OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 25, 2014, 04:50:33 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: One True Church?  (Read 49824 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,840


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #180 on: January 31, 2009, 08:00:13 AM »

Sacraments are ONLY for the believer ... So as you say, they must have already believed on the Lord to partake.  ... They are tools in our tool box that help us in our journey to Salvation.  They are conduits of God's grace-- He makes His grace present in the sacraments and, through them, grants it to us, and unites us with Him (physically, in the case of the Eucharist).  Yes, they are a "sign" of one's faith, and, as you said, if one is a proper Christian, one will want to participate.  Without going into more detail here (we can discuss it more in another thread-- I believe there is one, if memory serves), suffice it to say they area FAR more than just a sign of one's faith. ... if one does NOT want to participate, then there is a serious problem.  

Remove the word "physically" as I agree entirely. I think we are united spiritually to Christ. Nonetheless, the eucharistic passage in John 6 does have a physical reference as well, for the Lord says "...and I will raise him up at the last day." But that is referring to the final resurrection at the close of the age.
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,840


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #181 on: January 31, 2009, 01:05:52 PM »

baptism ... cannot be considered other than beginning the Christian life.  A person who comes to believe hastens to be baptized.  Becoming a Christian and receiving baptism are not two loosely associated events but are complementary.   
    

Absolutely. That is why I have suggested in other posts that Orthodox baptise too soon, and we have a tendency to leave it too long, up to weeks, months or years after faith. You are right: they should happen together, as complementary parts of a single event.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2009, 01:06:14 PM by David Young » Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,840


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #182 on: January 31, 2009, 01:25:54 PM »

American Baptist theology is different than English Baptist theology. How is it that two groups that ascribe to the same denomination ...have vast differences in theology,

Your argument re Orthodoxy is good, but you overstate your case when you say that English and American Baptists have vast differences. What I said was that the way American Baptists express the doctrine of eternal security is not heard over here. Many Baptists (and others) here hold the doctrine, but they also emphasise the teaching that the only proof that saving faith is genuine is a godly life, progress in sanctification, steadfastness in discipleship. The Americans you (that is, y'all) quote seem to leave that teaching out. But you will have noticed a remarkable concurrence in the thoughts posted by Cleopas and me on all kinds of subjects, and I assure you we don't collude by e-mail or private messages beforehand, so as to mask our "vast differences".
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,840


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #183 on: January 31, 2009, 01:30:38 PM »

"This prefigured baptism, which saves you now" 1 Peter 3:21

You break off the verse part-way through, for it continues "as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." The baptism and the cleansed conscience (because of justification - padon for our guilt) belong together.
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,840


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #184 on: January 31, 2009, 01:33:20 PM »

After we die, we will be judged by Our Lord. ... I don't see here any mention of being judged on the basis of being a member of the one, true, Church?

Wow! I keep saying we need more Protestants on the forum - but with posts like this, bring in the Catholics! I like it. Smiley
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #185 on: January 31, 2009, 01:34:08 PM »

I mean, does anyone really think that a Roman Catholic would be asked why he did not join the one, true Orthodox Church?

Well, when you put it that way it does sound pretty ridiculous.  But I guess the idea of the God of the Universe asking me questions in general seems a bit ridiculous, so whatever!
But there is a judgment, isn't there?
Logged
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #186 on: January 31, 2009, 10:02:08 PM »

David Young said:
Quote
Let me reverse the order of some of the questions. On assurance, see my previous post. I see justified in the Protestant sense of the term, that is a sort of forensic or legal metaphor: God forgives us our many sins, cleanses us, removes the guilt of them, and declares us 'not guilty'. (Prior to the Reformation justification was understood as being made righteous, but I am content with the Protestant understanding of the term as meaning being declared righteous (a status rather than a state, if you like).)

Cleopas might disagree with you since Pentecostals and some Charismatics merge Sanctification in the "Salvation" area.

Not at all, at least as in so far as you quoted. Justification is (to the believer) primarily a judical act of God. Yes, it leaves one in a justified state, but it (justification) is wholly to us righteousness imputed. It is in regeneration that righteousness is imparted or infused. Different works or aspects of (initial) conversion.

Not sure where David Young stands on regenration and it's correlation with justification, or regarding sanctification really (beyond his brief mention to it above). But I can't imagine as similar as our beliefs have already proven to be that there would be any significant difference between us here. Yet, I cannot speak for him. These are reflective only of my own doctrinal understanding of salvific works.

I believe that Sanctification happens in conversion itself, yes. However, most Holiness-Pentecostals (except the AG) hold to sanctification as a post conversion crisis experience and/or an instanteaneous 2nd definite work of grace (with conversion being the first) and  thus as an intermediary work preperatory to the reception of the Spirit baptism (a "third blessing" it's called). Charasmatics are less dogmatic or definitive about the order or steps of such things (so I have found). Of course that is a whole 'nother subject or three in and of itself. I just wanted to try and give a bit more accurate overview.



If you are a Protestant that believes one can loose their salvation then you automatically put Sanctification in the "Salvation area".


Thus, I stand by what I said!!!!! You can disagree, but it won't change what many Pentecostals, Charismatics, Cambellites and Ahmish believe about "Sanctification" and loosing ones salvation.......and how that effects their doctrine of Justification.

It's not the same as the classic Protestant Reformed view. Nor is it the same as the Baptist doctrine of "Easy Believism" ...A.K.A. Once saved always saved.






JNORM888

P.S. "You don't have to state what the Lutherian and Reformed Protestant view of Justification is. I already know what it is. I am after all a former Protestant myself. And what I said about many Pentecostals, Charismatics, Cambellites, Ahmish, and many other Arminians.... is indeed true. So feel free to disagree, but I'm not changing my mind. I already know that not all protestants agree in this area.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2009, 10:08:19 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #187 on: January 31, 2009, 10:25:27 PM »

Quote
2. Yes, some Protestant churches baptize infants. Still they have historically, emphasised personal conversion in spite their practice of infant baptism. However, let me hasten to add that I believe the more radical reformation branch (the anebaptists movement, etc.) of what is now typically categorized lump sum as "Protestant" probably is more closely aligned with and decended from NT distinctives. I suppose that is why there is such common agreement in beliefs among myself and David Young, more than say with a Presbyterian or an Anglican


Baptists didn't come from AnaBaptists directly. They are not Ahmish.....nor are they Mennonite, but there was some cross-breeding that went on in the 16 hundreds. The Baptists "directly" came from the low wing of Anglicanism. The Low Church Wing were called "Puritans" and Puritanism split into many different sub-groups.

1.) Episcopal Puritans

2.) Prespyterian Puritans

3.) Congregationalist Puritans (in whom the Separatists split from)

The English Separatists came out of group number 3! And from them came a man named "John Smyth". It was his Separatist group that eventually became the first Baptist congregation. And this happened in the 16 hundreds.

As seen from this quote:

"Quote:
Quote
"A Separatist movement of far-reaching ultimate consequences had its beginnings early in the origin of James I when John Smyth(1570?-1612), a former clergyman of the establishment, adopted separatist principles and became pastor of a gathered congregation at Gainsborough. Soon adherents were secured in the adjacent rural districts, and a second congregation gathered in the home of William Brewster(1560?-1644) at Scrooby. Of this Scrooby body, William Bradford Bradford (1590-1657) was a youthful member. It enjoyed the leadership of the learned and sweet-tempered John Robinson (1575?-1625), like Smyth a former clergyman of the Church of England and like him led to believe separatism the only logical step. The hand of opposition being heavy upon them, the members of the Gainsborough congregation, led by Smyth, exiled themselves to Amsterdam, probably in 1608. The Scrooby Congregation, under Robinson's and Brewster's leadership, followed the same road to Holland, settling finally in Leyden in 1609.

At Amsterdam, Smyth engaged in controvrsy with Francis Johnson, and on the basis of his own study of the New Testament became convinced that the apostolic method of admitting members to church fellowship was by baptism on profession of repentance toward God and faith in Christ. In 1608 or 1609, he therefore baptized himself by pouring, and then the others of his church, forming the first English Baptist church, though on Dutch soil. Smyth also became an Arminian, believing that Christ died not only for the elect but for all mankind. His new emphases brought him close to the Anabaptist position, and some of his congregation finally did affiliate with the Dutch Mennonites, though Smyth himself died of tuberculosis in 1612 before the transfer had been completed. A remnant of his congregation, howeverm clung to the English Baptist position under the leadership of Thomas Helwys (1550? -1616) and John Murton (?-1625?). They returned to England in 1611 or 1612, becoming the first permanent Baptist congregation on English soil. Arminian in viewpoint, they were known as "General Baptists." They were ardent champions of religious toleration.

In these same years, a new Puritan position was shaped by Henry Jacob (1563-1624), who had been a member of Robinson's congregation in Leyden; William Ames (1576-1633), prominent theologian exiled to Holland; and William Bradshaw (1571-1618), leading Puritan writer. These men enunciated the Independent, or nonseparatist, Congregational, from which modern Congregation has directly stemmed. Striving to avoid separation from the Church of England, they worked toward a nationwide system of established Congregational churches. Henry Jacob founded a church in Southwark in 1616, the first Congregational church to remain in continuous existence.

In 1630s, however, a small group from Jacob's church became convinced that believers' baptism was the scriptural norm. Separating from Jacob's congregation, they started a second Baptist line in England, called the "Particular" or Calvinistic Baptists because they believed in particular or restricted atonement, confined to the elect. In about 1641, they adopted immersion as the proper mode of baptism, and it thence spread to all English Baptists.

The chief event in the history of the congregation at Leyden was the decision to send its more active minority to America. Robinson, who had been almost won to the nonseparatist congregational position by Jacob and Ames, reluctantly stayed with the majority. In 1620, after much tiresome negotiation, the pilgrim Fathers" crossed the Atlantic in the Mayflower, under the spiritual leadership of their "elder," William Brewster." [1]








JNORM888

[1] pages 549-551 from the book "A History of the christian Church" by walker



P.S. "The Anabaptists split off from Zwingly. And that was in the 15 hundreds. So they are not decendants of the NT. (we are) They decended from the early Reformed under Zwingly."
« Last Edit: January 31, 2009, 10:31:25 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #188 on: January 31, 2009, 10:44:14 PM »

I doubt if Robert Morey believes in those creeds.

I have read his book. It is highly regarded. You have prompted to take it down from my shelf again.

I'm still in the process of refuting it. After I finish my 8 papers. I will continue chipping away at it. 60% of it is already done and online.

I think his book is nothing more than an oversized jack chick tract. Or a Dan Brown script.



JNORM888
Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #189 on: January 31, 2009, 10:51:04 PM »

Quote
the Lord has only one Body; but we believe that body is made up of all the redeemed, invisibly joined in union with Christ by his indwelling Spirit, whether they come to him through Orthodoxy (as you have, it seems (I say that, only because you rightly say that in the final analysis only God knows who is saved, not because I imply any doubt on my part of your salvation)), through Methodism (as I did), and so on.

This idea is a noval one. The Protestant Reformation took an idea that Saint Augustine made up and ran with it to it's logical conclusion. But the idea is noval.....new. ... that idea can be traced to Saint Augustine. And the development of it can be traced to the Protestant Reformers.

This idea destroys any real concept of "the Real Church" being INCARNATE in the HERE and NOW.  It has a gnostic feel to it.

The Gnostics believed that their souls would be saved. They didn't care about their physical bodies. In a similar manner, this Augustinian..modied Protestant idea makes the "invisible church soul" saved while not caring about the "physical church body".
JNORM888

There seem to be three ideas here, and I do not feel competent to reply, because to do so would require a good knowledge of Augustine and his influence, and I confess I am not drawn to Augustine and do not read him. (I have read about him.)

We see the idea of my model of the church in the New Testament, starting in Acts 2 as I quoted and then throughout the epistles and Revelation, but you may well be right in asserting that it lay dormant and undeveloped for hundreds of years before being taken up anew by Augustine and passed on down the centuries via people who agreed and still agree with it. Though I am sure Augustine laid much more sterss on the role of the sacraments than we do.

Then we move on to the notion of Christ incarnate in the church by his Spirit. No - we have in no way ditched that belief; indeed, it is very true and very precious. The church is the temple of the Holy Spirit, whom we have from God.

Neither does this model of the church tend, for us, towards a gnostic or manichæan concept of the contrast between body and spirit. All those who are in Christ will be raised in glory at the last day and will, in the eternal kingdom, make up the Bride to whom he is united. The resurrection of the body and the setting up by God of the new heavens and the new earth is important: we await no disembodied eternity.




You refuse to see the Church as "Incarnational". Was Christ Divided? If not then how can you see His Body as such?


You refuse to see the Church as Incarnational. You claim to see your model in Acts chapter two, but if you look at the whole book of Acts. You won't see your model. Nowhere in the book of Acts do we see Paul and Luke advocating a divided Visible Church.

When the Ethiopian was reading Scripture. The Holy Spirit guided Philop to speak to him. Thus bringing a person in contact with the visible Church.

Your model would have the Holy Spirit(without the use of Philop) to start a brand new competing visible Church through the Ethiopian.

In the Book of Acts we see an Angel coming to the Godfearing centurian, and the Angel told him to see Peter.

Your model would have the Angel tell the Centurian to start a brand new Church.

When Paul saw Jesus on the road to Damascus, Jesus told him to go and see someone....someone that belonged to the Church.

The modal I see in the book of Acts is God and His Angels leading people to His One True Church. We don't see Him having people start up their own groups......independant from the Body He started.





JNORM888
« Last Edit: January 31, 2009, 11:00:14 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
prodromas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Under the Green Pope
Posts: 1,239

Greek Orthodox


« Reply #190 on: January 31, 2009, 11:02:32 PM »

Quote
the Lord has only one Body; but we believe that body is made up of all the redeemed, invisibly joined in union with Christ by his indwelling Spirit, whether they come to him through Orthodoxy (as you have, it seems (I say that, only because you rightly say that in the final analysis only God knows who is saved, not because I imply any doubt on my part of your salvation)), through Methodism (as I did), and so on.

This idea is a noval one. The Protestant Reformation took an idea that Saint Augustine made up and ran with it to it's logical conclusion. But the idea is noval.....new. ... that idea can be traced to Saint Augustine. And the development of it can be traced to the Protestant Reformers.

This idea destroys any real concept of "the Real Church" being INCARNATE in the HERE and NOW.  It has a gnostic feel to it.

The Gnostics believed that their souls would be saved. They didn't care about their physical bodies. In a similar manner, this Augustinian..modied Protestant idea makes the "invisible church soul" saved while not caring about the "physical church body".
JNORM888

There seem to be three ideas here, and I do not feel competent to reply, because to do so would require a good knowledge of Augustine and his influence, and I confess I am not drawn to Augustine and do not read him. (I have read about him.)

We see the idea of my model of the church in the New Testament, starting in Acts 2 as I quoted and then throughout the epistles and Revelation, but you may well be right in asserting that it lay dormant and undeveloped for hundreds of years before being taken up anew by Augustine and passed on down the centuries via people who agreed and still agree with it. Though I am sure Augustine laid much more sterss on the role of the sacraments than we do.

Then we move on to the notion of Christ incarnate in the church by his Spirit. No - we have in no way ditched that belief; indeed, it is very true and very precious. The church is the temple of the Holy Spirit, whom we have from God.

Neither does this model of the church tend, for us, towards a gnostic or manichæan concept of the contrast between body and spirit. All those who are in Christ will be raised in glory at the last day and will, in the eternal kingdom, make up the Bride to whom he is united. The resurrection of the body and the setting up by God of the new heavens and the new earth is important: we await no disembodied eternity.




You refuse to see the Church as "Incarnational". Was Christ Divided? If not then how can you see His Body as such?


You refuse to see the Church as Incarnational. You claim to see your model in Acts chapter two, but if you look at the whole book of Acts. You won't see your model. Nowhere in the book of Acts do we see Paul and Luke advocating a divided Visible Church.

When the Ethiopian was reading Scripture. The Holy Spirit guided Philop to speak to him. Thus bringing a person in contact with the visible Church.

Your model would have the Holy Spirit(without the use of Philop) to start a brand new competing visible Church through the Ethiopian.

In the Book of Acts we see an Angel coming to the Godfearing centurian, and the Angel told him to see Peter.

Your model would have the Angel tell the Centurian to start a brand new Church.

When Paul saw Jesus on the road to Damascus, Jesus told him to go and see someone....someone that belonged to the Church.

The modal I see in the book of Acts is God and His Angels leading people to His One True Church. We don't see Him having people start up their own groups......independant from the Body He started.





JNORM888

The thing is that the low church protestant concept of Ecclesiology wouldn't have seen it as setting up "their own groups" but rather by starting a community and imitating what the church of Acts is they are partaking in the Body of Christ.
Logged

The sins I don't commit are largely due to the weakness of my limbs.

1915-1923 Հայոց Ցեղասպանութիւն ,never again,
ܩܛܠܐ ܕܥܡܐ ܐܬܘܪܝܐ 1920-1914, never again,
השואה  1933-1945, never again,
(1914-1923) Ελληνική Γενοκτονία, never again
HandmaidenofGod
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,397


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #191 on: January 31, 2009, 11:06:41 PM »

The thing is that the low church protestant concept of Ecclesiology wouldn't have seen it as setting up "their own groups" but rather by starting a community and imitating what the church of Acts is they are partaking in the Body of Christ.

I think this is on the "About our beliefs" page of every non-denominational/low-Church Protestant group out there!

It's amazing how many groups are imitating the Church of Acts in so many different ways!  Roll Eyes

Presbytera needs to get Father on here so he can explain how the book of Acts relates to our Liturgics, and how we TRULY are imitating the Church of Acts.
Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #192 on: January 31, 2009, 11:11:05 PM »

Orthodoxy isn't a branch, it's the trunk:NT Christianity in the 21st century and all 21 centuries in between

So you say. But what do Serbian's Say? Catholics? You get the idea.
At best, from a purely chronologically overview, Orthodoxy is an ancient and early branch, a major branch, in the growth of the tree of Christianity (if you will). Maye even the closest to the trunk. Yet, if any can, then only the pre-schismatic chronological church can claim uncontested title to being exclusively the one and self same church our Lord started.






He is in good company for Orthodoxy has been saying this before both you and I were born. Before the Pentecostals were born in 1906. Before the Baptists were born in the 16 hundreds. Before John Calvin was born, before Martin Luther was born, and before 1054 A.D. when Rome split off from us!

Orthodoxy has been saying this for almost 2,000 years.

So he is in good company........of a whole host of people saying it.






JNORM888
Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #193 on: January 31, 2009, 11:17:25 PM »

Quote
the Lord has only one Body; but we believe that body is made up of all the redeemed, invisibly joined in union with Christ by his indwelling Spirit, whether they come to him through Orthodoxy (as you have, it seems (I say that, only because you rightly say that in the final analysis only God knows who is saved, not because I imply any doubt on my part of your salvation)), through Methodism (as I did), and so on.

This idea is a noval one. The Protestant Reformation took an idea that Saint Augustine made up and ran with it to it's logical conclusion. But the idea is noval.....new. ... that idea can be traced to Saint Augustine. And the development of it can be traced to the Protestant Reformers.

This idea destroys any real concept of "the Real Church" being INCARNATE in the HERE and NOW.  It has a gnostic feel to it.

The Gnostics believed that their souls would be saved. They didn't care about their physical bodies. In a similar manner, this Augustinian..modied Protestant idea makes the "invisible church soul" saved while not caring about the "physical church body".
JNORM888

There seem to be three ideas here, and I do not feel competent to reply, because to do so would require a good knowledge of Augustine and his influence, and I confess I am not drawn to Augustine and do not read him. (I have read about him.)

We see the idea of my model of the church in the New Testament, starting in Acts 2 as I quoted and then throughout the epistles and Revelation, but you may well be right in asserting that it lay dormant and undeveloped for hundreds of years before being taken up anew by Augustine and passed on down the centuries via people who agreed and still agree with it. Though I am sure Augustine laid much more sterss on the role of the sacraments than we do.

Then we move on to the notion of Christ incarnate in the church by his Spirit. No - we have in no way ditched that belief; indeed, it is very true and very precious. The church is the temple of the Holy Spirit, whom we have from God.

Neither does this model of the church tend, for us, towards a gnostic or manichæan concept of the contrast between body and spirit. All those who are in Christ will be raised in glory at the last day and will, in the eternal kingdom, make up the Bride to whom he is united. The resurrection of the body and the setting up by God of the new heavens and the new earth is important: we await no disembodied eternity.




You refuse to see the Church as "Incarnational". Was Christ Divided? If not then how can you see His Body as such?


You refuse to see the Church as Incarnational. You claim to see your model in Acts chapter two, but if you look at the whole book of Acts. You won't see your model. Nowhere in the book of Acts do we see Paul and Luke advocating a divided Visible Church.

When the Ethiopian was reading Scripture. The Holy Spirit guided Philop to speak to him. Thus bringing a person in contact with the visible Church.

Your model would have the Holy Spirit(without the use of Philop) to start a brand new competing visible Church through the Ethiopian.

In the Book of Acts we see an Angel coming to the Godfearing centurian, and the Angel told him to see Peter.

Your model would have the Angel tell the Centurian to start a brand new Church.

When Paul saw Jesus on the road to Damascus, Jesus told him to go and see someone....someone that belonged to the Church.

The modal I see in the book of Acts is God and His Angels leading people to His One True Church. We don't see Him having people start up their own groups......independant from the Body He started.





JNORM888

The thing is that the low church protestant concept of Ecclesiology wouldn't have seen it as setting up "their own groups" but rather by starting a community and imitating what the church of Acts is they are partaking in the Body of Christ.


True!




JNORM888
Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #194 on: January 31, 2009, 11:25:11 PM »

Literal presence is held by many Lutherans.  Infant baptism is done by the mainline Protestant churches.  The need for personal conversion is held by many Protestants who believe "pentecostal gifts" (e.g. glossalia) need not be present for a person or church to be Christian.

1. Even though Lutherans may have their own literal prescence beliefs, they emphasis personal conversion, especially (initial) justification by faith alone in Christ alone. Sacrements are not needed to become justified with God.

2. Yes, some Protestant churches baptize infants. Still they have historically, emphasised personal conversion in spite their practice of infant baptism. However, let me hasten to add that I believe the more radical reformation branch (the anebaptists movement, etc.) of what is now typically categorized lump sum as "Protestant" probably is more closely aligned with and decended from NT distinctives. I suppose that is why there is such common agreement in beliefs among myself and David Young, more than say with a Presbyterian or an Anglican.

Quote
Why must the historic church be exactly like the church of the New Testament? 

Because if, at least in principle, it is not the same then any claim to being the continuation thereof fails to be valid (at least to the degree it fails to be conformable to the principles of NT Christinaity).


You must not know of any high church Lutherians and Anglo-Catholics. Not to mention the New Perspective of Paul folks in the Reformed camp.

Oh, by the way. Many Jews still have prayers for the dead. As well as Anglicans

And as a former Anglo-Catholic myself. I can say that there are protestants that believe in the sacraments in the way the E.O. and RCC does. The same is true for "some" high church Lutherians.





JNORM888
Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #195 on: January 31, 2009, 11:48:31 PM »

David Young said:
Quote
Let me reverse the order of some of the questions. On assurance, see my previous post. I see justified in the Protestant sense of the term, that is a sort of forensic or legal metaphor: God forgives us our many sins, cleanses us, removes the guilt of them, and declares us 'not guilty'. (Prior to the Reformation justification was understood as being made righteous, but I am content with the Protestant understanding of the term as meaning being declared righteous (a status rather than a state, if you like).)

Cleopas might disagree with you since Pentecostals and some Charismatics merge Sanctification in the "Salvation" area.

Not at all, at least as in so far as you quoted. Justification is (to the believer) primarily a judical act of God. Yes, it leaves one in a justified state, but it (justification) is wholly to us righteousness imputed. It is in regeneration that righteousness is imparted or infused. Different works or aspects of (initial) conversion.

Not sure where David Young stands on regenration and it's correlation with justification, or regarding sanctification really (beyond his brief mention to it above). But I can't imagine as similar as our beliefs have already proven to be that there would be any significant difference between us here. Yet, I cannot speak for him. These are reflective only of my own doctrinal understanding of salvific works.

I believe that Sanctification happens in conversion itself, yes. However, most Holiness-Pentecostals (except the AG) hold to sanctification as a post conversion crisis experience and/or an instanteaneous 2nd definite work of grace (with conversion being the first) and  thus as an intermediary work preperatory to the reception of the Spirit baptism (a "third blessing" it's called). Charasmatics are less dogmatic or definitive about the order or steps of such things (so I have found). Of course that is a whole 'nother subject or three in and of itself. I just wanted to try and give a bit more accurate overview.



If you are a Protestant that believes one can loose their salvation then you automatically put Sanctification in the "Salvation area".


Thus, I stand by what I said!!!!! You can disagree, but it won't change what many Pentecostals, Charismatics, Cambellites and Ahmish believe about "Sanctification" and loosing ones salvation.......and how that effects their doctrine of Justification.

It's not the same as the classic Protestant Reformed view. Nor is it the same as the Baptist doctrine of "Easy Believism" ...A.K.A. Once saved always saved.






JNORM888

P.S. "You don't have to state what the Lutherian and Reformed Protestant view of Justification is. I already know what it is. I am after all a former Protestant myself. And what I said about many Pentecostals, Charismatics, Cambellites, Ahmish, and many other Arminians.... is indeed true. So feel free to disagree, but I'm not changing my mind. I already know that not all protestants agree in this area.

I forgot to mention that some Calvinists would joke around and call the Arminians that believed one could loose their salvation as believing in the doctrine of "Justification through Sanctification".

So no, not all protestants believe the same in this area.



JNORM888
Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #196 on: January 31, 2009, 11:48:44 PM »

The thing is that the low church protestant concept of Ecclesiology wouldn't have seen it as setting up "their own groups" but rather by starting a community and imitating what the church of Acts is they are partaking in the Body of Christ.

I think this is on the "About our beliefs" page of every non-denominational/low-Church Protestant group out there!

It's amazing how many groups are imitating the Church of Acts in so many different ways!  Roll Eyes

Presbytera needs to get Father on here so he can explain how the book of Acts relates to our Liturgics, and how we TRULY are imitating the Church of Acts.


We're not imitating the Church of Acts.

Acts records the Church of the Apostles, which was, and is, us.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #197 on: January 31, 2009, 11:58:22 PM »

Does such a thing exist in the first place?

This is easy:

"I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church."

The belief in one true church is mandated by the universal creed of all Christians.  After that, it's simply an issue deciding which church that is.  It is either the Roman Catholic Church, the Oriental Orthodox, the Eastern Orthodox, or the Assyrian Church of the East.  I think that covers all of the surviving apostolic communions; correct me if I am wrong.
Here is a question for the members of the one, true  Church:
After we die, we will be judged by Our Lord. But will He ask a Roman Catholic: Why did you not join the one, True, Orthodox Church? Or will it be instead as we read in Matthew 25:
"31 And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty. 32 And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. 34 Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:
36 Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. 37 Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? 39 Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? 40 And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.
41 Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. 43 I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. 44 Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? 45 Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.
46 And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting."
I don't see here any mention of being judged on the basis of being a member of the one, true, Church? Maybe it is somewhere else in the Bible?


The Jew, the Muslim, the Budhdhist, the Hindu, the agnostic, the atheist can ask the same thing.  So I guess it's all the same.  Kumbaya.

Matthew 19:28
Jesus said to them, "I tell you with certainty, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne in the renewed creation, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Luke 22:28 “You are those who have stood by Me in My trials; 29 and just as My Father has granted Me a kingdom, I grant you 30 that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2009, 12:00:46 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #198 on: February 01, 2009, 12:08:03 AM »

When we are baptized, we become more like Christ, ... When we eat and drink the Body and Blood of Christ, we become more like Christ, because we remember Christ and become more dependent on Him for our sustenance. When we confess our sins and repent of them, we become more like Christ, who is without sin. ... No one can be justified without confession, repentance, and forgiveness. All sacraments are manifestations of these essential elements of Christianity.

Amen to all of that (except we see the eating and drinking as a spiritual feeding in the sacrament, not literal). But justification happens when God declares a man pardoned. Both are part of true Christianity - justification and sacraments. But justification comes before the sacraments: justification is a declaration which God makes concerning a man. It doesn't change his nature, it changes his status before God.

The Ur-error of Protestant soteriology and anthropology.  We become partakers of divine nature.  "You must be perfect," not "you must be declared perfect."  One does not cease being a servant untill one becomes a son and heir.  And that is more than a change of status, being God's foster child: it is adoption.

Quote
But once a person is justified, the life-long process of sanctification, growth in Christlikeness, theosis if you wish, begins in all those who are justified. The sacraments are part of this, as you rightly observe.

And breathing is just one bodily function among many, just the one that makes all the others possible.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
HandmaidenofGod
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,397


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #199 on: February 01, 2009, 12:21:57 AM »


We're not imitating the Church of Acts.

Acts records the Church of the Apostles, which was, and is, us.

You are 100% correct. My apologies.
Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11
Cleopas
Bible Thumping, Tongue Talking, Faith Walking Christian
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Charismatic Evangelical
Posts: 445


If I'm my own Pope then I claim infalliablity. Ha!

perfecthart
WWW
« Reply #200 on: February 01, 2009, 12:30:22 AM »

Quote
2. Yes, some Protestant churches baptize infants. Still they have historically, emphasised personal conversion in spite their practice of infant baptism. However, let me hasten to add that I believe the more radical reformation branch (the anebaptists movement, etc.) of what is now typically categorized lump sum as "Protestant" probably is more closely aligned with and decended from NT distinctives. I suppose that is why there is such common agreement in beliefs among myself and David Young, more than say with a Presbyterian or an Anglican


Baptists didn't come from AnaBaptists directly. They are not Ahmish.....nor are they Mennonite, but there was some cross-breeding that went on in the 16 hundreds. The Baptists "directly" came from the low wing of Anglicanism. The Low Church Wing were called "Puritans" and Puritanism split into many different sub-groups.

I didn't say they did. I simply cited Anabaptists as typical of the radical reformation.
I guess you may think I am Baptist. I am not, not properly at least (though baptistic in many ways). I am in a "non-denom" "generic" evangelical church. I was raised, and first came to faith in, the Holiness-Pentecostal tradition, particularly the Church of God (Cleveland, TN) movement.

And my decent I refer not to chronological instituaional continuity in and of itself, but to a sort of  spiritual and/or theological continuity.
Let me put it this way, of all the modern churches born to the faith, it is among the protestants that I see the most clear characterstics and features of the NT church. That is to say they look more like their "momma" than any other (at least to me).
Logged

Cleopas
Christopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #201 on: February 01, 2009, 12:34:56 AM »

Quote
2. Yes, some Protestant churches baptize infants. Still they have historically, emphasised personal conversion in spite their practice of infant baptism. However, let me hasten to add that I believe the more radical reformation branch (the anebaptists movement, etc.) of what is now typically categorized lump sum as "Protestant" probably is more closely aligned with and decended from NT distinctives. I suppose that is why there is such common agreement in beliefs among myself and David Young, more than say with a Presbyterian or an Anglican


Baptists didn't come from AnaBaptists directly. They are not Ahmish.....nor are they Mennonite, but there was some cross-breeding that went on in the 16 hundreds. The Baptists "directly" came from the low wing of Anglicanism. The Low Church Wing were called "Puritans" and Puritanism split into many different sub-groups.

I didn't say they did. I simply cited Anabaptists as typical of the radical reformation.
I guess you may think I am Baptist. I am not, not properly at least (though baptistic in many ways). I am in a "non-denom" "generic" evangelical church. I was raised, and first came to faith in, the Holiness-Pentecostal tradition, particularly the Church of God (Cleveland, TN) movement.

And my decent I refer not to chronological instituaional continuity in and of itself, but to a sort of  spiritual and/or theological continuity.
which you also don't have.
Quote
Let me put it this way, of all the modern churches born to the faith, it is among the protestants that I see the most clear characterstics and features of the NT church. That is to say they look more like their "momma" than any other (at least to me).
We are momma.

You cannot have God as your Father if you do not have the Church as your Mother.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
LBK
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,179


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #202 on: February 01, 2009, 12:40:44 AM »

Quote
That is to say they look more like their "momma" than any other (at least to me).


Ummm, Cleopas, you've admitted that you don't know that much about the Orthodox Church. So how on earth could you know what "momma" looks like? Hoist by your own petard, my friend.
Logged
Cleopas
Bible Thumping, Tongue Talking, Faith Walking Christian
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Charismatic Evangelical
Posts: 445


If I'm my own Pope then I claim infalliablity. Ha!

perfecthart
WWW
« Reply #203 on: February 01, 2009, 12:41:55 AM »

If you are a Protestant that believes one can loose their salvation then you automatically put Sanctification in the "Salvation area".

Thus, I stand by what I said!!!!! You can disagree, but it won't change what many Pentecostals, Charismatics, Cambellites and Ahmish believe about "Sanctification" and loosing ones salvation.......and how that effects their doctrine of Justification.

It's not the same as the classic Protestant Reformed view. Nor is it the same as the Baptist doctrine of "Easy Believism" ...A.K.A. Once saved always saved.


JNORM888

P.S. "You don't have to state what the Lutherian and Reformed Protestant view of Justification is. I already know what it is. I am after all a former Protestant myself. And what I said about many Pentecostals, Charismatics, Cambellites, Ahmish, and many other Arminians.... is indeed true. So feel free to disagree, but I'm not changing my mind. I already know that not all protestants agree in this area.

I must be misunderstanding what you have said then. Because, from what I can see, you are misinformed (at least as it reads).

Now, you may know more of those "high" church groups you speak of. But I know Holiness, Holiness-Pentecostal, and Charismatic beliefs. By defintion, though I consider myself "unaffiliaited" now, I am one.

You honestly seem to have flipped the groups around, and I was just trying to clarify. Most all Holiness and Holiness-Pentecostal groups hold sanctification to be a totally seperate work of grace from justification, even to the point of stating it is a defintie work that, though it can be received to human perception simultaneous with the newbirth, yet often follows the new birth by days, weeks, months, or even years. They often do not see it as even beginning in conversion (as Wesley did), but as a totally seperate and distinct work in and of itself.

Except for the Assemblies of God (for the most part) and Charasmatics, this is the typical standard belief regarding personal sanctification among them.


However, whatever the differences in understanding on the nature and relation of sanctification to the Christian life or other experiences, generally speaking all of us Evangelicals typically concure on the nature and function of justification itself.


BTW, "easy belivism" or "cheap grace" is not an an entirely nor exclusively Baptist distinctive. Though, at least in the states, they have been one of the most fertile fields for the seeds of that pernicious and damnable doctrine to grow. That's is primarly a 20th century phenomamon. Before that most Baptists (as I underatnd it) agreed and taught holiness as more or less indicative of true conversion, as did most Protestant/Evangelical groups.

I am happy to say that this truth is being more and more reemphasized and rediscovered in the apathatic circles of the American Evangelical Christian sphere.
Don't believe me, just google and watch a you tube of Paul Washer ( a Calvinistic Baptist from Alabama) teaching on conversion. Better yet, here ya go:

http://www.tubecodes.com/watch=uuabITeO4l8

« Last Edit: February 01, 2009, 01:04:22 AM by Cleopas » Logged

Cleopas
Christopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley
LBK
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,179


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #204 on: February 01, 2009, 12:46:50 AM »

Quote
However, whatever the differences in understanding on the nature and relation of sanctification to the Christian life or other experiences, generally speaking all of us Evangelicals typically concure on the nature and function of justification itself.

Clutching at straws, my friend. Just clutching at straws.
Logged
Cleopas
Bible Thumping, Tongue Talking, Faith Walking Christian
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Charismatic Evangelical
Posts: 445


If I'm my own Pope then I claim infalliablity. Ha!

perfecthart
WWW
« Reply #205 on: February 01, 2009, 12:52:37 AM »

Quote
That is to say they look more like their "momma" than any other (at least to me).


Ummm, Cleopas, you've admitted that you don't know that much about the Orthodox Church. So how on earth could you know what "momma" looks like? Hoist by your own petard, my friend.

I did not say I was ignorant of Orthodoxy. Just not well versed in it.

That said, I see "Momma's" picture all the time. Right there in the NT itself. And, sorry, but you don't look like that to me. I don't see those features as prominent in you as I do among Evangelicals. You may disagree, and that's understandable. Often my wife's people (not knowing my folks) only recognize her family traits and features in our kids (when they see pics and such). But if they coudl see me and/or my family they would see just how prominenet my families features are in my kids, way more so than the former.

My point? You may notice things in Orthodoxy that relate to the NT church which I do not. You may not see the relation among Evangelicals thereto. We each argue for which most closely resembles them, and why. But I am convinced that Evangelicals more closlely resemblt NT Christianity than Orthodoxy does (even if you are chronologically older).
« Last Edit: February 01, 2009, 01:16:59 AM by Cleopas » Logged

Cleopas
Christopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley
LBK
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,179


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #206 on: February 01, 2009, 01:04:38 AM »

But I am convinced that Evangelicals more closlely resemblt NT Christianity than Orthodoxy does (even if you are chronologically older).

Let me get this straight: So the religious denomination you are trying to establish now, in 2009, bears a closer resemblance to the Church founded by Christ, spread by the Apostles from Pentecost, 33AD (give or take a couple of years or so), and guarded by the Fathers, that has been "operating", as it were, continuously, often in the face of great persecution and threat of annihilation, yet still maintained its integrity for some 2000 years? Oh dear.
Logged
Cleopas
Bible Thumping, Tongue Talking, Faith Walking Christian
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Charismatic Evangelical
Posts: 445


If I'm my own Pope then I claim infalliablity. Ha!

perfecthart
WWW
« Reply #207 on: February 01, 2009, 01:21:19 AM »

But I am convinced that Evangelicals more closlely resemblt NT Christianity than Orthodoxy does (even if you are chronologically older).

Let me get this straight: So the religious denomination you are trying to establish now, in 2009

I am not trying to establish a denomination. Though if God wills it to be, and it can be so to His glory, then I am willing.
I don't know where I gave you gusy the idea I was trying to birth another denomination. I am sorry for not being more clear on this before evidently.
Logged

Cleopas
Christopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley
LBK
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,179


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #208 on: February 01, 2009, 01:34:25 AM »

Quote
Nevertheless, I have been called of the Lord Jesus himself, through the Spirit, and authorized by Him to preach and defend the gospel, establish churches, baptize converts and any other duty that may rightly fall upon me as His minister. I am not ashamed of Him or of the calling He has placed upon me, even if you refuse to recognize it.

Quote
But I have received them, in as much as by their word (the NT) I have believed on the Lord. By that same word I have received Apostolic affirmation of divine authorization to baptize. Simply put, the Lord called me to be His minister, and he has authorized me to baptize. If you really have an issue with that, then I can't really help you. Take it up with Him.


Quote
My authority to baptize comes from heaven, from the Lord Himself.

Quote
Our authorization is from Heaven. We need not the permission of any ecclesiastical seat such as the Jews attempted to use as a barrier to the ministries of both the Baptist and the Lord.

Quote
I'm Bapti-costal. Part baptist. Part Pentecostal.

Que, Cleopas? Your Momma Church still don't look like de way it should.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2009, 01:35:22 AM by LBK » Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,475


WWW
« Reply #209 on: February 01, 2009, 01:42:29 AM »

Quote from: Cleopas
I'm Bapti-costal. Part baptist. Part Pentecostal.

Ta da, the latest "One True Church" of Bapticostals (trumpet flourishesGrin
Logged
HandmaidenofGod
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,397


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #210 on: February 01, 2009, 04:15:47 AM »

I am not trying to establish a denomination. Though if God wills it to be, and it can be so to His glory, then I am willing.
I don't know where I gave you gusy the idea I was trying to birth another denomination. I am sorry for not being more clear on this before evidently.

You have to forgive us Cleopas. Since you don't belong to an existing denomination, and you don't declare yourself non-denominational (which is a denomination in and of itself) that makes your church a new denomination. At least, that's how it appears to us.
Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,840


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #211 on: February 01, 2009, 05:17:29 AM »

the Baptist doctrine of "Easy Believism"

I don't know where you got that phrase from, but if it is part of Orthodox parlance, be assured it is also part of our parlance. We always use it pejoratively, to denote a "gospel" we regard as inauthentic, shallow and ineffective, devoid of the call to "take up one's cross and follow Christ".
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,840


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #212 on: February 01, 2009, 05:20:57 AM »

P.S. "The Anabaptists split off from Zwingly. ...They decended from the early Reformed under Zwingly."

You are very well informed, and accurate, except (I think) in this closing PS. The Anabaptists were around before the Reformation.
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,840


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #213 on: February 01, 2009, 05:28:12 AM »

You refuse to see the Church as "Incarnational".

Maybe you'd better try to make me understand more clearly what you mean by "the Church as "Incarnational"". Since we both agree that the Spirit indwells all believers, thus the church, since we both agree that Christ has only one Bride, I am not understanding what else you mean. Please be free to try again: doubtless the fault lies with my limited knowledge of Orthodox theological vocabulary.
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,840


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #214 on: February 01, 2009, 05:32:58 AM »

some Calvinists would joke around and call the Arminians that believed one could loose their salvation as believing in the doctrine of "Justification through Sanctification".
JNORM888

If you are correct, then such Calvinists should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for making jest of their brethren in Christ, and also for putting around a parody of Arminian soteriology. May the Lord teach them grace and gentleness.
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,840


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #215 on: February 01, 2009, 05:38:08 AM »

The Ur-error of Protestant soteriology and anthropology.  We become partakers of divine nature.  "You must be perfect," not "you must be declared perfect." 

I should prefer Urlehre to Ur-error, but I'll go along with the Ur-. But you are again not seeing that we always teach that justification is the first thing; the spirits of just men made perfect is the final thing, in heaven. Neither negates or distorts the other, neither is an error, neither is the whole picture. In between them is our synergy with the Holy Spirit throughout life, him sanctifying us, us "making every effort" as Peter expresses it in his epistle.
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #216 on: February 01, 2009, 05:54:19 AM »

But I am convinced that Evangelicals more closlely resemblt NT Christianity than Orthodoxy does.
Where (and/or when) would you say that we went wrong?
Logged
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,840


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #217 on: February 01, 2009, 10:03:41 AM »

Where (and/or when) would you say that we went wrong?

This question is addressed to Cleopas, and I'll happily leave it to him to answer.  Smiley Briefly, the main watershed is usually seen as the 'conversion' of Constantine and the subsequent union of state and church.
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
LBK
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,179


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #218 on: February 01, 2009, 10:09:38 AM »

Quote
Briefly, the main watershed is usually seen as the 'conversion' of Constantine and the subsequent union of state and church.

Oh, good grief. The old Jehovah's Witnesses shibboleth.  Roll Eyes
« Last Edit: February 01, 2009, 10:10:01 AM by LBK » Logged
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,840


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #219 on: February 01, 2009, 10:12:51 AM »

Quote
Briefly, the main watershed is usually seen as the 'conversion' of Constantine and the subsequent union of state and church.

Oh, good grief. The old Jehovah's Witnesses shibboleth. 

Maybe: I know virtually nothing about the JWs. I think the idea that the union of state and church was a religious or spiritual disaster long antedates the beginnings of the JWs.
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #220 on: February 01, 2009, 12:47:42 PM »

The Ur-error of Protestant soteriology and anthropology.  We become partakers of divine nature.  "You must be perfect," not "you must be declared perfect." 

I should prefer Urlehre to Ur-error, but I'll go along with the Ur-. But you are again not seeing that we always teach that justification is the first thing; the spirits of just men made perfect is the final thing, in heaven. Neither negates or distorts the other, neither is an error, neither is the whole picture. In between them is our synergy with the Holy Spirit throughout life, him sanctifying us, us "making every effort" as Peter expresses it in his epistle.
Why in heaven and not on earth. Are you suggesting that no man that walks with holy spirit can become perfected in this life? This is the deformity of the western doctrine of original sin.
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,840


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #221 on: February 01, 2009, 01:11:25 PM »

the spirits of just men made perfect is the final thing, in heaven.

Why in heaven and not on earth.

I was merely quoting Hebrews 12.23.

Quote
Are you suggesting that no man that walks with holy spirit can become perfected in this life?

It is a Wesleyan doctrine, and Wesleyan theology is regarded as closer to Orthodox theology than most other Evangelical theology is. I have read Wesley's "A plain Account of Christian Perfection" and several testimonies of those who claim to have entered the experience. The Wesley hymns often use the phrase "the great salvation": e.g. Let us see thy great salvation, / Perfectly restored in thee. I am not suggesting whether the teaching is right or not.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2009, 01:12:29 PM by David Young » Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #222 on: February 01, 2009, 03:08:11 PM »

Quote
2. Yes, some Protestant churches baptize infants. Still they have historically, emphasised personal conversion in spite their practice of infant baptism. However, let me hasten to add that I believe the more radical reformation branch (the anebaptists movement, etc.) of what is now typically categorized lump sum as "Protestant" probably is more closely aligned with and decended from NT distinctives. I suppose that is why there is such common agreement in beliefs among myself and David Young, more than say with a Presbyterian or an Anglican


Baptists didn't come from AnaBaptists directly. They are not Ahmish.....nor are they Mennonite, but there was some cross-breeding that went on in the 16 hundreds. The Baptists "directly" came from the low wing of Anglicanism. The Low Church Wing were called "Puritans" and Puritanism split into many different sub-groups.

I didn't say they did. I simply cited Anabaptists as typical of the radical reformation.
I guess you may think I am Baptist. I am not, not properly at least (though baptistic in many ways). I am in a "non-denom" "generic" evangelical church. I was raised, and first came to faith in, the Holiness-Pentecostal tradition, particularly the Church of God (Cleveland, TN) movement.

And my decent I refer not to chronological instituaional continuity in and of itself, but to a sort of  spiritual and/or theological continuity.
Let me put it this way, of all the modern churches born to the faith, it is among the protestants that I see the most clear characterstics and features of the NT church. That is to say they look more like their "momma" than any other (at least to me).

You need to visit an Orthodox Jewish Synagogue then visit an Orthodox Christian Liturgy.

You also need to read the Apostolic Fathers on up.......for Orthodoxy is MOMMA! It always has been and always will be.


It took me 10 years to see that. So no rush.




JNORM888
« Last Edit: February 01, 2009, 03:12:16 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #223 on: February 01, 2009, 03:14:37 PM »

some Calvinists would joke around and call the Arminians that believed one could loose their salvation as believing in the doctrine of "Justification through Sanctification".
JNORM888

If you are correct, then such Calvinists should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for making jest of their brethren in Christ, and also for putting around a parody of Arminian soteriology. May the Lord teach them grace and gentleness.

Some Arminians already know it, and it doesn't bother them. Infact, I think it's sorta true myself. If one can loose their salvation then it is Justification through Sanctification.







JNORM888
Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #224 on: February 01, 2009, 03:50:41 PM »

You refuse to see the Church as "Incarnational".

Maybe you'd better try to make me understand more clearly what you mean by "the Church as "Incarnational"". Since we both agree that the Spirit indwells all believers, thus the church, since we both agree that Christ has only one Bride, I am not understanding what else you mean. Please be free to try again: doubtless the fault lies with my limited knowledge of Orthodox theological vocabulary.

It's about being in communion with the Body Jesus & the Apostles started 2,000 years ago. Just as you believe that no one can be a lone island christian. In like mannor, you can't be a lone island group.......not in (physical) communion with the group Jesus started.


You believe in O.S.A.S.(once saved always saved) for individuals, yet you deny that to the Church itself. (Once the Church, always the Church).

So you must believe that the Church was some how destroyed, only to be brought back to life some 1,600 years later when John Smyth started the first Baptist church.


When we look in the book of Acts as well as Church History. We don't see Jesus telling Saint Paul to go start a body separate from the one He started some years earlier. No! We see Jesus telling Saint Paul to go and see a christian from the original body that he started.

When Jesus prayed in John chapter 17 or maybe 15. He prayed that we all might be one just as He is one with the Father. He prayed for his Disciples as well as all those who would listen to them.

He didn't pray that everyone should jump start their own group. And not be in (physical) communion with the group he started.

The One Church is both a physical as well as a spiritual continuity. It's not just a spiritual one. That is why I said before that such a thing sounds like "gnosticism". You have to have both. What the people had in mind at the Nicene-Constantinople creed was a real "physical & spiritual" unity when they said "ONE HOLY and Apostolic Church". They did not have in mind some semi-gnostic spiritual only church in the next life. It was a real Physical & spiritual Oneness in the here and now.......meaning, you had to be in communion with HER.






JNORM888
« Last Edit: February 01, 2009, 04:08:52 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Tags: ecclesiology baptism 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.179 seconds with 72 queries.