

PP

Let them commune and see what happens.

I knew a man who believed the Holy Things were not the actual Body and Blood of Christ. He was not Orthodox, but went to communion anyway. Later, he was nearly disemboweled, so to speak.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: primuspilus on January 13, 2012, 07:12:35 PM
And yet we are redeemed by the blood of Jesus. If "the flesh profits nothing" means what you claim it to mean here then Christ coming and suffering in the flesh is entirely pointless.

The divinized, resurrected flesh of Christ does not digest and it is not eliminated. It is consumed in a miraculous way according to Orthodoxy. In the same way Jesus was able to appear in locked rooms and to hide his appearance and be lifted into the heavens, so this also is possible with God.

When it comes to the difficult answers, it's a "mystery".

Of course it is possible, all things are possible with God. You can't say just because there are accounts of miracles that have happened in scripture, that it provides an answer for what's going on in the Eucharist. That's just guessing.

No guesses, Christ said it is his body and blood, so did the apostoles, so did those who learned at the apostoles feet, all the way through history to the present day.

The burden of proof is on those who say that the Churc hhas been wrong since the beginning. A burden that has never been satisfied.

PP

Let them commune and see what happens.

I knew a man who believed the Holy Things were not the actual Body and Blood of Christ. He was not Orthodox, but went to communion anyway. Later, he was nearly disemboweled, so to speak.
What is silly is when you look at the history of Eucharistic rejection. It was ad hominem at its finest. "The Roman Catholics say Communion is the body and blood. The Catholic church is the tool of evil, therefore.......etc."
There is NO evidence in scripture that the Eucharist is not the real presence. AIt is this whole buffet spirituality nonsense.

Quote
I believe that there was always a remnant of people who believed correctly within the church as it gradually went off course
Something I forgot to mention. This theory is the basis for something called landmarkism, which has been thoroughly and totally debunked.

PP
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: biro on January 13, 2012, 07:18:30 PM
It is worth nothing that the early Protestant churches, such as the Anglicans and Lutherans, believed in the Real Presence and had liturgical worship, and that it wasn't for hundreds of years after them that the neo-Protestant churches emerged with the belief in the symbolic presence only.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: primuspilus on January 13, 2012, 07:28:40 PM
It is worth nothing that the early Protestant churches, such as the Anglicans and Lutherans, believed in the Real Presence and had liturgical worship, and that it wasn't for hundreds of years after them that the neo-Protestant churches emerged with the belief in the symbolic presence only.
Ah, those pesky facts strike again......

PP
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 13, 2012, 07:29:25 PM
There is another serious problem for those who fail to recognise Jesus analogy. They must realize that after they have consumed the physical body of Christ, it then decomposes during the digestive cycle. This goes against God’s promise to never let His Holy Son see decay (Acts 2:27).

In verse 63, Jesus asked the disciples that murmured, "Doth this offend you? It is the SPIRIT that quickeneth (gives life); THE FLESH PROFITETH NOTHING: the words that I speak unto you, THEY ARE SPIRIT, and they are life." He told them plainly that he was not talking literally. He said, "...the words that I speak unto you, THEY ARE SPIRIT." He also told them here that the physical flesh profits NOTHING! The heretical doctrine of transubstantiation and the eucharist is a direct contradiction to the word of God for it says that this supposedly transubstantiated bread does profit.

I've never seen an adequate response to these points at all BGTF.
A question for you and BGTF both: Your dichotomy between spirit and flesh within the Person of Jesus Christ, where do you find it in the Bible?

PETER! This is why i feel i rarely get a sensible straight answer to bible verses that are there right in front of our eyes. It's not good to deflect giving an answer by asking a question or voicing a criticism. If someone asks you to give a reasonable response to a few verses of scripture then that is precisely what they need. To do anything less is tantamount to giving someone a snake when they have asked for bread!

Or giving you bread when you asked for a snake. ;)

Don't be ridiculous! Why would anyone ask for a snake. If you're saying that because you feel i'm being insincere then don't respond to my posts unless you have something official to say. It's really that simple ;)
I don't doubt your sincerity. I just think that maybe what you want from us isn't really what you need from us. ;)
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Melodist on January 13, 2012, 07:31:56 PM
It is worth nothing that the early Protestant churches, such as the Anglicans and Lutherans, believed in the Real Presence and had liturgical worship, and that it wasn't for hundreds of years after them that the neo-Protestant churches emerged with the belief in the symbolic presence only.

Zwingli was a contemporary of Luther.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: biro on January 13, 2012, 07:35:10 PM
Okay. I think more of the 'symbolic' presence churches popped up later on, though, such as the many independent denominations which came up in the 1700s and the 1800s. In America, for one, that was the 'revival' era. As far as I know, all of those types of churches are symbolic-presence only.

Thanks.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: primuspilus on January 13, 2012, 07:47:53 PM
It is worth nothing that the early Protestant churches, such as the Anglicans and Lutherans, believed in the Real Presence and had liturgical worship, and that it wasn't for hundreds of years after them that the neo-Protestant churches emerged with the belief in the symbolic presence only.

Zwingli was a contemporary of Luther.
Ah, forgot about him. I sit corrected.

PP
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Shanghaiski on January 13, 2012, 07:51:49 PM
It is worth nothing that the early Protestant churches, such as the Anglicans and Lutherans, believed in the Real Presence and had liturgical worship, and that it wasn't for hundreds of years after them that the neo-Protestant churches emerged with the belief in the symbolic presence only.

Zwingli was a contemporary of Luther.
Ah, forgot about him. I sit corrected.

PP

How very unOrthodox to sit... :)
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: primuspilus on January 13, 2012, 07:52:54 PM
It is worth nothing that the early Protestant churches, such as the Anglicans and Lutherans, believed in the Real Presence and had liturgical worship, and that it wasn't for hundreds of years after them that the neo-Protestant churches emerged with the belief in the symbolic presence only.

Zwingli was a contemporary of Luther.
Ah, forgot about him. I sit corrected.

PP

How very unOrthodox to sit... :)
To me being at work, I cant help it...also, being WR...I also cant help it  :laugh:

PP
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 13, 2012, 08:03:16 PM
Nowhere does Scripture say that bread and drink become the body and blood of Christ.

In Matthew 26:26 Christ broke real bread and said, "Take, eat; this is My body" while His body was yet physically before them, as they ate the bread that He handed them. It never says the bread changed into His flesh. Moreover, in Matthew 26:27-28 Jesus took the cup, gave thanks, and said,

Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Now notice the next verse.

But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom. (Matthew 26:29)

Jesus still called the drink "this fruit of the vine." It was still wine (or grape juice), after He gave it to the disciples.

Ignatius, Justin Martyr, all of the early fathers have understood this wrong. Even the disciples did. (John6:66 - its ironic actually, I know scripture was numbered later but it's interesting that verse happens to be John 666.) They all taught exactly what you believe. But remember the verses I posted up yesterday?

Isaiah 9:16 "For the leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed."
Matthew 15:14 "Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: biro on January 13, 2012, 08:17:34 PM
Nowhere, except the entire sixth chapter of the Gospel According to St. John. Don't make me post it twice.

I've had threads where I posted Jn. 1:1-15 five times, because a certain person  ::) didn't believe the Word of God was a Person before it was in a book. I can do that, if you insist...
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: HandmaidenofGod on January 13, 2012, 08:18:30 PM
Nowhere does Scripture say that bread and drink become the body and blood of Christ.

In Matthew 26:26 Christ broke real bread and said, "Take, eat; this is My body" while His body was yet physically before them, as they ate the bread that He handed them. It never says the bread changed into His flesh. Moreover, in Matthew 26:27-28 Jesus took the cup, gave thanks, and said,

Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Now notice the next verse.

But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom. (Matthew 26:29)

Jesus still called the drink "this fruit of the vine." It was still wine (or grape juice), after He gave it to the disciples.

Ignatius, Justin Martyr, all of the early fathers have understood this wrong. Even the disciples did. (John6:66 - its ironic actually, I know scripture was numbered later but it's interesting that verse happens to be John 666.) They all taught exactly what you believe. But remember the verses I posted up yesterday?

Isaiah 9:16 "For the leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed."
Matthew 15:14 "Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."


Wow, so the Apostles, and the Early Church Fathers all had it wrong, but you, 2,000 years later have it right.

Wow, you really must have the Holy Spirit in you that you can just come on a forum and educate us in the error of our ways. That is just amazing.

You know, other Protestants on this board have disagreed with us, but I've never heard one say the Apostles had it wrong.

Ma'am, you have one hell of a set of cojones. I tip my hat to you.

Obviously having a discussion with you about this topic would be fruitless, since neither scripture nor testament from the Early Church fathers can dissuade you otherwise.

Have a nice weekend!
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: biro on January 13, 2012, 08:18:39 PM
Quote from: ByGracethroughFaith

Ignatius, Justin Martyr, all of the early fathers have understood this wrong. Even the disciples did. (John6:66 - its ironic actually, I know scripture was numbered later but it's interesting that verse happens to be John 666.) They all taught exactly what you believe. But remember the verses I posted up yesterday?

Isaiah 9:16 "For the leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed."
Matthew 15:14 "Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."


Alfred, what does that have to do with the subject?

Didn't we shoot down enough of your proof-texting games in previous threads?
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 13, 2012, 08:21:02 PM
Nowhere does Scripture say that bread and drink become the body and blood of Christ.

In Matthew 26:26 Christ broke real bread and said, "Take, eat; this is My body" while His body was yet physically before them, as they ate the bread that He handed them. It never says the bread changed into His flesh.
That's illogical. At one time it was bread and wine. When Jesus presents it to His disciples He calls it His body and blood, which was always understood literally. If it was once one thing and then later was something else, it had to have become something it previously was not. Am I correct? The bread and wine had to have become His body and blood, and if it did so within Jesus hands, it had to have been Jesus who changed the bread and wine into His body and blood. Therefore, even simple logic refutes your claim.

Moreover, in Matthew 26:27-28 Jesus took the cup, gave thanks, and said,
Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Now notice the next verse.

But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom. (Matthew 26:29)

Jesus still called the drink "this fruit of the vine." It was still wine (or grape juice), after He gave it to the disciples.
Which we don't deny. Remember, we don't call the mystery of the Real Presence transubstantiation, nor do we speak of the mystery in Aristotelian terms of substance and accidents as do the Roman Catholics.

Ignatius, Justin Martyr, all of the early fathers have understood this wrong. Even the disciples did. (John6:66 - its ironic actually, I know scripture was numbered later but it's interesting that verse happens to be John 666.) They all taught exactly what you believe.
Okay, you're treading the road of blasphemy if you're going to tell us that even the Apostles got it wrong. How can you even call yourself a Christian believing that garbage?

But remember the verses I posted up yesterday?
I notice that you haven't yet answered my question. What makes your interpretation of those verses correct and the Fathers' interpretation incorrect?

Isaiah 9:16 "For the leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed."
Matthew 15:14 "Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."
And how does this attempt to judge us through your selective use of Scripture even apply to us?
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: primuspilus on January 13, 2012, 08:27:00 PM
Quote
But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom. (Matthew 26:29)
Ah, like the true vine, of whom the Father is the gardner? (John 15:1)

Quote
But remember the verses I posted up yesterday?
Ah yes, the proof text that got obliterated?

Quote
Ignatius, Justin Martyr, all of the early fathers have understood this wrong. Even the disciples did
Well, who is to say they didnt have the Deity of Christ wrong? Or his ressurrection? What about Him being Messiah? See how silly you sound? Do you really think that Christ would voluntarily let 1500 years of Christians have something so basic, be so wrong leading them to damnation? Are you serious?

Quote
or grape juice
Welch didnt live in the 1st century there bud.


Quote
It never says the bread changed into His flesh
Besides the fact of Him saying unless you eat of my body hmmm?

Proof texting will get you nowhere. Your interpretation holds no weight.

EDIT: I find it even sillier that the communion is simply a representation, yet the world was literally created in 6 days.....buffet spirituality at its best.

PP
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: FatherGiryus on January 13, 2012, 09:19:46 PM
This argument makes no sense: on the one hand, you condemn even the early Church.  Then you talk about those who fell away from Christ... because of the Eucharist?

Well, the one thing we can agree upon: the Orthodox have faithfully followed the teachings of the Ancient Church.  This is the same Church that gave you the bible you are now wrongly interpreting!  You would think that the Church would have scrubbed out these bits that proved your point if we are so nefarious.  Instead, we do not because the argument you make is something you have read into the Scriptures and have not adequately defended.

The symbolism is not there.  He said 'This is...'  He is the Son of God.  How much power are in those words?  You cannot understand it because it is a Mystery.  Stop trying so hard to make the miracles of God so small?



Nowhere does Scripture say that bread and drink become the body and blood of Christ.

In Matthew 26:26 Christ broke real bread and said, "Take, eat; this is My body" while His body was yet physically before them, as they ate the bread that He handed them. It never says the bread changed into His flesh. Moreover, in Matthew 26:27-28 Jesus took the cup, gave thanks, and said,

Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Now notice the next verse.

But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom. (Matthew 26:29)

Jesus still called the drink "this fruit of the vine." It was still wine (or grape juice), after He gave it to the disciples.

Ignatius, Justin Martyr, all of the early fathers have understood this wrong. Even the disciples did. (John6:66 - its ironic actually, I know scripture was numbered later but it's interesting that verse happens to be John 666.) They all taught exactly what you believe. But remember the verses I posted up yesterday?

Isaiah 9:16 "For the leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed."
Matthew 15:14 "Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."

Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Shanghaiski on January 13, 2012, 11:26:24 PM
It is funny that mere bread and wine should cause people to get sick and die.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 13, 2012, 11:54:51 PM
BTW, BGTF, you're really stretching the bounds of--should I say destroying?--your credibility when you make such an association between the Apostle John and the Beast of the Apocalypse by pointing out the 666 in John 6:66. Do you really expect anyone to take you seriously after that piece of work?
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Volnutt on January 13, 2012, 11:55:10 PM
Nowhere does Scripture say that bread and drink become the body and blood of Christ.

In Matthew 26:26 Christ broke real bread and said, "Take, eat; this is My body" while His body was yet physically before them, as they ate the bread that He handed them. It never says the bread changed into His flesh. Moreover, in Matthew 26:27-28 Jesus took the cup, gave thanks, and said,

Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Now notice the next verse.

But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom. (Matthew 26:29)

Jesus still called the drink "this fruit of the vine." It was still wine (or grape juice), after He gave it to the disciples.

Ignatius, Justin Martyr, all of the early fathers have understood this wrong. Even the disciples did. (John6:66 - its ironic actually, I know scripture was numbered later but it's interesting that verse happens to be John 666.) They all taught exactly what you believe. But remember the verses I posted up yesterday?

Isaiah 9:16 "For the leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed."
Matthew 15:14 "Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."

So the Apostolic Church, the Church which Paul says by the Spirit that we must stick to the traditions which they've handed down to us and to not receive anyone who holds any other doctrine, the Church that Jesus sent the Spirit to lead into all truth was wrong about something so fundamental as this?

I'm sorry but,


You. Are. Out. Of. Your. Mind.

This final comment is a borderline ad hominem.  Do not do this again, or you will be placed on Post Moderation.
- Fr. George, Global Mod
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: FormerReformer on January 14, 2012, 12:59:54 AM
Nowhere does Scripture say that bread and drink become the body and blood of Christ.

In Matthew 26:26 Christ broke real bread and said, "Take, eat; this is My body" while His body was yet physically before them, as they ate the bread that He handed them. It never says the bread changed into His flesh. Moreover, in Matthew 26:27-28 Jesus took the cup, gave thanks, and said,

Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Now notice the next verse.

But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom. (Matthew 26:29)

Jesus still called the drink "this fruit of the vine." It was still wine (or grape juice), after He gave it to the disciples.

Ignatius, Justin Martyr, all of the early fathers have understood this wrong. Even the disciples did. (John6:66 - its ironic actually, I know scripture was numbered later but it's interesting that verse happens to be John 666.) They all taught exactly what you believe. But remember the verses I posted up yesterday?

Isaiah 9:16 "For the leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed."
Matthew 15:14 "Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."

So the Apostolic Church, the Church which Paul says by the Spirit that we must stick to the traditions which they've handed down to us and to not receive anyone who holds any other doctrine, the Church that Jesus sent the Spirit to lead into all truth was wrong about something so fundamental as this?

I'm sorry but,


You. Are. Out. Of. Your. Mind.
Wait, Volnutt! Those are just the early Christians you've heard about, who got everything all wrong. You're totally neglecting the super-secret sect of Christians who understood all the things Apostles got wrong.

Somehow, they just forgot to write anything down (possibly because they knew that book larnin is of the devil).
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Melodist on January 14, 2012, 01:17:46 AM
Well, outside of John 6 and the narratives of the last supper where Christ says "this is"...

1Cor 10:16
The cup of blessing which we bless is it not the communion of the blood of Christ ? The bread which we break is it not the communion of the body of Christ ?

koinonia
from koinonos 2844; partnership, i.e. (literally) participation, or (social) intercourse, or (pecuniary) benefaction:--(to) communicate(-ation), communion, (contri-)distribution, fellowship.

Scripture says what it says, and everywhere that it speaks of Communion, this is what it says. It doesn't say anything else anywhere.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: FountainPen on January 14, 2012, 02:39:26 AM
Can someone explain to me John 6:63?

"The words i have spoken to you are spirit and are life."

and

Matthew 26:29

Why would Jesus speak figuratively of his blood as the "fruit of the vine" if it was his literal blood?
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 14, 2012, 02:42:21 AM
Do I believe that I am smarter, or somehow more intelligent, or better informed than the “Fathers” or the “Martyrs?”

No, because:
(1) I do not know, I rely on scripture
(2) in my reliance on Scripture, I am relying on what God has told me in 1 Corinthians 2:16 – I have the mind of Christ.

These things are not stated in my defense or as applying to me alone. These statements are true of any and all believers. A believer is one as defined in John 3:1‐18.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: LBK on January 14, 2012, 02:54:55 AM
Quote
Do I believe that I am smarter, or somehow more intelligent, or better informed than the “Fathers” or the “Martyrs?”

You have already answered your own question, and with crystal clarity, BGTF:

Quote
Ignatius, Justin Martyr, all of the early fathers have understood this wrong. Even the disciples did. (John6:66 - its ironic actually, I know scripture was numbered later but it's interesting that verse happens to be John 666.) They all taught exactly what you believe.[/size][/size][/size]


Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: FountainPen on January 14, 2012, 03:04:31 AM
Can someone also explain to me how the human nature of Christ, one of the two natures of Christ which are distinct, yet in union and not transferable to one another (or each would not remain two distinct and separate natures in union) can be physically omnipresent in the Eucharist? If that were so, then his human nature would not be 100% man as a man can only be present in one place at one time.


Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Melodist on January 14, 2012, 03:12:38 AM
Can someone explain to me John 6:63?

"The words i have spoken to you are spirit and are life."

Because it is the Spirit that give life, and Christ's words were that His flesh us food and His blood is drink, and then commanded us to eat His flesh and drink His blood. These words give us life, but like all of His other words, we have to follow them in order to receive the life that is in them.

[/quote]Matthew 26:29

Why would Jesus speak figuratively of his blood as the "fruit of the vine" if it was his literal blood?[/quote]

He elsewhere spoke of Himself as the true vine.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Melodist on January 14, 2012, 03:18:11 AM
Can someone also explain to me how the human nature of Christ, one of the two natures of Christ which are distinct, yet in union and not transferable to one another (or each would not remain two distinct and separate natures in union) can be physically omnipresent in the Eucharist? If that were so, then his human nature would not be 100% man as a man can only be present in one place at one time.

It is for the same reason that He was able to walk through walls and doors and His closest disciples were unable to immediately recognize Him after the resurrection until after He did something to reveal His identity to them, one of which was "the breaking of the bread".
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: FormerReformer on January 14, 2012, 03:39:10 AM
Can someone explain to me John 6:63?

"The words i have spoken to you are spirit and are life."

Again, Spirit does NOT mean metaphor. When Christ speaks words of Spirit this does not mean He is speaking metaphorically, He is speaking of a reality beyond natural understanding.

Quote


Matthew 26:29

Why would Jesus speak figuratively of his blood as the "fruit of the vine" if it was his literal blood?

See Melodist's reply above

Can someone also explain to me how the human nature of Christ, one of the two natures of Christ which are distinct, yet in union and not transferable to one another (or each would not remain two distinct and separate natures in union) can be physically omnipresent in the Eucharist? If that were so, then his human nature would not be 100% man as a man can only be present in one place at one time.

Melodist replies well here, too, but I will add this- how is it that the Lamb, who we have records of having been slain around 33 AD with plenty of human witnesses, was slain before the foundation of the cosmos (Rev 13:8), yet is also stated to have made that sacrifice at the end of the ages (Heb 9:26) especially if the sacrifice was one and forever (Heb 10:12)? Christ, though still retaining (indeed, having glorified) His human nature, is no longer subject to the boundaries of time and space since His Ascension (and possibly before even that, His Resurrection).
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: witega on January 14, 2012, 04:05:44 AM
Can someone also explain to me how the human nature of Christ, one of the two natures of Christ which are distinct, yet in union and not transferable to one another (or each would not remain two distinct and separate natures in union) can be physically omnipresent in the Eucharist? If that were so, then his human nature would not be 100% man as a man can only be present in one place at one time.

Can you explain to me how 5 loaves and 2 fish filled the bellies of 5000 people plus 12 baskets? Others are not wrong to point out to you that Christ's glorified human body is not necessarily subject to the same rules as (what we consider) 'normal' human nature, but we really don't even have to go that far in speculating about what is 'natural' to such a body.

Also, it's incorrect to say that His body is 'omnipresent'. It is present on the altar, in the chalice, in the body of believers, but it is not in the trunk of my car, it is not my computer screen, it is not on the moon (at least not until a church is built there). It is certainly present in more places than can be explained any way but miraculously (although, again, it is a miracle Christ actually demonstrated), but it is still present in only a finite number of places. There is no confusion between the human nature and Divine omnipresence in this.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Volnutt on January 14, 2012, 05:48:43 AM
Do I believe that I am smarter, or somehow more intelligent, or better informed than the “Fathers” or the “Martyrs?”

No, because:
(1) I do not know, I rely on scripture
(2) in my reliance on Scripture, I am relying on what God has told me in 1 Corinthians 2:16 – I have the mind of Christ.

These things are not stated in my defense or as applying to me alone. These statements are true of any and all believers. A believer is one as defined in John 3:1‐18.
First of all your use of quote marks sickens me. These people died for Christ, show some respect.

Second, you also spit on the Anglicans and many Lutherans who also hold to the Real Presence out of a sense of sola scriptura. In fact, you've never met anyone more hard headed than a Lutheran defending Real Presence and they act exactly like you, "I'm just saying what Scripture says!" So, do they also have the mind of Christ?

Do the Jehovah's Witnesses who deny the Trinity and claim Christ is an angel possess the mind of Christ? How do you know they don't? Because Scripture plainly contradicts them? Well, they would also say Scripture plainly contradicts you?

See what I'm getting at? I'm not saying Orthodoxy does not share problems of knowing just what the Scriptures are saying, Tradition isn't a "magic bullet" that removes the need for critical thought, but it seems to me that relying on the witness of a existing body of believers that has been unanimous on the broad points (not saying their haven't been conflicts but the main doctrines of Orthodoxy are pretty much traceable in the Fathers back to the Apostolic age) makes a lot more sense that relying on yourself as an independent conduit of the Spirit who could theoretically be the last sane man on earth and the last true believer.

Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Volnutt on January 14, 2012, 05:49:58 AM
Do I believe that I am smarter, or somehow more intelligent, or better informed than the “Fathers” or the “Martyrs?”

No, because:
(1) I do not know, I rely on scripture
(2) in my reliance on Scripture, I am relying on what God has told me in 1 Corinthians 2:16 – I have the mind of Christ.

These things are not stated in my defense or as applying to me alone. These statements are true of any and all believers. A believer is one as defined in John 3:1‐18.
First of all your use of quote marks sickens me. These people died for Christ, show some respect.

Second, you also spit on the Anglicans and many Lutherans who also hold to the Real Presence out of a sense of sola scriptura. In fact, you've never met anyone more hard headed than a Lutheran defending Real Presence and they act exactly like you, "I'm just saying what Scripture says!" So, do they also have the mind of Christ?

Do the Jehovah's Witnesses who deny the Trinity and claim Christ is an angel possess the mind of Christ? How do you know they don't? Because Scripture plainly contradicts them? Well, they would also say Scripture plainly contradicts you?

See what I'm getting at? I'm not saying Orthodoxy does not share problems of knowing just what the Scriptures are saying, Tradition isn't a "magic bullet" that removes the need for critical thought, but it seems to me that relying on the witness of a existing body of believers that has been unanimous on the broad points (not saying their haven't been conflicts but the main doctrines of Orthodoxy are pretty much traceable in the Fathers back to the Apostolic age) makes a lot more sense that relying on yourself as an independent conduit of the Spirit who could theoretically be the last sane man on earth and the last true believer.




Piggy backing off my last post, now addressing FountainPen:

See where I'm going with this? You (the generic you) may not be a Lone Ranger, the only person in the world who's correct, now but there's nothing stopping you from being such in theory. Where's the importance of community in that? That's my biggest problem with the way you're reading Matthew 16. God wants to preserve a family, not a group of dead and alive ships passing in the night who just happen to share the same beliefs and atomic relationship to Him almost by accident.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: FatherGiryus on January 14, 2012, 12:23:27 PM
Just as bread and wine can be Body and Blood, so can words be Spirit and Life.  See how this words?  What God does is not what man does.  He thoughts are not our thoughts, and His works are not our works.  Just because Jesus Christ speaks Spirit and Life does not mean He does not use words.  The words don't stop being words, just as the form of bread and wine remain the same.

Do you see the comparison?  If His words can be something else in addition to their common existence, so can other things.

As for the passage in St. Matthew, it is plainly obvious what is happening: He is preparing to be arrested and crucified, something the Apostles do not yet understand (which is why they run).

The fulfillment of the Eucharist is the New Jerusalem, when we are resurrected with Him and the final re-communion of God and man is accomplished.  Until that time, we drink of the cup as He commanded us.

Does this answer your question?


Can someone explain to me John 6:63?

"The words i have spoken to you are spirit and are life."

and

Matthew 26:29

Why would Jesus speak figuratively of his blood as the "fruit of the vine" if it was his literal blood?
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Marc1152 on January 14, 2012, 01:42:39 PM
Can someone also explain to me how the human nature of Christ, one of the two natures of Christ which are distinct, yet in union and not transferable to one another (or each would not remain two distinct and separate natures in union) can be physically omnipresent in the Eucharist? If that were so, then his human nature would not be 100% man as a man can only be present in one place at one time.




Can a fully human person be hung from a Cross until dead and then physically resurrect?  Can a person come back to life and have someone else actually put his hand into his wounds?

Can God Almighty be present in the form of bread and wine if he wills it... ?
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: FatherGiryus on January 14, 2012, 02:02:10 PM
I've never quite understood the Protestant objection to the Eucharist.  Everything else in Christianity is just as improbably: the Trinity, the Incarnate God, Baptism, the indwelling Holy Spirit, etc.

I think you would have just as hard of a time convincing a die-hard atheist that the bread and wine are Body and Blood as you would convincing him that God dwells within you and speaks to you!

From pure physics, nothing of Christianity makes sense.  It all appears to be impossible nonsense, and so you can't really use a strictly rational process to figure it out.  If you did, I think that I could very easily disprove all of it, and even the faith of those who 'claim' to have the Holy Spirit but are such reprehensible fools that their claims of divine connection automatically exclude any such possibility: a perfect Being would not waste His time with such a transparently self-impressed moron.

We are all poor representatives of Him.

At the same time, if one approaches not from the 'how' but from the 'what,' it all is obvious.  The Church has outlasted horrific persecution and decadence, heresy and carelessness, hyper-strictness and debauchery... of its members.  It has endured and also produced saints, various and numerous, despite our own particular failings.

This Eucharist at issue must be more than a symbol, remote and divorced from the One who instituted it, if one simply looks at the evidence.  This Church has never renounced it, never undermined it, and gathered great strength from it.  The enemy, on the other hand, never ceases to desecrate it and mock it.

The devil attacks the Eucharist.  If it was merely a symbol, he would not care for it.


Can someone also explain to me how the human nature of Christ, one of the two natures of Christ which are distinct, yet in union and not transferable to one another (or each would not remain two distinct and separate natures in union) can be physically omnipresent in the Eucharist? If that were so, then his human nature would not be 100% man as a man can only be present in one place at one time.




Can a fully human person be hung from a Cross until dead and then physically resurrect?  Can a person come back to life and have someone else actually put his hand into his wounds?

Can God Almighty be present in the form of bread and wine if he wills it... ?
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 14, 2012, 02:04:21 PM
Can someone explain to me John 6:63?

"The words i have spoken to you are spirit and are life."
Since you don't like me answering a question with a question, I'll just simply offer a statement in answer. It seems to me that you're creating a false dichotomy between spirit and matter (i.e., the flesh) as if the two can have no union with each other, as if the things of the spirit cannot manifest themselves through matter. Why can bread and wine not be united to Christ through the Holy Spirit such that they become Christ's body and blood and thereby communicate to us the life of the Spirit?

and

Matthew 26:29

Why would Jesus speak figuratively of his blood as the "fruit of the vine" if it was his literal blood?
Maybe because when the wine becomes His blood, it never ceases to ALSO remain what it was. After all, how many priests have not become a bit tipsy on occasion upon consuming what remains of Holy Communion after distributing it to the faithful?
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 14, 2012, 02:07:04 PM
Can someone also explain to me how the human nature of Christ, one of the two natures of Christ which are distinct, yet in union and not transferable to one another (or each would not remain two distinct and separate natures in union) can be physically omnipresent in the Eucharist? If that were so, then his human nature would not be 100% man as a man can only be present in one place at one time.
CORRECTION: Pre-resurrection man can only be in one place at one time. What can be said of pre-resurrection man, however, cannot be said of Jesus Christ, Who now lives in His glorified post-resurrection form.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: FountainPen on January 14, 2012, 04:22:08 PM
I've never quite understood the Protestant objection to the Eucharist.  
Firstly because when many people read "Eucharist" a red flag goes up and they think Rome, slippery slope, shut my ears, idolatry, Mary, switch off and think of scripture before the devil gets a foothold in my mind. If we do manage to view the bull in its natural habitat rather than with our red flags prepping for a fight, then we'd probably realise it's not the scary beast we thought it was.

Quote
Everything else in Christianity is just as improbably: the Trinity, the Incarnate God, Baptism, the indwelling Holy Spirit, etc.
Equally improbable they might be but God in three persons, the Incarnation, baptism and the indwelling Holy Spirit are fairly explicit in scripture where as the 'real presence' in the bread and wine is not, at least to us it's not.

Secondly, to worship anything other than God Himself is wrong and very seriously wrong (as you'd agree) and to us, this is worship that is due to God alone being given to an act that is for us, a representation of a spiritual truth.

Quote
I think you would have just as hard of a time convincing a die-hard atheist that the bread and wine are Body and Blood as you would convincing him that God dwells within you and speaks to you!
#laughs -- yes we would!

Quote
From pure physics, nothing of Christianity makes sense. It all appears to be impossible nonsense, and so you can't really use a strictly rational process to figure it out.  If you did, I think that I could very easily disprove all of it, and even the faith of those who 'claim' to have the Holy Spirit but are such reprehensible fools that their claims of divine connection automatically exclude any such possibility: a perfect Being would not waste His time with such a transparently self-impressed moron.

We are all poor representatives of Him.
I agree we are at time and at other times we manage by his grace and mercy to get things right and make amazing strides forward, usually when we manage to be humble, then we're at our most useful.[/quote]

Quote
At the same time, if one approaches not from the 'how' but from the 'what,' it all is obvious.  The Church has outlasted horrific persecution and decadence, heresy and carelessness, hyper-strictness and debauchery... of its members.  It has endured and also produced saints, various and numerous, despite our own particular failings.

This Eucharist at issue must be more than a symbol, remote and divorced from the One who instituted it, if one simply looks at the evidence.  
You have no idea how much I wish it were that simple Father.

Quote
This Church has never renounced it, never undermined it, and gathered great strength from it.
 
Unfortunately knowing that doesn't fill me with confidence as it does yourself.

Quote
The enemy, on the other hand, never ceases to desecrate it and mock it.
The devil attacks the Eucharist.  If it was merely a symbol, he would not care for it.
I don't see the logic in that Father, i'm sorry. The devil will get Christian v Christian fighting and arguing about anything petty or significant. How many Christians argue over tithing and songs vs hymns? The fact that it's an issue doesn't prove its significance at all.

* * *

Quote
Just as bread and wine can be Body and Blood, so can words be Spirit and Life.  See how this words?  What God does is not what man does.  He thoughts are not our thoughts, and His works are not our works.  Just because Jesus Christ speaks Spirit and Life does not mean He does not use words.  The words don't stop being words, just as the form of bread and wine remain the same.

Do you see the comparison?  If His words can be something else in addition to their common existence, so can other things.
I think i see what you're saying but i just think in this sense he meant that he was speaking of spiritual matters, simply just that. He was trying to communicate a spiritual truth.

Quote
As for the passage in St. Matthew, it is plainly obvious what is happening: He is preparing to be arrested and crucified, something the Apostles do not yet understand (which is why they run).

The fulfillment of the Eucharist is the New Jerusalem, when we are resurrected with Him and the final re-communion of God and man is accomplished. Until that time, we drink of the cup as He commanded us.

Does this answer your question?
Umm... it probably does but i just need to let it settle for a while.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: FatherGiryus on January 14, 2012, 04:37:22 PM
I know a lot has been thrown at you at once, and most of it will take time to sink in.  Orthodoxy is a very different way of thinking, and changing the way we think is one of the hardest tasks for mankind.

I don't think the Scriptures are any less explicit about the Eucharist as they are about any of the other Mysteries of the Church: otherwise, we would not have so many disagreements as you pointed out.  Even the Divinity of Christ and the Trinity, which you say are very clear, have not been so, historically-speaking.  I purposefully mentioned those things to see if you would make the connections.


I've never quite understood the Protestant objection to the Eucharist.  
Firstly because when many people read "Eucharist" a red flag goes up and they think Rome, slippery slope, shut my ears, idolatry, Mary, switch off and think of scripture before the devil gets a foothold in my mind. If we do manage to view the bull in its natural habitat rather than with our red flags prepping for a fight, then we'd probably realise it's not the scary beast we thought it was.

Quote
Everything else in Christianity is just as improbably: the Trinity, the Incarnate God, Baptism, the indwelling Holy Spirit, etc.
Equally improbable they might be but God in three persons, the Incarnation, baptism and the indwelling Holy Spirit are fairly explicit in scripture where as the 'real presence' in the bread and wine is not, at least to us it's not.

Secondly, to worship anything other than God Himself is wrong and very seriously wrong (as you'd agree) and to us, this is worship that is due to God alone being given to an act that is for us, a representation of a spiritual truth.

Quote
I think you would have just as hard of a time convincing a die-hard atheist that the bread and wine are Body and Blood as you would convincing him that God dwells within you and speaks to you!
#laughs -- yes we would!

Quote
From pure physics, nothing of Christianity makes sense. It all appears to be impossible nonsense, and so you can't really use a strictly rational process to figure it out.  If you did, I think that I could very easily disprove all of it, and even the faith of those who 'claim' to have the Holy Spirit but are such reprehensible fools that their claims of divine connection automatically exclude any such possibility: a perfect Being would not waste His time with such a transparently self-impressed moron.

We are all poor representatives of Him.
I agree we are at time and at other times we manage by his grace and mercy to get things right and make amazing strides forward, usually when we manage to be humble, then we're at our most useful.

Quote
At the same time, if one approaches not from the 'how' but from the 'what,' it all is obvious.  The Church has outlasted horrific persecution and decadence, heresy and carelessness, hyper-strictness and debauchery... of its members.  It has endured and also produced saints, various and numerous, despite our own particular failings.

This Eucharist at issue must be more than a symbol, remote and divorced from the One who instituted it, if one simply looks at the evidence.  
You have no idea how much I wish it were that simple Father.

Quote
This Church has never renounced it, never undermined it, and gathered great strength from it.
 
Unfortunately knowing that doesn't fill me with confidence as it does yourself.

Quote
The enemy, on the other hand, never ceases to desecrate it and mock it.
The devil attacks the Eucharist.  If it was merely a symbol, he would not care for it.
I don't see the logic in that Father, i'm sorry. The devil will get Christian v Christian fighting and arguing about anything petty or significant. How many Christians argue over tithing and songs vs hymns? The fact that it's an issue doesn't prove its significance at all.

* * *

Quote
Just as bread and wine can be Body and Blood, so can words be Spirit and Life.  See how this words?  What God does is not what man does.  He thoughts are not our thoughts, and His works are not our works.  Just because Jesus Christ speaks Spirit and Life does not mean He does not use words.  The words don't stop being words, just as the form of bread and wine remain the same.

Do you see the comparison?  If His words can be something else in addition to their common existence, so can other things.
I think i see what you're saying but i just think in this sense he meant that he was speaking of spiritual matters, simply just that. He was trying to communicate a spiritual truth.

Quote
As for the passage in St. Matthew, it is plainly obvious what is happening: He is preparing to be arrested and crucified, something the Apostles do not yet understand (which is why they run).

The fulfillment of the Eucharist is the New Jerusalem, when we are resurrected with Him and the final re-communion of God and man is accomplished. Until that time, we drink of the cup as He commanded us.

Does this answer your question?
Umm... it probably does but i just need to let it settle for a while.

[/quote]
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: FountainPen on January 15, 2012, 02:51:37 AM
Can someone also explain to me how the human nature of Christ, one of the two natures of Christ which are distinct, yet in union and not transferable to one another (or each would not remain two distinct and separate natures in union) can be physically omnipresent in the Eucharist? If that were so, then his human nature would not be 100% man as a man can only be present in one place at one time.




Can a fully human person be hung from a Cross until dead and then physically resurrect?  Can a person come back to life and have someone else actually put his hand into his wounds?

Can God Almighty be present in the form of bread and wine if he wills it... ?

Marc, can you not see the reason i'm questioning it is because the implications of Christ's human body being in more than one place? If that were so, it would mean he wasn't fully human and that would present a serious problem with His nature. I'm not questioning it because i don't think it possible -- anything is possible to God.

I'm not sure i'm with Peter on the 'glorified body' issues either -- I don't know.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: FountainPen on January 15, 2012, 03:09:55 AM
Can someone explain to me John 6:63?

"The words i have spoken to you are spirit and are life."
Since you don't like me answering a question with a question, I'll just simply offer a statement in answer. It seems to me that you're creating a false dichotomy between spirit and matter (i.e., the flesh) as if the two can have no union with each other, as if the things of the spirit cannot manifest themselves through matter. Why can bread and wine not be united to Christ through the Holy Spirit such that they become Christ's body and blood and thereby communicate to us the life of the Spirit?
I don't think i do -- i think it just seems like that possibly because i'm not being clear. I'll try and think a little longer about my responses before i post them.
I'm just reading what Chrysostom has to say about this verse so i'll get back to you about this in a bit.

and

Matthew 26:29

Why would Jesus speak figuratively of his blood as the "fruit of the vine" if it was his literal blood?
Maybe because when the wine becomes His blood, it never ceases to ALSO remain what it was. After all, how many priests have not become a bit tipsy on occasion upon consuming what remains of Holy Communion after distributing it to the faithful?

Again i don't have an issue with that concept in general but whether that is what's happening here, i just can't accept that it's a mystery as an answer because i don't believe scripture permits us that in this case.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: FountainPen on January 15, 2012, 03:16:29 AM
Do I believe that I am smarter, or somehow more intelligent, or better informed than the “Fathers” or the “Martyrs?”

No, because:
(1) I do not know, I rely on scripture
(2) in my reliance on Scripture, I am relying on what God has told me in 1 Corinthians 2:16 – I have the mind of Christ.

These things are not stated in my defense or as applying to me alone. These statements are true of any and all believers. A believer is one as defined in John 3:1‐18.
First of all your use of quote marks sickens me. These people died for Christ, show some respect.

Second, you also spit on the Anglicans and many Lutherans who also hold to the Real Presence out of a sense of sola scriptura. In fact, you've never met anyone more hard headed than a Lutheran defending Real Presence and they act exactly like you, "I'm just saying what Scripture says!" So, do they also have the mind of Christ?

Do the Jehovah's Witnesses who deny the Trinity and claim Christ is an angel possess the mind of Christ? How do you know they don't? Because Scripture plainly contradicts them? Well, they would also say Scripture plainly contradicts you?

See what I'm getting at? I'm not saying Orthodoxy does not share problems of knowing just what the Scriptures are saying, Tradition isn't a "magic bullet" that removes the need for critical thought, but it seems to me that relying on the witness of a existing body of believers that has been unanimous on the broad points (not saying their haven't been conflicts but the main doctrines of Orthodoxy are pretty much traceable in the Fathers back to the Apostolic age) makes a lot more sense that relying on yourself as an independent conduit of the Spirit who could theoretically be the last sane man on earth and the last true believer.




Piggy backing off my last post, now addressing FountainPen:

See where I'm going with this? You (the generic you) may not be a Lone Ranger, the only person in the world who's correct, now but there's nothing stopping you from being such in theory. Where's the importance of community in that? That's my biggest problem with the way you're reading Matthew 16. God wants to preserve a family, not a group of dead and alive ships passing in the night who just happen to share the same beliefs and atomic relationship to Him almost by accident.

Yes i do see...and it also presents the same problem for me, for the same reasons.

I'm going to need some time on this issue not because i don't have a response but because i need to think about it a little more. Thanks vol.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: FountainPen on January 15, 2012, 03:24:19 AM
Can someone also explain to me how the human nature of Christ, one of the two natures of Christ which are distinct, yet in union and not transferable to one another (or each would not remain two distinct and separate natures in union) can be physically omnipresent in the Eucharist? If that were so, then his human nature would not be 100% man as a man can only be present in one place at one time.

Can you explain to me how 5 loaves and 2 fish filled the bellies of 5000 people plus 12 baskets? Others are not wrong to point out to you that Christ's glorified human body is not necessarily subject to the same rules as (what we consider) 'normal' human nature, but we really don't even have to go that far in speculating about what is 'natural' to such a body.
Again, i'm not suggesting it's not possible. I'm concerned about the impact this would have on His being 100% human.

Quote
Also, it's incorrect to say that His body is 'omnipresent'. It is present on the altar, in the chalice, in the body of believers, but it is not in the trunk of my car, it is not my computer screen, it is not on the moon (at least not until a church is built there). It is certainly present in more places than can be explained any way but miraculously (although, again, it is a miracle Christ actually demonstrated), but it is still present in only a finite number of places. There is no confusion between the human nature and Divine omnipresence in this.

Yes you're correct about this.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Volnutt on January 15, 2012, 04:01:33 AM
Do I believe that I am smarter, or somehow more intelligent, or better informed than the “Fathers” or the “Martyrs?”

No, because:
(1) I do not know, I rely on scripture
(2) in my reliance on Scripture, I am relying on what God has told me in 1 Corinthians 2:16 – I have the mind of Christ.

These things are not stated in my defense or as applying to me alone. These statements are true of any and all believers. A believer is one as defined in John 3:1‐18.
First of all your use of quote marks sickens me. These people died for Christ, show some respect.

Second, you also spit on the Anglicans and many Lutherans who also hold to the Real Presence out of a sense of sola scriptura. In fact, you've never met anyone more hard headed than a Lutheran defending Real Presence and they act exactly like you, "I'm just saying what Scripture says!" So, do they also have the mind of Christ?

Do the Jehovah's Witnesses who deny the Trinity and claim Christ is an angel possess the mind of Christ? How do you know they don't? Because Scripture plainly contradicts them? Well, they would also say Scripture plainly contradicts you?

See what I'm getting at? I'm not saying Orthodoxy does not share problems of knowing just what the Scriptures are saying, Tradition isn't a "magic bullet" that removes the need for critical thought, but it seems to me that relying on the witness of a existing body of believers that has been unanimous on the broad points (not saying their haven't been conflicts but the main doctrines of Orthodoxy are pretty much traceable in the Fathers back to the Apostolic age) makes a lot more sense that relying on yourself as an independent conduit of the Spirit who could theoretically be the last sane man on earth and the last true believer.




Piggy backing off my last post, now addressing FountainPen:

See where I'm going with this? You (the generic you) may not be a Lone Ranger, the only person in the world who's correct, now but there's nothing stopping you from being such in theory. Where's the importance of community in that? That's my biggest problem with the way you're reading Matthew 16. God wants to preserve a family, not a group of dead and alive ships passing in the night who just happen to share the same beliefs and atomic relationship to Him almost by accident.

Yes i do see...and it also presents the same problem for me, for the same reasons.

I'm going to need some time on this issue not because i don't have a response but because i need to think about it a little more. Thanks vol.
No problem. I'm behind you all the way :)
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: FountainPen on January 15, 2012, 02:14:44 PM
No gurning.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Volnutt on January 15, 2012, 02:31:15 PM
No gurning.
I had to look that up. People will make world championships for anything apparently  :laugh:
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: witega on January 15, 2012, 03:27:58 PM
Can you explain to me how 5 loaves and 2 fish filled the bellies of 5000 people plus 12 baskets? Others are not wrong to point out to you that Christ's glorified human body is not necessarily subject to the same rules as (what we consider) 'normal' human nature, but we really don't even have to go that far in speculating about what is 'natural' to such a body.
Again, i'm not suggesting it's not possible. I'm concerned about the impact this would have on His being 100% human.

But that's exactly my point. Christ took 100% normal bread and by His divine power multiplied it. But it remained 100% normal bread. If Christ by His divine power multiplies His flesh how does that have any impact on whether it remains 'fully human'?
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: biro on January 15, 2012, 03:33:18 PM
The power of God is infinite. I don't understand how He made the universe- I don't understand a lot of things.  ;) I believe what Jesus tells me, though.

Sorry to repeat myself but:

Jn. 6:50-59

50This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.

    51I am the living bread which came down from heaven.

    52If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.

    53The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

    54Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.

    55He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

    56For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.

    57He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.

    58As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me.

    59This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Marc1152 on January 15, 2012, 08:25:16 PM
Can someone also explain to me how the human nature of Christ, one of the two natures of Christ which are distinct, yet in union and not transferable to one another (or each would not remain two distinct and separate natures in union) can be physically omnipresent in the Eucharist? If that were so, then his human nature would not be 100% man as a man can only be present in one place at one time.




Can a fully human person be hung from a Cross until dead and then physically resurrect?  Can a person come back to life and have someone else actually put his hand into his wounds?

Can God Almighty be present in the form of bread and wine if he wills it... ?

Marc, can you not see the reason i'm questioning it is because the implications of Christ's human body being in more than one place? If that were so, it would mean he wasn't fully human and that would present a serious problem with His nature. I'm not questioning it because i don't think it possible -- anything is possible to God.

I'm not sure i'm with Peter on the 'glorified body' issues either -- I don't know.

The real problem is that we are dealing with two different types of religion. One born of the Western experience which was influenced by the  "Enlightenment", and 19th Century Utilitarianism. In other words, you are concerned with Mechanics and from that starting point you want to Reason your way through.  You need to know how things work.

You can also see this mind set in Roman Catholicism. They will give you, step by step, an explanation of  how things are arranged and how they work.

The East, see's such a line of questioning as blasphemous. How God comes to us in the form of bread and wine is way above our pay grade. Trying to logic your way through the incomprehensible strikes us a crass.

The Scriptures are very clear. Christ institutes the Eucharist at the last Supper and hints at it even before. "This is my body" , Not "Here is a metaphor for my body that you can use as a tool as a way to remember me". The Church from it's earliest moments goes out and establishes Communion with Christ centered on the Eucharist and then continues with the same practice and the same understanding for 2,000 years. What more is necessary to know?    
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Marc1152 on January 15, 2012, 08:36:45 PM
Can someone explain to me John 6:63?

"The words i have spoken to you are spirit and are life."
Since you don't like me answering a question with a question, I'll just simply offer a statement in answer. It seems to me that you're creating a false dichotomy between spirit and matter (i.e., the flesh) as if the two can have no union with each other, as if the things of the spirit cannot manifest themselves through matter. Why can bread and wine not be united to Christ through the Holy Spirit such that they become Christ's body and blood and thereby communicate to us the life of the Spirit?
I don't think i do -- i think it just seems like that possibly because i'm not being clear. I'll try and think a little longer about my responses before i post them.
I'm just reading what Chrysostom has to say about this verse so i'll get back to you about this in a bit.

and

Matthew 26:29

Why would Jesus speak figuratively of his blood as the "fruit of the vine" if it was his literal blood?
Maybe because when the wine becomes His blood, it never ceases to ALSO remain what it was. After all, how many priests have not become a bit tipsy on occasion upon consuming what remains of Holy Communion after distributing it to the faithful?

Again i don't have an issue with that concept in general but whether that is what's happening here, i just can't accept that it's a mystery as an answer because i don't believe scripture permits us that in this case.

 i just can't accept that it's a mystery as an answer because i don't believe scripture permits us that in this case.



That is where Holy Tradition comes in. Saint after Saint, theologian after Theologian didnt miss a loophole.."Oh crap, we didn't think about Christ's human body being multiple places at once".. We don't reinvent Christianity with each new generation.. You cant accept the incomprehensible because you want to understand your Religion as if was a machine.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: FatherGiryus on January 15, 2012, 09:11:59 PM
I'm going to be off line for a while, so as a last post I'd offer allto consider this book:

http://www.amazon.com/BREAK-HOLY-BREAD-MASTER-ebook/dp/B004Z8N5DC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1326676264&sr=8-1 (http://www.amazon.com/BREAK-HOLY-BREAD-MASTER-ebook/dp/B004Z8N5DC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1326676264&sr=8-1)

So far, it has been an excellent read, and it deals with FP's questions rather well.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Volnutt on January 15, 2012, 11:33:23 PM
Is your basic question something like, "If Jesus is bodily in more than one place, then which one is the real Him?"
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: FountainPen on January 16, 2012, 04:13:49 AM
Is your basic question something like, "If Jesus is bodily in more than one place, then which one is the real Him?"

No.
I'm half way through the book that Fr. Giryus recommended at the moment and it's cleared up a couple of misunderstandings so far and made sense of what Peter said.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: HandmaidenofGod on January 16, 2012, 02:48:33 PM
... and made sense of what Peter said.

Wow! That book really is amazing!!!

j/k

(Just poking fun at you PtA!)  ;D  ;D  ;D
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Volnutt on January 16, 2012, 05:09:46 PM
Is your basic question something like, "If Jesus is bodily in more than one place, then which one is the real Him?"

No.
I'm half way through the book that Fr. Giryus recommended at the moment and it's cleared up a couple of misunderstandings so far and made sense of what Peter said.
I'm glad it's helping.  :)

I'd read it myself except my credit card is incommunicado until Wednesday.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Ortho_cat on January 17, 2012, 02:55:39 AM
Do I believe that I am smarter, or somehow more intelligent, or better informed than the “Fathers” or the “Martyrs?”

No, because:
(1) I do not know, I rely on scripture
(2) in my reliance on Scripture, I am relying on what God has told me in 1 Corinthians 2:16 – I have the mind of Christ.

These things are not stated in my defense or as applying to me alone. These statements are true of any and all believers. A believer is one as defined in John 3:1‐18.

And so because of what you interpret this verse to mean, you are now able to make infallible determinations regarding interpretation of scripture? What about all the millions of other Christians who come up with contradictory interpretations when reading the scriptures? What do you say to them? Is the mind of Christ divided?
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: biro on January 17, 2012, 09:26:52 AM
How does BGTF know that he has the mind of Christ? Did he agree with himself, or did somebody else tell him that?
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: FountainPen on January 17, 2012, 10:23:27 AM
How does BGTF know that he has the mind of Christ? Did he agree with himself, or did somebody else tell him that?
I think he probably was quoting

1 Corinthians 2:6-16

Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 17, 2012, 12:34:21 PM
How does BGTF know that he has the mind of Christ? Did he agree with himself, or did somebody else tell him that?
I think he probably was quoting

1 Corinthians 2:6-16
I don't think that answers biro's question, though. How does BGTF know he has the mind of Christ when BGTF goes to such lengths to disparage the Holy Apostles themselves, the very Apostles who revealed the mind of Christ to us?
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: primuspilus on January 17, 2012, 12:44:31 PM
So, can you have the mind of Christ and be wrong? St. Peter was, and I think he knew far more than you Alfred BGTF. The difference is that the Church, not individuals in-and-of themselves, can not be overcome by the gates of hell. You quote scripture, but then cast it aside when it does not serve your purposes. You cant have it both ways.

As a former protestant, that is something that I see is the major problem with Protestantism (especially Sola Scriptura and sola fide). It uses scripture as a proof text, but discount what the rest of scripture says (and what history says) to refute their ideas.

PP
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Marc1152 on January 17, 2012, 01:52:41 PM
So, can you have the mind of Christ and be wrong? St. Peter was, and I think he knew far more than you Alfred BGTF. The difference is that the Church, not individuals in-and-of themselves, can not be overcome by the gates of hell. You quote scripture, but then cast it aside when it does not serve your purposes. You cant have it both ways.

As a former protestant, that is something that I see is the major problem with Protestantism (especially Sola Scriptura and sola fide). It uses scripture as a proof text, but discount what the rest of scripture says (and what history says) to refute their ideas.

PP

I think the process is 1. Start with your conclusion 2. Find passages in Scripture and back into them

The question is then are you willing to apply the wisdom of Holy Tradition. They find passages the COULD mean what they need it to mean. We then have to say, it COULD mean that. How do you then know? Orthodox would then look and see how the passage has been held throughout the history of Christianity. If there is a consistent conclusion then that is what informs us, not our personal preference or only things within our comfort zone.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: primuspilus on January 17, 2012, 02:02:05 PM
So, can you have the mind of Christ and be wrong? St. Peter was, and I think he knew far more than you Alfred BGTF. The difference is that the Church, not individuals in-and-of themselves, can not be overcome by the gates of hell. You quote scripture, but then cast it aside when it does not serve your purposes. You cant have it both ways.

As a former protestant, that is something that I see is the major problem with Protestantism (especially Sola Scriptura and sola fide). It uses scripture as a proof text, but discount what the rest of scripture says (and what history says) to refute their ideas.

PP

I think the process is 1. Start with your conclusion 2. Find passages in Scripture and back into them

Fantastic way of explaining it.

PP
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: FountainPen on January 17, 2012, 02:33:05 PM
How does BGTF know that he has the mind of Christ? Did he agree with himself, or did somebody else tell him that?
I think he probably was quoting

1 Corinthians 2:6-16
I don't think that answers biro's question, though. How does BGTF know he has the mind of Christ when BGTF goes to such lengths to disparage the Holy Apostles themselves, the very Apostles who revealed the mind of Christ to us?

What makes you think i was trying to answer Biro's question?

I was simply providing the context for where BGTF's statement might have originated.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: FountainPen on January 17, 2012, 02:48:57 PM
So, can you have the mind of Christ and be wrong? St. Peter was, and I think he knew far more than you Alfred BGTF. The difference is that the Church, not individuals in-and-of themselves, can not be overcome by the gates of hell. You quote scripture, but then cast it aside when it does not serve your purposes. You cant have it both ways.

As a former protestant, that is something that I see is the major problem with Protestantism (especially Sola Scriptura and sola fide). It uses scripture as a proof text, but discount what the rest of scripture says (and what history says) to refute their ideas.

PP

I think the process is 1. Start with your conclusion 2. Find passages in Scripture and back into them

The question is then are you willing to apply the wisdom of Holy Tradition. They find passages the COULD mean what they need it to mean. We then have to say, it COULD mean that. How do you then know? Orthodox would then look and see how the passage has been held throughout the history of Christianity. If there is a consistent conclusion then that is what informs us, not our personal preference or only things within our comfort zone.

Oh you mean Holy Tradition? Let's start with the feast concerning the virgin Mary entering into the temple? One of the twelve major feasts i believe and certainly not without large areas of discrepancy. If you want to start a tone of ridicule in this thread Marc, then let's start with this feast and we can move on to other fundamental issues within Orthodoxy and examine them in the same tone shall we?

This is why i don't like your posts.

I do listen, i do think about what people say, i do give Orthodox explanations careful and prayerful consideration and i do apologise when i step over the line and offend. So I don't deserve the same treatment that you would give to someone who is only interested in the sound of their own voice and closed minded to any other possibilities.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 17, 2012, 02:54:24 PM
How does BGTF know that he has the mind of Christ? Did he agree with himself, or did somebody else tell him that?
I think he probably was quoting

1 Corinthians 2:6-16
I don't think that answers biro's question, though. How does BGTF know he has the mind of Christ when BGTF goes to such lengths to disparage the Holy Apostles themselves, the very Apostles who revealed the mind of Christ to us?

What makes you think i was trying to answer Biro's question?
You framed your reply around a quote from biro. Most people do that as a way of responding directly to the person being quoted, which implies pretty clearly that you were trying to answer biro's question.

I was simply providing the context for where BGTF's statement might have originated.
BGTF told us that he was citing 1 Corinthians 2:16, a verse with which many of us are familiar. There was therefore no need to provide the context for where BGTF's statement originated, because he already told us. That is, unless you thought it important to reiterate that in answer to biro's question. ;)
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: primuspilus on January 17, 2012, 03:03:56 PM
Quote
Oh you mean Holy Tradition? Let's start with the feast concerning the virgin Mary entering into the temple? One of the twelve major feasts i believe and certainly not without large areas of discrepancy. If you want to start a tone of ridicule in this thread Marc, then let's start with this feast and we can move on to other fundamental issues within Orthodoxy and examine them in the same tone shall we?
I would like to hear your comments on the discrepancies.

Quote
So I don't deserve the same treatment that you would give to someone who is only interested in the sound of their own voice and closed minded to any other possibilities
As I was one of the ones you quoted, I would like to respond. In no way was I attacking anyone personally, or their beliefs. I was simply referencing what, to me, was what was going on based on personal experience. I look at how Luther tried to remove scripture that he didn't agree with, and how he tried in invalidate the Septuagint (by removing some of the OT, because a hebrew version did not exist) simply at his whim. To me, that is exactly what Marc was saying.

PP
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: FountainPen on January 17, 2012, 03:08:05 PM
How does BGTF know that he has the mind of Christ? Did he agree with himself, or did somebody else tell him that?
I think he probably was quoting

1 Corinthians 2:6-16
I don't think that answers biro's question, though. How does BGTF know he has the mind of Christ when BGTF goes to such lengths to disparage the Holy Apostles themselves, the very Apostles who revealed the mind of Christ to us?

What makes you think i was trying to answer Biro's question?
You framed your reply around a quote from biro. Most people do that as a way of responding directly to the person being quoted, which implies pretty clearly that you were trying to answer biro's question.

I was simply providing the context for where BGTF's statement might have originated.
BGTF told us that he was citing 1 Corinthians 2:16, a verse with which many of us are familiar. There was therefore no need to provide the context for where BGTF's statement originated, because he already told us. That is, unless you thought it important to reiterate that in answer to biro's question. ;)

Well, i might have been following Biro's example in reiterating an important bible verse  ;)

I think i was simply being cautious Peter as when i first got here i used to post quite a few verses as references to my posts but was playfully admonished for not quoting them in context.  ;)
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: FountainPen on January 17, 2012, 03:17:04 PM
Quote
Oh you mean Holy Tradition? Let's start with the feast concerning the virgin Mary entering into the temple? One of the twelve major feasts i believe and certainly not without large areas of discrepancy. If you want to start a tone of ridicule in this thread Marc, then let's start with this feast and we can move on to other fundamental issues within Orthodoxy and examine them in the same tone shall we?
I would like to hear your comments on the discrepancies.

Quote
So I don't deserve the same treatment that you would give to someone who is only interested in the sound of their own voice and closed minded to any other possibilities
As I was one of the ones you quoted, I would like to respond. In no way was I attacking anyone personally, or their beliefs. I was simply referencing what, to me, was what was going on based on personal experience. I look at how Luther tried to remove scripture that he didn't agree with, and how he tried in invalidate the Septuagint (by removing some of the OT, because a hebrew version did not exist) simply at his whim. To me, that is exactly what Marc was saying.

PP

Well it might be your personal experience but i am an individual and i'm certainly not treating Holy Scripture so lightly and i do take it as a grave accusation and it's somewhat tiresome to have it throw up as standard so often.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: FormerReformer on January 17, 2012, 03:21:56 PM
So, can you have the mind of Christ and be wrong? St. Peter was, and I think he knew far more than you Alfred BGTF. The difference is that the Church, not individuals in-and-of themselves, can not be overcome by the gates of hell. You quote scripture, but then cast it aside when it does not serve your purposes. You cant have it both ways.

As a former protestant, that is something that I see is the major problem with Protestantism (especially Sola Scriptura and sola fide). It uses scripture as a proof text, but discount what the rest of scripture says (and what history says) to refute their ideas.

PP

I think the process is 1. Start with your conclusion 2. Find passages in Scripture and back into them

The question is then are you willing to apply the wisdom of Holy Tradition. They find passages the COULD mean what they need it to mean. We then have to say, it COULD mean that. How do you then know? Orthodox would then look and see how the passage has been held throughout the history of Christianity. If there is a consistent conclusion then that is what informs us, not our personal preference or only things within our comfort zone.

Oh you mean Holy Tradition? Let's start with the feast concerning the virgin Mary entering into the temple? One of the twelve major feasts i believe and certainly not without large areas of discrepancy. If you want to start a tone of ridicule in this thread Marc, then let's start with this feast and we can move on to other fundamental issues within Orthodoxy and examine them in the same tone shall we?

This is why i don't like your posts.

I do listen, i do think about what people say, i do give Orthodox explanations careful and prayerful consideration and i do apologise when i step over the line and offend. So I don't deserve the same treatment that you would give to someone who is only interested in the sound of their own voice and closed minded to any other possibilities.

In all fairness to all parties- PP and Marc's comments were aimed at BGTF, not you, Fountain Pen. And I think you'd have to admit that BGTF's comments on this thread have been rather high-handed, arrogant, imperious, and well deserving of mockery. The whole "I have the mind of Christ but I cannot discern a spiritual reality" really takes the cake, especially in context of the "mind of Christ" passage so helpfully provided by you. To us, the presence of Christ in the Eucharist can only be apprehended spiritually, human reasoning only leads to a tangle of contradictions that do injustice to both the Eucharistic reality and to the idea of biblical literacy claimed to be in such high regard by many Protestants.

As for Marc's comments, he is not being entirely unfair. Having been raised Southern Baptists I have read more than a few books in my youth that start with the conclusion "All alcohol is bad and so any wine mentioned in a positive light must have been grape juice" followed by proof-texts of Scripture tortured out of context and reason to prove their point (the most egregious being completely ignoring the wine-taster's remarks in the Wedding of Cana passage. Grape juice indeed).
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: primuspilus on January 17, 2012, 03:23:00 PM
Quote
Well it might be your personal experience but i am an individual and i'm certainly not treating Holy Scripture so lightly and i do take it as a grave accusation and it's somewhat tiresome to have it throw up as standard so often
I can say with complete assuredness, nobody on here, of any Christian stripe, takes scripture lightly. If you think so, then you have a more fundemental problem going on.

Furthmore, it is not a accusation. Luther did these things, and admitted to it. He had deep reservations about some of the epistles, and the Book of James. He also got some of the old testament books removed because there was no hebrew copy. Its not an accusation, it is history AND something luther made no apology for.

PP
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: FountainPen on January 17, 2012, 03:25:31 PM
Can you explain to me how 5 loaves and 2 fish filled the bellies of 5000 people plus 12 baskets? Others are not wrong to point out to you that Christ's glorified human body is not necessarily subject to the same rules as (what we consider) 'normal' human nature, but we really don't even have to go that far in speculating about what is 'natural' to such a body.
Again, i'm not suggesting it's not possible. I'm concerned about the impact this would have on His being 100% human.

But that's exactly my point. Christ took 100% normal bread and by His divine power multiplied it. But it remained 100% normal bread. If Christ by His divine power multiplies His flesh how does that have any impact on whether it remains 'fully human'?

I've been mulling this over and wonder if you could clarify the Orthodox position regarding both the human and divine natures of Jesus. Is it that they are completely separate yet in unity?
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: biro on January 17, 2012, 03:28:53 PM
Sorry if I caused any confusion.  :-\ I'm just going to get some tea now.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: primuspilus on January 17, 2012, 03:30:06 PM
Can you explain to me how 5 loaves and 2 fish filled the bellies of 5000 people plus 12 baskets? Others are not wrong to point out to you that Christ's glorified human body is not necessarily subject to the same rules as (what we consider) 'normal' human nature, but we really don't even have to go that far in speculating about what is 'natural' to such a body.
Again, i'm not suggesting it's not possible. I'm concerned about the impact this would have on His being 100% human.

But that's exactly my point. Christ took 100% normal bread and by His divine power multiplied it. But it remained 100% normal bread. If Christ by His divine power multiplies His flesh how does that have any impact on whether it remains 'fully human'?

I've been mulling this over and wonder if you could clarify the Orthodox position regarding both the human and divine natures of Jesus. Is it that they are completely separate yet in unity?
He is 100% God and 100% Man. Period.

PP
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: FountainPen on January 17, 2012, 03:33:55 PM
Quote
Well it might be your personal experience but i am an individual and i'm certainly not treating Holy Scripture so lightly and i do take it as a grave accusation and it's somewhat tiresome to have it throw up as standard so often
I can say with complete assuredness, nobody on here, of any Christian stripe, takes scripture lightly. If you think so, then you have a more fundemental problem going on.

Furthmore, it is not a accusation. Luther did these things, and admitted to it. He had deep reservations about some of the epistles, and the Book of James. He also got some of the old testament books removed because there was no hebrew copy. Its not an accusation, it is history AND something luther made no apology for.

PP
I was balking against the idea that i took scripture so lightly that i might utilise it to provide a proof-text for a belief of my own making. I haven't suggested anyone else here does.

I am not the embodiment of Protestant history here, i am simply myself, participating in a thread on a discussion forum. I'm sure Luther did a lot of things and held a lot of beliefs but i am not Lutheran and i'd like to be dealt with and understood as i present myself not under a box load of historic labels and preconceptions.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: biro on January 17, 2012, 03:34:58 PM
Quote
Well it might be your personal experience but i am an individual and i'm certainly not treating Holy Scripture so lightly and i do take it as a grave accusation and it's somewhat tiresome to have it throw up as standard so often
I can say with complete assuredness, nobody on here, of any Christian stripe, takes scripture lightly. If you think so, then you have a more fundemental problem going on.

Furthmore, it is not a accusation. Luther did these things, and admitted to it. He had deep reservations about some of the epistles, and the Book of James. He also got some of the old testament books removed because there was no hebrew copy. Its not an accusation, it is history AND something luther made no apology for.

PP
I was balking against the idea that i took scripture so lightly that i might utilise it to provide a proof-text a belief of my own. I haven't suggested anyone else here does.

I am not the embodiment of Protestant history here, i am simply myself, participating in a thread on a discussion forum. I'm sure Luther did a lot of things and held a lot of beliefs but i am not Lutheran and i'd like to be dealt with and understood as i present myself not under a box load of historic labels and preconceptions.

Fair enough.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: FountainPen on January 17, 2012, 03:36:33 PM
Can you explain to me how 5 loaves and 2 fish filled the bellies of 5000 people plus 12 baskets? Others are not wrong to point out to you that Christ's glorified human body is not necessarily subject to the same rules as (what we consider) 'normal' human nature, but we really don't even have to go that far in speculating about what is 'natural' to such a body.
Again, i'm not suggesting it's not possible. I'm concerned about the impact this would have on His being 100% human.

But that's exactly my point. Christ took 100% normal bread and by His divine power multiplied it. But it remained 100% normal bread. If Christ by His divine power multiplies His flesh how does that have any impact on whether it remains 'fully human'?

I've been mulling this over and wonder if you could clarify the Orthodox position regarding both the human and divine natures of Jesus. Is it that they are completely separate yet in unity?
He is 100% God and 100% Man. Period.

PP

That's not what i asked.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: HandmaidenofGod on January 17, 2012, 03:37:01 PM
Can you explain to me how 5 loaves and 2 fish filled the bellies of 5000 people plus 12 baskets? Others are not wrong to point out to you that Christ's glorified human body is not necessarily subject to the same rules as (what we consider) 'normal' human nature, but we really don't even have to go that far in speculating about what is 'natural' to such a body.
Again, i'm not suggesting it's not possible. I'm concerned about the impact this would have on His being 100% human.

But that's exactly my point. Christ took 100% normal bread and by His divine power multiplied it. But it remained 100% normal bread. If Christ by His divine power multiplies His flesh how does that have any impact on whether it remains 'fully human'?

I've been mulling this over and wonder if you could clarify the Orthodox position regarding both the human and divine natures of Jesus. Is it that they are completely separate yet in unity?

The Orthodox Church believes that Christ was completely human and completely divine. He did not sacrifice His Divine Nature when he became human, yet as a human he was tempted (but did not succumb) to sin, wept, sweat, bled, had to eat, sleep, use "the little boys room" etc.

Here is a fuller explanation from the Greek Orthodox Arcdiocese of America (http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8038):

Quote
Christ is at the same time the son of the Virgin, but also the natural Son of God, by His very nature. His humanity is a real humanity, with a body and soul, which suffered hunger and thirst, which suffered humiliation and the Cross. The Church condemned such heresies as that of the Docetists, who said that Christ's humanity was not real, Arios who taught that there was no soul in Jesus, and Apollinarios of Laodicea who taught that there was no reason in Jesus.

The Church also defended the divinity of Jesus against the Ebionites, who denied Christ's divinity, the Monarchian heresy which subordinated the Son to the Father, and Arianism, which also denied the divinity of the Logos of God. Against all these heretics the Church upheld the doctrine that Christ, a divine person, is "true God of true God," for He is the only begotten Son of God, not in a metaphorical, but a natural sense. He has the divine properties of omniscience and preexistence in terms of God's creation. He is the only one without sin: He operates miracles through His divinity, accepts divine honor and worship due to the divinity, and accepts faith in Him.

Humanity and divinity are hypostatically united together: the two natures exist in the one person of the Word who became flesh, a divine person (or hypostasis). Christ exists "in two natures," without being of two natures; the two natures exist united together "without confusion, without change, without division, without separation." (Council of Chalcedon). The first two adverbs are addressed against the heresy of Eutyches and the monophysites who confused the natures and the last two against the Nestorians, who separated and divided humanity and divinity in Christ.

Consequently, Christ has two wills also and two operations, one human and one divine; the two work together "to achieve man's salvation"; however, the human will and operation is always subjected to the divine (Third Council of Constantinople, the Sixth Ecumenical, against Monothelitism).

The consequences of this hypostatic union of the two natures in Christ are the "coinherence" of human and divine nature, the communicatio idiomatum, the natural sonship of Christ's humanity, one worship of the two natures in Christ, deification of Christ's human nature, Christ's double knowledge and power (however, attributed to one person), Christ's absolute unsinfulness, and the Mother of God being truly Theotokos and Virgin before, during, and after she gave birth to the only-begotten Son of God.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: FountainPen on January 17, 2012, 03:37:44 PM
Sorry if I caused any confusion.  :-\ I'm just going to get some tea now.

You always make me smile  :)
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: biro on January 17, 2012, 03:38:38 PM
You too, thanks.   ;)
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: FountainPen on January 17, 2012, 03:42:30 PM
Can you explain to me how 5 loaves and 2 fish filled the bellies of 5000 people plus 12 baskets? Others are not wrong to point out to you that Christ's glorified human body is not necessarily subject to the same rules as (what we consider) 'normal' human nature, but we really don't even have to go that far in speculating about what is 'natural' to such a body.
Again, i'm not suggesting it's not possible. I'm concerned about the impact this would have on His being 100% human.

But that's exactly my point. Christ took 100% normal bread and by His divine power multiplied it. But it remained 100% normal bread. If Christ by His divine power multiplies His flesh how does that have any impact on whether it remains 'fully human'?

I've been mulling this over and wonder if you could clarify the Orthodox position regarding both the human and divine natures of Jesus. Is it that they are completely separate yet in unity?

The Orthodox Church believes that Christ was completely human and completely divine. He did not sacrifice His Divine Nature when he became human, yet as a human he was tempted (but did not succumb) to sin, wept, sweat, bled, had to eat, sleep, use "the little boys room" etc.

Here is a fuller explanation from the Greek Orthodox Arcdiocese of America (http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8038):

Quote
Christ is at the same time the son of the Virgin, but also the natural Son of God, by His very nature. His humanity is a real humanity, with a body and soul, which suffered hunger and thirst, which suffered humiliation and the Cross. The Church condemned such heresies as that of the Docetists, who said that Christ's humanity was not real, Arios who taught that there was no soul in Jesus, and Apollinarios of Laodicea who taught that there was no reason in Jesus.

The Church also defended the divinity of Jesus against the Ebionites, who denied Christ's divinity, the Monarchian heresy which subordinated the Son to the Father, and Arianism, which also denied the divinity of the Logos of God. Against all these heretics the Church upheld the doctrine that Christ, a divine person, is "true God of true God," for He is the only begotten Son of God, not in a metaphorical, but a natural sense. He has the divine properties of omniscience and preexistence in terms of God's creation. He is the only one without sin: He operates miracles through His divinity, accepts divine honor and worship due to the divinity, and accepts faith in Him.

Humanity and divinity are hypostatically united together: the two natures exist in the one person of the Word who became flesh, a divine person (or hypostasis). Christ exists "in two natures," without being of two natures; the two natures exist united together "without confusion, without change, without division, without separation." (Council of Chalcedon). The first two adverbs are addressed against the heresy of Eutyches and the monophysites who confused the natures and the last two against the Nestorians, who separated and divided humanity and divinity in Christ.

Consequently, Christ has two wills also and two operations, one human and one divine; the two work together "to achieve man's salvation"; however, the human will and operation is always subjected to the divine (Third Council of Constantinople, the Sixth Ecumenical, against Monothelitism).

The consequences of this hypostatic union of the two natures in Christ are the "coinherence" of human and divine nature, the communicatio idiomatum, the natural sonship of Christ's humanity, one worship of the two natures in Christ, deification of Christ's human nature, Christ's double knowledge and power (however, attributed to one person), Christ's absolute unsinfulness, and the Mother of God being truly Theotokos and Virgin before, during, and after she gave birth to the only-begotten Son of God.

Bingo! Thanks, the quote and link is really helpful.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: witega on January 17, 2012, 03:45:29 PM
Can you explain to me how 5 loaves and 2 fish filled the bellies of 5000 people plus 12 baskets? Others are not wrong to point out to you that Christ's glorified human body is not necessarily subject to the same rules as (what we consider) 'normal' human nature, but we really don't even have to go that far in speculating about what is 'natural' to such a body.
Again, i'm not suggesting it's not possible. I'm concerned about the impact this would have on His being 100% human.

But that's exactly my point. Christ took 100% normal bread and by His divine power multiplied it. But it remained 100% normal bread. If Christ by His divine power multiplies His flesh how does that have any impact on whether it remains 'fully human'?

I've been mulling this over and wonder if you could clarify the Orthodox position regarding both the human and divine natures of Jesus. Is it that they are completely separate yet in unity?


Chirst is one person with two natures, fully divine and fully human. The two natures are never divided but never confused. (The definitive statement on this, that all Orthodox accept, can be found in the definition of the 5th Ecumenical (available on-line in the Post-Nicean Fathers series--I'd post a link but don't have time to dig it out from work, if you google it you can find it easily).
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: HandmaidenofGod on January 17, 2012, 03:47:09 PM
Bingo! Thanks, the quote and link is really helpful.

No problem! Glad to be of service!  ;D
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: FountainPen on January 17, 2012, 03:54:16 PM
Can you explain to me how 5 loaves and 2 fish filled the bellies of 5000 people plus 12 baskets? Others are not wrong to point out to you that Christ's glorified human body is not necessarily subject to the same rules as (what we consider) 'normal' human nature, but we really don't even have to go that far in speculating about what is 'natural' to such a body.
Again, i'm not suggesting it's not possible. I'm concerned about the impact this would have on His being 100% human.

But that's exactly my point. Christ took 100% normal bread and by His divine power multiplied it. But it remained 100% normal bread. If Christ by His divine power multiplies His flesh how does that have any impact on whether it remains 'fully human'?

I've been mulling this over and wonder if you could clarify the Orthodox position regarding both the human and divine natures of Jesus. Is it that they are completely separate yet in unity?


Chirst is one person with two natures, fully divine and fully human. The two natures are never divided but never confused. (The definitive statement on this, that all Orthodox accept, can be found in the definition of the 5th Ecumenical (available on-line in the Post-Nicean Fathers series--I'd post a link but don't have time to dig it out from work, if you google it you can find it easily).
I found it, thanks.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Marc1152 on January 17, 2012, 04:54:04 PM
So, can you have the mind of Christ and be wrong? St. Peter was, and I think he knew far more than you Alfred BGTF. The difference is that the Church, not individuals in-and-of themselves, can not be overcome by the gates of hell. You quote scripture, but then cast it aside when it does not serve your purposes. You cant have it both ways.

As a former protestant, that is something that I see is the major problem with Protestantism (especially Sola Scriptura and sola fide). It uses scripture as a proof text, but discount what the rest of scripture says (and what history says) to refute their ideas.

PP

I think the process is 1. Start with your conclusion 2. Find passages in Scripture and back into them

The question is then are you willing to apply the wisdom of Holy Tradition. They find passages the COULD mean what they need it to mean. We then have to say, it COULD mean that. How do you then know? Orthodox would then look and see how the passage has been held throughout the history of Christianity. If there is a consistent conclusion then that is what informs us, not our personal preference or only things within our comfort zone.

Oh you mean Holy Tradition? Let's start with the feast concerning the virgin Mary entering into the temple? One of the twelve major feasts i believe and certainly not without large areas of discrepancy. If you want to start a tone of ridicule in this thread Marc, then let's start with this feast and we can move on to other fundamental issues within Orthodoxy and examine them in the same tone shall we?

This is why i don't like your posts.

I do listen, i do think about what people say, i do give Orthodox explanations careful and prayerful consideration and i do apologise when i step over the line and offend. So I don't deserve the same treatment that you would give to someone who is only interested in the sound of their own voice and closed minded to any other possibilities.

With out any sarcasm or hidden meaning, I really don't follow what you are talking about. Can you be clearer or ask a question?

I laid out what appears to me to be the Protestant method. You take passages that could mean any number of things. You then claim to know it's one true meaning, the one that fits your agenda. It's all up to you and your personal interpretation.

On the  other hand we use Holy Tradition which asks a very simple question; How has this passage been understood throughout the Church over a very long period of time? If there has been a consistent reading, we then don't go further with our own personal spin.

It think that is a cogent analysis. Sorry if it makes you not like me. I'll live.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Marc1152 on January 17, 2012, 05:06:56 PM
This is from:   http://www.goarch.org/special/listen_learn_share/vmpresentation/

Introduction

The Feast of the Entrance into the Temple of Our Most Holy Lady the Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary is celebrated on November 21 each year. The Feast commemorates when as a young child, the Virgin Mary entered the Temple in Jerusalem.
Introduction

The birth and early life of the Virgin Mary is not recorded in the Gospels or other books of the New Testament, however this information can be found in a work dating from the second century known as the Book of James or Protevangelion.
----------------------------

How did the Bible come to be compiled? Was it compiled in the 2nd centruy? Certainly not. But there were many "books" in circulation before any of them were canonized. And who decided? Wasn't it the Orthodox-Catholic Church.. us ?

Why are there four Gospels and not just one. Why are there not ten, there could have been. Just because a book didnt make the final cut doesn't mean it is disreputable. We hold the writings of the Fathers of the Church in high regard if they withstand the test of time and don't contradict Holy Scripture.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Volnutt on January 17, 2012, 05:07:20 PM
Stop implying she has some kind of hidden agenda. We've all got biases and we all try to work around them as best we can in order to find out what passages mean. You're coming off like a real prig.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: biro on January 17, 2012, 05:08:28 PM
Stop implying she has some kind of hidden agenda. We've all got biases and we all try to work around them as best we can in order to find out what passages mean. You're coming off like a real prig.

Who is coming off like a prig?  ???
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Volnutt on January 17, 2012, 05:10:44 PM
This is from:   http://www.goarch.org/special/listen_learn_share/vmpresentation/

Introduction

The Feast of the Entrance into the Temple of Our Most Holy Lady the Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary is celebrated on November 21 each year. The Feast commemorates when as a young child, the Virgin Mary entered the Temple in Jerusalem.
Introduction

The birth and early life of the Virgin Mary is not recorded in the Gospels or other books of the New Testament, however this information can be found in a work dating from the second century known as the Book of James or Protevangelion.
----------------------------


Err, that's going to result in quite a rabbit hole. We should stick to the toe-pick at hand.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Volnutt on January 17, 2012, 05:11:19 PM
Stop implying she has some kind of hidden agenda. We've all got biases and we all try to work around them as best we can in order to find out what passages mean. You're coming off like a real prig.

Who is coming off like a prig?  ???
Sorry. Marky-Marc is.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: biro on January 17, 2012, 05:12:01 PM
Okay, then.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Marc1152 on January 17, 2012, 05:16:03 PM
Stop implying she has some kind of hidden agenda. We've all got biases and we all try to work around them as best we can in order to find out what passages mean. You're coming off like a real prig.

Say what? I wasnt talking about someones personal agenda. I was speaking about Standard Protestant Methodology.

Conclusion first.. Pick a passage that could mean several things. Claim it means what you need it to mean.

Nothing personal intended.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: primuspilus on January 17, 2012, 05:19:53 PM
Stop implying she has some kind of hidden agenda. We've all got biases and we all try to work around them as best we can in order to find out what passages mean. You're coming off like a real prig.

Say what? I wasnt talking about someones personal agenda. I was speaking about Standard Protestant Methodology.

Conclusion first.. Pick a passage that could mean several things. Claim it means what you need it to mean.

Nothing personal intended.
To cite an example:

Can someone tell me, where in scripture exactly, asking Jesus into your heart (as in the Evangelical born-again sinner's prayer, not the Jesus prayer) saves you at that moment and guarantees your salvation once for all time?

Ah, also, no glib, "the prayer doesn't save you, Jesus does" answer. You know what I mean.

PP
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: FountainPen on January 17, 2012, 05:22:12 PM

With out any sarcasm or hidden meaning, I really don't follow what you are talking about.
Why am i not surprised?

Can you be clearer or ask a question?
Yes probably.

I laid out what appears to me to be the Protestant method. You
Me?

take passages that could mean any number of things. You
I do? Where have i done this?

then claim to know it's one true meaning,
Where have i quoted a passage of scripture and claimed it only had one meaning?

the one that fits your agenda.
This, is precisely my point.

It's all up to you and your personal interpretation.
Where have i not listened to others' explanations and interpretations? I think you will find i've asked for others' views and definitions to assist my process on several occasions Marc.

On the  other hand we use Holy Tradition which asks a very simple question; How has this passage been understood throughout the Church over a very long period of time? If there has been a consistent reading, we then don't go further with our own personal spin.

It think that is a cogent analysis.
LOL! Only when spelling cogent, E_R_R_O_N_E_O_U_S.

Sorry if it makes you not like me. I'll live.
Again, where have i said i dislike you? Completely inaccurate once again, i think what i actually said was, i dislike your posts.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: FountainPen on January 17, 2012, 05:25:32 PM
Stop implying she has some kind of hidden agenda. We've all got biases and we all try to work around them as best we can in order to find out what passages mean. You're coming off like a real prig.

Say what? I wasnt talking about someones personal agenda. I was speaking about Standard Protestant Methodology.

Conclusion first.. Pick a passage that could mean several things. Claim it means what you need it to mean.

Nothing personal intended.
To cite an example:

Can someone tell me, where in scripture exactly, asking Jesus into your heart (as in the Evangelical born-again sinner's prayer, not the Jesus prayer) saves you at that moment and guarantees your salvation once for all time?

Ah, also, no glib, "the prayer doesn't save you, Jesus does" answer. You know what I mean.

PP

If i did hold to the idea of 'asking Jesus into one's heart' (which i don't), then i would have to say it isn't any more in scripture than the word "Trinity" is that most faiths who believe in the Trinity commonly use.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: primuspilus on January 17, 2012, 05:32:18 PM
Stop implying she has some kind of hidden agenda. We've all got biases and we all try to work around them as best we can in order to find out what passages mean. You're coming off like a real prig.

Say what? I wasnt talking about someones personal agenda. I was speaking about Standard Protestant Methodology.

Conclusion first.. Pick a passage that could mean several things. Claim it means what you need it to mean.

Nothing personal intended.
To cite an example:

Can someone tell me, where in scripture exactly, asking Jesus into your heart (as in the Evangelical born-again sinner's prayer, not the Jesus prayer) saves you at that moment and guarantees your salvation once for all time?

Ah, also, no glib, "the prayer doesn't save you, Jesus does" answer. You know what I mean.

PP

If i did hold to the idea of 'asking Jesus into one's heart' (which i don't), then i would have to say it isn't any more in scripture than the word "Trinity" is that most faiths who believe in the Trinity commonly use.
True. That is the point I am making. Folks scream Scripture alone, but then they dont follow their own tenets because of such a stand.

BTW FP, I wasn't sugesting you did, but I mentioned it because I know you've probably heard of it.

PP
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: fleur-de-lys on January 17, 2012, 05:32:57 PM
*nothing to see here*

Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Marc1152 on January 17, 2012, 05:33:35 PM

With out any sarcasm or hidden meaning, I really don't follow what you are talking about.
Why am i not surprised?

Can you be clearer or ask a question?
Yes probably.

I laid out what appears to me to be the Protestant method. You
Me?

take passages that could mean any number of things. You
I do? Where have i done this?

then claim to know it's one true meaning,
Where have i quoted a passage of scripture and claimed it only had one meaning?

the one that fits your agenda.
This, is precisely my point.

It's all up to you and your personal interpretation.
Where have i not listened to others' explanations and interpretations? I think you will find i've asked for others' views and definitions to assist my process on several occasions Marc.

On the  other hand we use Holy Tradition which asks a very simple question; How has this passage been understood throughout the Church over a very long period of time? If there has been a consistent reading, we then don't go further with our own personal spin.

It think that is a cogent analysis.
LOL! Only when spelling cogent, E_R_R_O_N_E_O_U_S.

Sorry if it makes you not like me. I'll live.
Again, where have i said i dislike you? Completely inaccurate once again, i think what i actually said was, i dislike your posts.

I thought you were a Protestant. My error.

Once again. The Protestant method is to cherry pick scriptures that fit their self made views. Passages often can mean several different things. They pick the meaning that fits their own ideas. They reject Holy Tradition so it's every man for himself.

If you want to personalize this be my guest but I meant it as a General criticism
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Marc1152 on January 17, 2012, 05:38:08 PM
Why am i not surprised?


And ....? Did you want to talk about that Feast? Did you have a question about it? Are you speaking in code?
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: FountainPen on January 17, 2012, 05:41:42 PM
Why am i not surprised?


And ....? Did you want to talk about that Feast? Did you have a question about it? Are you speaking in code?

The way you read a post, everything would be in code.

I'm sorry i can't help you Marc, you can have a refund  ;)
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: FountainPen on January 17, 2012, 05:44:42 PM
*nothing to see here*



I read it before you deleted it. You had some good points, especially about humanity being limited but it not being a definition of being human. Still makes me eek a bit though, thinking of it in that way.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Ortho_cat on January 17, 2012, 05:54:22 PM
*nothing to see here*



I read it before you deleted it. You had some good points, especially about humanity being limited but it not being a definition of being human. Still makes me eek a bit though, thinking of it in that way.

i think its common netiquette not to refer to something that someone deleted in a post, they deleted it because they decided they didn't want to discuss it for some reason or another... ;)
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: katherineofdixie on January 17, 2012, 05:58:40 PM
The plain fact is that we all interpret Scripture - we can't help it, and it's not a bad thing, as long as we realize that we have our own pet theories, experiences, biases, education, assumptions etc. One thing that used to send me into a tizzy was that sincere, devout Christians could take a passage of Scripture and come to totally (and I mean, totally, as in totally opposite) different interpretations of what that passage means. Some folks interpret Genesis literally, and John 6 symbolically - without being able to clearly articulate on what basis they made that determination (consistent hermaneutic).

So how do you know? How can you possibly know whether the Bread and Wine are the Body and Blood, for example, or simply a cool way to remember Jesus and what He did for us?

Was I surprised to find out that you can actually know what Christians have believed, taught and preached for centuries. You can actually read what disciples of the Apostles taught their followers.


Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Volnutt on January 17, 2012, 06:12:36 PM
Stop implying she has some kind of hidden agenda. We've all got biases and we all try to work around them as best we can in order to find out what passages mean. You're coming off like a real prig.

Say what? I wasnt talking about someones personal agenda. I was speaking about Standard Protestant Methodology.

Conclusion first.. Pick a passage that could mean several things. Claim it means what you need it to mean.

Nothing personal intended.
Yes, but you're projecting this disingenuous "stand Protestant methodology" onto FP when it isn't warranted.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: fleur-de-lys on January 17, 2012, 06:28:35 PM
i think its common netiquette not to refer to something that someone deleted in a post, they deleted it because they decided they didn't want to discuss it for some reason or another... ;)

I missed a page of the thread. What I said was said by other people, and better.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: HandmaidenofGod on January 17, 2012, 07:06:45 PM
Fountain Pen and BGTF, I would like to share with you this blog posting by Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick. It was just posted today, and I think it may answer some of your questions on why we do the things we do and what we believe.

I'm not going to say too much about it, but I do hope you will read it.

Religion, Rules, and Reality (http://roadsfromemmaus.org/2012/01/17/religion-rules-and-reality/)

Enjoy!
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: xariskai on January 17, 2012, 08:20:23 PM
Marc, can you not see the reason i'm questioning it is because the implications of Christ's human body being in more than one place? If that were so, it would mean he wasn't fully human and that would present a serious problem with His nature.
To be vigorously consistent with this objection from necessary localization, would you deny Christ can be in us and we in Him or "wherever two or more gather in my name I am there with them"?

Is Christ really present in this manner or only symbolically present?
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: xariskai on January 17, 2012, 09:06:33 PM
I was balking against the idea that i took scripture so lightly that i might utilise it to provide a proof-text for a belief of my own making. I haven't suggested anyone else here does.
Such a process, I think, does not necessarily entail something nefarious; everyone who seeks to interpret scripture must do so within a constellation of assumptions which are not self-evident or resolvable strictly by the Renaissance Christian humanist model of grammatical/philological/historical exegesis.

The degree to which this operates within evangelicalism which on a popular level still leans toward outmoded foundationalist assumptions which are virtually indefensible when seriously scrutinized is explained by this Protestant author who has provided an excellent critique of his own tradition's historic sola scriptura (or as he puts it nuda scriptura!) stance (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37670.0.html).
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Marc1152 on January 17, 2012, 10:12:10 PM
Why am i not surprised?


And ....? Did you want to talk about that Feast? Did you have a question about it? Are you speaking in code?

The way you read a post, everything would be in code.

I'm sorry i can't help you Marc, you can have a refund  ;)


 You mentioned the Feast for some odd reason. I am guessing your point  is that Mary's entry into the Temple (a standard ritual for pious Jewish girls of her time) is not a story found in Scripture. As I pointed out before, it is found in a pious writing from the 2nd century written by a venerable and well thought of Father of Christianity.  

Does your Church hold weddings ( Rhetorical, no need to answer since I know you need to avoid engaging me)...?
Does the ceremony have the same pattern and ritual each time? The Groom comes in first, the bride walks down the isle latter, Dad gives her away, vows are said, etc.  Well my dear, that's Church Tradition. Where in Scripture does this pattern, ritual and these vows exist? No where, correct?

 But it is also not in contradiction to anything in Scripture and in fact, it upholds the sacrament of Holy Matrimony which we do find mention of in Scripture.

In fact, the Entry of the Theotokos into the Temple is far better grounded than your wedding ceremony. It's found in a very early 2nd Century writing, it upholds the principle of piety towards the Theotokos as found in Scripture and it is even historically accurate , there was such a ritual for young Jewish girls.  

I hope that helps. No need to reply..really.....none.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Marc1152 on January 17, 2012, 10:21:13 PM
Stop implying she has some kind of hidden agenda. We've all got biases and we all try to work around them as best we can in order to find out what passages mean. You're coming off like a real prig.

Say what? I wasnt talking about someones personal agenda. I was speaking about Standard Protestant Methodology.

Conclusion first.. Pick a passage that could mean several things. Claim it means what you need it to mean.

Nothing personal intended.
Yes, but you're projecting this disingenuous "stand Protestant methodology" onto FP when it isn't warranted.

By my reading of both Protestant Posters this is actually the crux of the question(s) at hand. My opinion , you don't need to agree, 
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 18, 2012, 04:19:20 AM

With out any sarcasm or hidden meaning, I really don't follow what you are talking about.
Why am i not surprised?

Can you be clearer or ask a question?
Yes probably.

I laid out what appears to me to be the Protestant method. You
Me?

take passages that could mean any number of things. You
I do? Where have i done this?

then claim to know it's one true meaning,
Where have i quoted a passage of scripture and claimed it only had one meaning?

the one that fits your agenda.
This, is precisely my point.

It's all up to you and your personal interpretation.
Where have i not listened to others' explanations and interpretations? I think you will find i've asked for others' views and definitions to assist my process on several occasions Marc.

On the  other hand we use Holy Tradition which asks a very simple question; How has this passage been understood throughout the Church over a very long period of time? If there has been a consistent reading, we then don't go further with our own personal spin.

It think that is a cogent analysis.
LOL! Only when spelling cogent, E_R_R_O_N_E_O_U_S.

Sorry if it makes you not like me. I'll live.
Again, where have i said i dislike you? Completely inaccurate once again, i think what i actually said was, i dislike your posts.

I thought you were a Protestant. My error.

Once again. The Protestant method is to cherry pick scriptures that fit their self made views. Passages often can mean several different things. They pick the meaning that fits their own ideas. They reject Holy Tradition so it's every man for himself.

If you want to personalize this be my guest but I meant it as a General criticism

Thats the thing.. If someone comes on here without 'orthodox' thinking or understanding, they are immediately looked upon as being 'protestant', with set 'methods' and then treated accordingly. It might be better to just treat people as people rather than 'protestants' or 'evangelicals' just because they don't sound orthodox and don't necessarily agree with exactly what 'orthodoxy' teaches.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 18, 2012, 09:13:57 AM

With out any sarcasm or hidden meaning, I really don't follow what you are talking about.
Why am i not surprised?

Can you be clearer or ask a question?
Yes probably.

I laid out what appears to me to be the Protestant method. You
Me?

take passages that could mean any number of things. You
I do? Where have i done this?

then claim to know it's one true meaning,
Where have i quoted a passage of scripture and claimed it only had one meaning?

the one that fits your agenda.
This, is precisely my point.

It's all up to you and your personal interpretation.
Where have i not listened to others' explanations and interpretations? I think you will find i've asked for others' views and definitions to assist my process on several occasions Marc.

On the  other hand we use Holy Tradition which asks a very simple question; How has this passage been understood throughout the Church over a very long period of time? If there has been a consistent reading, we then don't go further with our own personal spin.

It think that is a cogent analysis.
LOL! Only when spelling cogent, E_R_R_O_N_E_O_U_S.

Sorry if it makes you not like me. I'll live.
Again, where have i said i dislike you? Completely inaccurate once again, i think what i actually said was, i dislike your posts.

I thought you were a Protestant. My error.

Once again. The Protestant method is to cherry pick scriptures that fit their self made views. Passages often can mean several different things. They pick the meaning that fits their own ideas. They reject Holy Tradition so it's every man for himself.

If you want to personalize this be my guest but I meant it as a General criticism

Thats the thing.. If someone comes on here without 'orthodox' thinking or understanding, they are immediately looked upon as being 'protestant', with set 'methods' and then treated accordingly.
What evidence do you have that this is so?

It might be better to just treat people as people rather than 'protestants' or 'evangelicals' just because they don't sound orthodox and don't necessarily agree with exactly what 'orthodoxy' teaches.
Do you have any idea what Orthodoxy does teach? ISTM you might actually do well to follow your own advice.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: primuspilus on January 18, 2012, 10:29:07 AM
Quote
Thats the thing.. If someone comes on here without 'orthodox' thinking or understanding, they are immediately looked upon as being 'protestant', with set 'methods' and then treated accordingly. It might be better to just treat people as people rather than 'protestants' or 'evangelicals' just because they don't sound orthodox and don't necessarily agree with exactly what 'orthodoxy' teaches
That is simply not true. We dont call Roman Catholics protestants; and they dont share Orthodox beliefs on many things. However, when you espouse ideas and beliefs that protestantism shares (not to mention your name on this forum is the crux of evangelical protestantism) what do you want us to think/say?

PP
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 18, 2012, 10:40:51 AM
Get down off your high horse and open your eyes Peter! Goodness, are you ignorant!! I came onto this site without any idea what 'orthodox' teaching was. I made that clear. Thats why I came here. To ask questions and to learn! Some here have been great in sharing their understandings with me. Yet I was kicked off threads and relegated forcefully to this section because you and those other moderators quickly assumed I was protestant. I now realise it was because I had my own interpretation of what the bible said - and before you try and shoot me down for personal interpretation, I was asking questions! I was not instructing anyone. I made it clear I only got my understandings from the bible. I never said I got it from Luther or any other so called 'protestant' even though you insisted I did!

Where else do you expect any enquirer into christianity get their ideas from? Do you think people out there in the world like me say 'hmmm I'm interested in christianity, I'll head down to my local one true and holy orthodox church?'. Don't be ridiculous! There isn't an orthodox church within 300km from where I live, so what does one do? I go and pick up a bible and read it!

I read the bible without any outside influence from anyone, yet with a genuine interest in God! I might be wrong in all of the things I have interpreted, I'm sure you'd agree with that, you hypocrite, but if one is interested in Christianity, the first place to go is the bible! Do you think God will strike a man down for wanting to know about Him and reading a bible? Do you think God will judge a man for trying to find truth in the bible? Every time I go into a hotel, its the gideons who put the bible in the draw with a message of Jesus in there.. I've never seen a booklet with an invitation into the one holy and apostolic orthodox catholic whatever you want to call it in there. But, those gideons are just protestant heretic fools aren't they! How dare they put bibles out for people to read... Ooohh, think of all the heresy!! You jackass!

If one, who like me, having no idea about Jesus Christ or Christianity wanted to find the truth, how would we know which church we would find it in? The orthodox church? the catholic church? the protestant church? Too many choices for someone who is not as enlightened (or blinded really) as your ignorant self?

Your'e no example of the truth. Your'e no different to muslims and atheists. Your'e ignorant of those who are truly interested in salvation, and you think you are any reflection of Christ, and it is no wonder He is hated all over the world! I really do pray you come to the knowledge of the truth one day and think about the bigot that you are!

Oh and my name is Tim, for all of you out there who fantasize about this fictional Alfred character!

(http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/Themes/Pascha2010/images/warnwarn.gif)You are being warned (duration: 99 days) for the multiple ad hominem attacks in this post and two others in this thread.  You are certainly permitted to disagree with someone's position, or to characterize their behavior, but you are never permitted to attack their person.

If you feel this warning is in error, please contact via PM (using the "My Messages" link near the top of the screen) Fr. Chris, the forum administrator.

- Fr. George, Global Mod
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 18, 2012, 10:44:13 AM
Quote
Thats the thing.. If someone comes on here without 'orthodox' thinking or understanding, they are immediately looked upon as being 'protestant', with set 'methods' and then treated accordingly. It might be better to just treat people as people rather than 'protestants' or 'evangelicals' just because they don't sound orthodox and don't necessarily agree with exactly what 'orthodoxy' teaches
That is simply not true. We dont call Roman Catholics protestants; and they dont share Orthodox beliefs on many things. However, when you espouse ideas and beliefs that protestantism shares (not to mention your name on this forum is the crux of evangelical protestantism) what do you want us to think/say?

PP

Here we go! Another bright spark! What grade are you in? "Youre name on this forum is the crux of evangelical protestantism"! I could care less!!! It is written in Ephesians 2! I want you to know, I READ IT IN THE BIBLE!

You are being warned (duration: 99 days) for the multiple ad hominem attacks in this post and two others in this thread.  You are certainly permitted to disagree with someone's position, or to characterize their behavior, but you are never permitted to attack their person.

If you feel this warning is in error, please contact via PM (using the "My Messages" link near the top of the screen) Fr. Chris, the forum administrator.

- Fr. George, Global Mod
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 18, 2012, 10:45:58 AM
And yes. it would seem that ideas and beliefs from 'evangelical protestantism' COME FROM THE BIBLE! maybe thats why I sound like one!
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Mivac on January 18, 2012, 11:02:40 AM
Quote
Where else do you expect any enquirer into christianity get their ideas from?

Up until the invention of the printing press enquirers went to the Church, becoming disciples, and didn't spend hours trying to guess what is said in scripture, they were taught and entered into a new life.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 18, 2012, 11:04:37 AM
Quote
Where else do you expect any enquirer into christianity get their ideas from?

Up until the invention of the printing press enquirers went to the Church, becoming disciples, and didn't spend hours trying to guess what is said in scripture.

AND?
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 18, 2012, 11:09:45 AM
I love your ignorance too Mivac!! "Up until the invention"... Are we living 500 years ago or now? Back to never never land mate!

You are being warned (duration: 99 days) for the multiple ad hominem attacks in this post and two others in this thread.  You are certainly permitted to disagree with someone's position, or to characterize their behavior, but you are never permitted to attack their person.

If you feel this warning is in error, please contact via PM (using the "My Messages" link near the top of the screen) Fr. Chris, the forum administrator.

- Fr. George, Global Mod
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 18, 2012, 11:17:13 AM
How many hours do I need to spend studying to understand this:

Whoever calls upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ WILL BE SAVED?

Or does that need special interpretation too?
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: primuspilus on January 18, 2012, 11:18:33 AM
Quote
Thats the thing.. If someone comes on here without 'orthodox' thinking or understanding, they are immediately looked upon as being 'protestant', with set 'methods' and then treated accordingly. It might be better to just treat people as people rather than 'protestants' or 'evangelicals' just because they don't sound orthodox and don't necessarily agree with exactly what 'orthodoxy' teaches
That is simply not true. We dont call Roman Catholics protestants; and they dont share Orthodox beliefs on many things. However, when you espouse ideas and beliefs that protestantism shares (not to mention your name on this forum is the crux of evangelical protestantism) what do you want us to think/say?

PP

Here we go! Another bright spark! What grade are you in? "Youre name on this forum is the crux of evangelical protestantism"! I could care less!!! It is written in Ephesians 2! I want you to know, I READ IT IN THE BIBLE!
There is absolutely no reason for you to be insulting. I have treated you with courtesy and it would be nice to receive it. I am well aware of your name's reference being in the Bible. I mentioned your name because it is a very common cry from Protestants arguing Roman Catholics. If you cant hold water in debate, insults will just make you more foolish.

PP
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Marc1152 on January 18, 2012, 11:19:30 AM

With out any sarcasm or hidden meaning, I really don't follow what you are talking about.
Why am i not surprised?

Can you be clearer or ask a question?
Yes probably.

I laid out what appears to me to be the Protestant method. You
Me?

take passages that could mean any number of things. You
I do? Where have i done this?

then claim to know it's one true meaning,
Where have i quoted a passage of scripture and claimed it only had one meaning?

the one that fits your agenda.
This, is precisely my point.

It's all up to you and your personal interpretation.
Where have i not listened to others' explanations and interpretations? I think you will find i've asked for others' views and definitions to assist my process on several occasions Marc.

On the  other hand we use Holy Tradition which asks a very simple question; How has this passage been understood throughout the Church over a very long period of time? If there has been a consistent reading, we then don't go further with our own personal spin.

It think that is a cogent analysis.
LOL! Only when spelling cogent, E_R_R_O_N_E_O_U_S.

Sorry if it makes you not like me. I'll live.
Again, where have i said i dislike you? Completely inaccurate once again, i think what i actually said was, i dislike your posts.

I thought you were a Protestant. My error.

Once again. The Protestant method is to cherry pick scriptures that fit their self made views. Passages often can mean several different things. They pick the meaning that fits their own ideas. They reject Holy Tradition so it's every man for himself.

If you want to personalize this be my guest but I meant it as a General criticism

Thats the thing.. If someone comes on here without 'orthodox' thinking or understanding, they are immediately looked upon as being 'protestant', with set 'methods' and then treated accordingly. It might be better to just treat people as people rather than 'protestants' or 'evangelicals' just because they don't sound orthodox and don't necessarily agree with exactly what 'orthodoxy' teaches.

Here are your choices: Protestant, Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Mormon, JH, Jewish, Non Christian religions , Atheist, Agnostic.

Could you let me know where you stand ( sorry if you have mentioned it before). That way no one has to be so very put upon.

Thanks

Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: primuspilus on January 18, 2012, 11:21:31 AM
How many hours do I need to spend studying to understand this:

Whoever calls upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ WILL BE SAVED?

Or does that need special interpretation too?
What about Faith alone not saving? james 2:24? Does that need need your interpretation?
What about I Corinthians 9:27?
Quote
But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway

Doesnt sound like faith alone. Nor does most of what Christ talks about. Proof texts can go either way, all day long.

PP
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Marc1152 on January 18, 2012, 11:31:00 AM
How many hours do I need to spend studying to understand this:

Whoever calls upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ WILL BE SAVED?

Or does that need special interpretation too?

Are you sure I made a mistake thinking you are a Protestant :)

So, most everyone, no matter how nominal a "Christian" is pretty much on an elevator to heaven?  I recall being a bit shocked when I read about how to convert to Islam. All one needs to do is make a proclamation of faith out loud, no witnesses necessary and that's all it takes. Easy peezy.

Sometimes after a big meal I proclaim that I am going on a diet the next day. That's real easy too on a full stomach.

So for example, someone is very sick, they proclaim Faith in Christ, says it out loud but after they recover they forget all about it, never set foot in Church or do much of anything virtuous?

Could you explain further? Thanks

  
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 18, 2012, 11:31:50 AM

With out any sarcasm or hidden meaning, I really don't follow what you are talking about.
Why am i not surprised?

Can you be clearer or ask a question?
Yes probably.

I laid out what appears to me to be the Protestant method. You
Me?

take passages that could mean any number of things. You
I do? Where have i done this?

then claim to know it's one true meaning,
Where have i quoted a passage of scripture and claimed it only had one meaning?

the one that fits your agenda.
This, is precisely my point.

It's all up to you and your personal interpretation.
Where have i not listened to others' explanations and interpretations? I think you will find i've asked for others' views and definitions to assist my process on several occasions Marc.

On the  other hand we use Holy Tradition which asks a very simple question; How has this passage been understood throughout the Church over a very long period of time? If there has been a consistent reading, we then don't go further with our own personal spin.

It think that is a cogent analysis.
LOL! Only when spelling cogent, E_R_R_O_N_E_O_U_S.

Sorry if it makes you not like me. I'll live.
Again, where have i said i dislike you? Completely inaccurate once again, i think what i actually said was, i dislike your posts.

I thought you were a Protestant. My error.

Once again. The Protestant method is to cherry pick scriptures that fit their self made views. Passages often can mean several different things. They pick the meaning that fits their own ideas. They reject Holy Tradition so it's every man for himself.

If you want to personalize this be my guest but I meant it as a General criticism

Thats the thing.. If someone comes on here without 'orthodox' thinking or understanding, they are immediately looked upon as being 'protestant', with set 'methods' and then treated accordingly. It might be better to just treat people as people rather than 'protestants' or 'evangelicals' just because they don't sound orthodox and don't necessarily agree with exactly what 'orthodoxy' teaches.

Here are your choices: Protestant, Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Mormon, JH, Jewish, Non Christian religions , Atheist, Agnostic.

Could you let me know where you stand ( sorry if you have mentioned it before). That way no one has to be so very put upon.

Thanks



No... First of all, you do not offer anyone choices. That is how you see truth.. In denominations/cults/sects.. It's no different to you than picking a football team and backing it.

Thats not Jesus! Thats not truth!

Whoever calls on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ WILL BE SAVED! I'm one of those.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: primuspilus on January 18, 2012, 11:34:51 AM
Funny, Jesus said something about the Church....sounds like a body of believers sharing certian beliefs....isn't that a denomination?

PP
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 18, 2012, 11:37:43 AM
How many hours do I need to spend studying to understand this:

Whoever calls upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ WILL BE SAVED?

Or does that need special interpretation too?

Are you sure I made a mistake thinking you are a Protestant :)

So, most everyone, no matter how nominal a "Christian" is pretty much on an elevator to heaven?  I recall being a bit shocked when I read about how to convert to Islam. All one needs to do is make a proclamation of faith out loud, no witnesses necessary and that's all it takes. Easy peezy.

Sometimes after a big meal I proclaim that I am going on a diet the next day. That's real easy too on a full stomach.

So for example, someone is very sick, they proclaim Faith in Christ, says it out loud but after they recover they forget all about it, never set foot in Church or do much of anything virtuous?

Could you explain further? Thanks

  

Well you've never looked into islam any deeper than my new borns baby bath.

That is not the case. Their salvation is based on their works. Not just a statement. There are no guarantees of their salvation even if they are cleaner and purer in their behaviour than the mother theresa.

Neither is true Christian faith based on an empty meaningless statement, but a true recognition that we are sinners and that Christ died for us!
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Marc1152 on January 18, 2012, 11:38:01 AM

With out any sarcasm or hidden meaning, I really don't follow what you are talking about.
Why am i not surprised?

Can you be clearer or ask a question?
Yes probably.

I laid out what appears to me to be the Protestant method. You
Me?

take passages that could mean any number of things. You
I do? Where have i done this?

then claim to know it's one true meaning,
Where have i quoted a passage of scripture and claimed it only had one meaning?

the one that fits your agenda.
This, is precisely my point.

It's all up to you and your personal interpretation.
Where have i not listened to others' explanations and interpretations? I think you will find i've asked for others' views and definitions to assist my process on several occasions Marc.

On the  other hand we use Holy Tradition which asks a very simple question; How has this passage been understood throughout the Church over a very long period of time? If there has been a consistent reading, we then don't go further with our own personal spin.

It think that is a cogent analysis.
LOL! Only when spelling cogent, E_R_R_O_N_E_O_U_S.

Sorry if it makes you not like me. I'll live.
Again, where have i said i dislike you? Completely inaccurate once again, i think what i actually said was, i dislike your posts.

I thought you were a Protestant. My error.

Once again. The Protestant method is to cherry pick scriptures that fit their self made views. Passages often can mean several different things. They pick the meaning that fits their own ideas. They reject Holy Tradition so it's every man for himself.

If you want to personalize this be my guest but I meant it as a General criticism

Thats the thing.. If someone comes on here without 'orthodox' thinking or understanding, they are immediately looked upon as being 'protestant', with set 'methods' and then treated accordingly. It might be better to just treat people as people rather than 'protestants' or 'evangelicals' just because they don't sound orthodox and don't necessarily agree with exactly what 'orthodoxy' teaches.

Here are your choices: Protestant, Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Mormon, JH, Jewish, Non Christian religions , Atheist, Agnostic.

Could you let me know where you stand ( sorry if you have mentioned it before). That way no one has to be so very put upon.

Thanks



No... First of all, you do not offer anyone choices. That is how you see truth.. In denominations/cults/sects.. It's no different to you than picking a football team and backing it.

Thats not Jesus! Thats not truth!

Whoever calls on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ WILL BE SAVED! I'm one of those.

Will you say if I guess right?  Non denominational Christian.  Am I close?

I actually am not part of any denomination myself since I belong to the Orthodox Church which is not derived from some other source. It is Pre-Denominational.

It helps to know where you stand in General, saves time.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 18, 2012, 11:38:28 AM
Funny, Jesus said something about the Church....sounds like a body of believers sharing certian beliefs....isn't that a denomination?

PP

Yeah real funny!! Hahahaa!
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Mivac on January 18, 2012, 11:38:33 AM
How many hours do I need to spend studying to understand this:

Whoever calls upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ WILL BE SAVED?

Or does that need special interpretation too?

Calls on the name of the Lord.  What pray tell did the Lord set up on earth as His name, often called His Body in scripture!
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 18, 2012, 11:39:09 AM

With out any sarcasm or hidden meaning, I really don't follow what you are talking about.
Why am i not surprised?

Can you be clearer or ask a question?
Yes probably.

I laid out what appears to me to be the Protestant method. You
Me?

take passages that could mean any number of things. You
I do? Where have i done this?

then claim to know it's one true meaning,
Where have i quoted a passage of scripture and claimed it only had one meaning?

the one that fits your agenda.
This, is precisely my point.

It's all up to you and your personal interpretation.
Where have i not listened to others' explanations and interpretations? I think you will find i've asked for others' views and definitions to assist my process on several occasions Marc.

On the  other hand we use Holy Tradition which asks a very simple question; How has this passage been understood throughout the Church over a very long period of time? If there has been a consistent reading, we then don't go further with our own personal spin.

It think that is a cogent analysis.
LOL! Only when spelling cogent, E_R_R_O_N_E_O_U_S.

Sorry if it makes you not like me. I'll live.
Again, where have i said i dislike you? Completely inaccurate once again, i think what i actually said was, i dislike your posts.

I thought you were a Protestant. My error.

Once again. The Protestant method is to cherry pick scriptures that fit their self made views. Passages often can mean several different things. They pick the meaning that fits their own ideas. They reject Holy Tradition so it's every man for himself.

If you want to personalize this be my guest but I meant it as a General criticism

Thats the thing.. If someone comes on here without 'orthodox' thinking or understanding, they are immediately looked upon as being 'protestant', with set 'methods' and then treated accordingly. It might be better to just treat people as people rather than 'protestants' or 'evangelicals' just because they don't sound orthodox and don't necessarily agree with exactly what 'orthodoxy' teaches.

Here are your choices: Protestant, Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Mormon, JH, Jewish, Non Christian religions , Atheist, Agnostic.

Could you let me know where you stand ( sorry if you have mentioned it before). That way no one has to be so very put upon.

Thanks



No... First of all, you do not offer anyone choices. That is how you see truth.. In denominations/cults/sects.. It's no different to you than picking a football team and backing it.

Thats not Jesus! Thats not truth!

Whoever calls on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ WILL BE SAVED! I'm one of those.

Will you say if I guess right?  Non denominational Christian.  Am I close?

I actually am not part of any denomination myself since I belong to the Orthodox Church which is not derived from some other source. It is Pre-Denominational.

It helps to know where you stand in General, saves time.

Get over it.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: primuspilus on January 18, 2012, 11:39:48 AM
Funny, Jesus said something about the Church....sounds like a body of believers sharing certian beliefs....isn't that a denomination?

PP

Yeah real funny!! Hahahaa!
What? He did talk about the Church. For someone who espouses the Bible, maybe opening it up sometime would help.

PP
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Marc1152 on January 18, 2012, 11:40:25 AM
How many hours do I need to spend studying to understand this:

Whoever calls upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ WILL BE SAVED?

Or does that need special interpretation too?

Are you sure I made a mistake thinking you are a Protestant :)

So, most everyone, no matter how nominal a "Christian" is pretty much on an elevator to heaven?  I recall being a bit shocked when I read about how to convert to Islam. All one needs to do is make a proclamation of faith out loud, no witnesses necessary and that's all it takes. Easy peezy.

Sometimes after a big meal I proclaim that I am going on a diet the next day. That's real easy too on a full stomach.

So for example, someone is very sick, they proclaim Faith in Christ, says it out loud but after they recover they forget all about it, never set foot in Church or do much of anything virtuous?

Could you explain further? Thanks

  

Well you've never looked into islam any deeper than my new borns baby bath.

That is not the case. Their salvation is based on their works. Not just a statement. There are no guarantees of their salvation even if they are cleaner and purer in their behaviour than the mother theresa.

Neither is true Christian faith based on an empty meaningless statement, but a true recognition that we are sinners and that Christ died for us!

You miss understood. I meant their conversion is push button just like your version of Salvation.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 18, 2012, 11:42:52 AM
How many hours do I need to spend studying to understand this:

Whoever calls upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ WILL BE SAVED?

Or does that need special interpretation too?
What about Faith alone not saving? james 2:24? Does that need need your interpretation?
What about I Corinthians 9:27?
Quote
But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway

Doesnt sound like faith alone. Nor does most of what Christ talks about. Proof texts can go either way, all day long.

PP

Indeed:

James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 18, 2012, 11:43:55 AM
How many hours do I need to spend studying to understand this:

Whoever calls upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ WILL BE SAVED?

Or does that need special interpretation too?

Are you sure I made a mistake thinking you are a Protestant :)

So, most everyone, no matter how nominal a "Christian" is pretty much on an elevator to heaven?  I recall being a bit shocked when I read about how to convert to Islam. All one needs to do is make a proclamation of faith out loud, no witnesses necessary and that's all it takes. Easy peezy.

Sometimes after a big meal I proclaim that I am going on a diet the next day. That's real easy too on a full stomach.

So for example, someone is very sick, they proclaim Faith in Christ, says it out loud but after they recover they forget all about it, never set foot in Church or do much of anything virtuous?

Could you explain further? Thanks

  

Well you've never looked into islam any deeper than my new borns baby bath.

That is not the case. Their salvation is based on their works. Not just a statement. There are no guarantees of their salvation even if they are cleaner and purer in their behaviour than the mother theresa.

Neither is true Christian faith based on an empty meaningless statement, but a true recognition that we are sinners and that Christ died for us!

You miss understood. I meant their conversion is push button just like your version of Salvation.

What is the point of conversion without salvation? Don't be silly!
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Marc1152 on January 18, 2012, 11:44:02 AM

With out any sarcasm or hidden meaning, I really don't follow what you are talking about.
Why am i not surprised?

Can you be clearer or ask a question?
Yes probably.

I laid out what appears to me to be the Protestant method. You
Me?

take passages that could mean any number of things. You
I do? Where have i done this?

then claim to know it's one true meaning,
Where have i quoted a passage of scripture and claimed it only had one meaning?

the one that fits your agenda.
This, is precisely my point.

It's all up to you and your personal interpretation.
Where have i not listened to others' explanations and interpretations? I think you will find i've asked for others' views and definitions to assist my process on several occasions Marc.

On the  other hand we use Holy Tradition which asks a very simple question; How has this passage been understood throughout the Church over a very long period of time? If there has been a consistent reading, we then don't go further with our own personal spin.

It think that is a cogent analysis.
LOL! Only when spelling cogent, E_R_R_O_N_E_O_U_S.

Sorry if it makes you not like me. I'll live.
Again, where have i said i dislike you? Completely inaccurate once again, i think what i actually said was, i dislike your posts.

I thought you were a Protestant. My error.

Once again. The Protestant method is to cherry pick scriptures that fit their self made views. Passages often can mean several different things. They pick the meaning that fits their own ideas. They reject Holy Tradition so it's every man for himself.

If you want to personalize this be my guest but I meant it as a General criticism

Thats the thing.. If someone comes on here without 'orthodox' thinking or understanding, they are immediately looked upon as being 'protestant', with set 'methods' and then treated accordingly. It might be better to just treat people as people rather than 'protestants' or 'evangelicals' just because they don't sound orthodox and don't necessarily agree with exactly what 'orthodoxy' teaches.

Here are your choices: Protestant, Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Mormon, JH, Jewish, Non Christian religions , Atheist, Agnostic.

Could you let me know where you stand ( sorry if you have mentioned it before). That way no one has to be so very put upon.

Thanks



No... First of all, you do not offer anyone choices. That is how you see truth.. In denominations/cults/sects.. It's no different to you than picking a football team and backing it.

Thats not Jesus! Thats not truth!

Whoever calls on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ WILL BE SAVED! I'm one of those.

Will you say if I guess right?  Non denominational Christian.  Am I close?

I actually am not part of any denomination myself since I belong to the Orthodox Church which is not derived from some other source. It is Pre-Denominational.

It helps to know where you stand in General, saves time.

Get over it.

One more try Alfred.

Lone Wolf, sitting in his basement insomniac cleaning his guns pouring over the bible arguing on the Internet "he was kind of a loner" said the neighbors after you crack.....Christian

Close?
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: ByGracethroughFaith on January 18, 2012, 11:45:46 AM
Funny, Jesus said something about the Church....sounds like a body of believers sharing certian beliefs....isn't that a denomination?

PP

Yeah real funny!! Hahahaa!
What? He did talk about the Church. For someone who espouses the Bible, maybe opening it up sometime would help.

PP

I'd better not hey.. Think of the heresy!!  Ooohhhh!
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: primuspilus on January 18, 2012, 11:47:35 AM
Funny, Jesus said something about the Church....sounds like a body of believers sharing certian beliefs....isn't that a denomination?

PP

Yeah real funny!! Hahahaa!
What? He did talk about the Church. For someone who espouses the Bible, maybe opening it up sometime would help.

PP

I'd better not hey.. Think of the heresy!!  Ooohhhh!
Are you sure you're not a sockpuppet of Alfred? i remember him diverting when his argument was crushed too.....

PP
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 18, 2012, 11:48:42 AM
This thread is locked until we've all had a chance to cool off. Attempts to bypass this lock by taking the conversation to another thread will be met with harsh disciplinary action.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Fr. George on January 23, 2012, 01:28:26 PM
Regardless of the moderator's final decision whether or not to unlock the thread, the folks engaged in these polemical discussions need to be more careful to avoid argumentum ad hominem.  Make your comments about their points and positions, not their persons.

If you wish to continue using ad hominems, take it to the Private Fora.  If you don't have access to the Private Fora, but want to, PM Fr. Chris.

- Fr. George, Global Moderator
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 23, 2012, 01:56:11 PM
Thread unlocked
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: primuspilus on January 23, 2012, 02:07:50 PM
...AND ANOTHER THING!!!!!! lol :)

PP
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Ortho_cat on January 23, 2012, 02:13:37 PM
ok everyone let's play nice...
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: xariskai on January 23, 2012, 03:51:13 PM
I was balking against the idea that i took scripture so lightly that i might utilise it to provide a proof-text for a belief of my own making. I haven't suggested anyone else here does.
Such a process, I think, does not necessarily entail something nefarious; everyone who seeks to interpret scripture must do so within a constellation of assumptions which are not self-evident or resolvable strictly by the Renaissance Christian humanist model of grammatical/philological/historical exegesis.

The degree to which this operates within evangelicalism which on a popular level still leans toward outmoded foundationalist assumptions which are virtually indefensible when seriously scrutinized is explained by this Protestant author who has provided an excellent critique of his own tradition's historic sola scriptura (or as he puts it nuda scriptura!) stance (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37670.0.html).

Quote from: FountainPen
Marc, can you not see the reason i'm questioning it is because the implications of Christ's human body being in more than one place? If that were so, it would mean he wasn't fully human and that would present a serious problem with His nature.
To be vigorously consistent with this objection from necessary localization, would you deny Christ can be in us and we in Him or "wherever two or more gather in my name I am there with them"?

Is Christ really present in this manner or only symbolically present?

May God grant you many years; thanks for your consideration.
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: primuspilus on January 23, 2012, 03:56:20 PM
Quote
Marc, can you not see the reason i'm questioning it is because the implications of Christ's human body being in more than one place? If that were so, it would mean he wasn't fully human and that would present a serious problem with His nature
My stace was yes, Jesus was fully human, but also fully God at the same time. Although he got hungry, he also raised from the dead, became insubstantial (some folks that is what is being referred to when scripture says, "passed through the midst of them" when folks tried to kill Him), commanded demons, and completely distorted reality by turning water into wine, multiplying fishes and loaves, and showed his glory.

We can not limit Christ's divinity by His humanity.

PP
Title: Re: By Grace Through Faith
Post by: Marc1152 on January 23, 2012, 04:20:13 PM
ok everyone let's play nice...

I cant even remember what we were talking about :)

When you have Altzhiemers you can make new friends every day.