OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 22, 2014, 04:06:45 PM *
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 48398 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #360 on: February 06, 2009, 11:41:18 AM »

QED?

Perhaps you will repeat what has been said frequently before, that you know where the church is, you do not know where it is not; or putting it another way, you know there is salvation in Orthodoxy, you do not know whether there is salvation outside Orthodoxy. If that must remain your immutable position, then neither of us will reach the point of putting quod erat demonstrandum at the end of the conversation, for I shall remain unable to convince you that the church where I worship is really Christian, and you will remain unable to convince me that yours is the only locus of salvation.

However, we have perhaps been foolish in that we have embarked upon this undoubtedly stimulating discussion (which has certainly made me think) without defining our terms. What does "Christian" mean?

For us Evangelicals it has two meanings:

- it is synonymous with saved, born again, converted, a child of God and such terms: that is, it denotes an inward matter. This is probably how we use it most often.

- it means subscribing to Christian doctrine, however that be defined.

I turn to the second of these definitions. Is there such a thing as an agreed summary of Christian doctrine? Someone posted some days ago the assertion that we (Protestants) and you (Orthodox) might all subscribe to the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed, but that we give the words different meanings. I doubt that that is true. I took the trouble to read them both through, and the only word I think we would disagree on is the word "unto" in the phrase "one baptism unto remission of sins". We do, I think, differ on exactly how the sacrament of baptism 'works', but even the most zwinglian Protestant would, I think, acknowledge a link between the symbolism of the rite and the washing away of sin.  I will not go into the question of whether baptism of infants and baptism of believers are arguably variations of or within the performance of same rite, for there is a thread on that anyway and I have expatiated on it at length.

If you could for a moment be persuaded that the preposition "unto" (sadly I do not have the original Latin or Greek (which was it?))

Greek.  The West took no part in writing the Creed of the Second Council (where this appears) of 381.  Not until the filioque, which is all Latin (and heretical).
Ὁμολογῶ ἓν βάπτισμα εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν

εἰς

A primary preposition; to or into (indicating the point reached or entered), of place, time, or (figuratively) purpose (result, etc.); also in adverbial phrases -- (abundant-)ly, against, among, as, at, (back-)ward, before, by, concerning, + continual, + far more exceeding, for (intent, purpose), fore, + forth, in (among, at, unto, -so much that, -to), to the intent that, + of one mind, + never, of, (up-)on, + perish, + set at one again, (so) that, therefore(-unto), throughout, til, to (be, the end, -ward), (here-)until(-to),...ward, (where-)fore, with. Often used in composition with the same general import, but only with verbs (etc.) Expressing motion (literally or figuratively).


Quote
can bear more than one precise meaning, then I think you would need to concede that you and we are in agreement thus far, and that therefore we here are indeed a Christian church, as I readily concede that you are. I do not think that we need to look at later summaries of Christian or denominational belief, such as the Decrees of Dositheus or the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith.

In some ways we do: Protestantism wasn't dreamed of in the Early Church, and the Synod of Jerusalem was the first explicit dealing on the novelty of Protestantism.

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
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,797


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #361 on: February 06, 2009, 12:13:52 PM »

Ὁμολογῶ ἓν βάπτισμα εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν

εἰς

Reply posted on Believers' Baptism thread. See you there?
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,488


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #362 on: February 06, 2009, 04:44:20 PM »

ONE TRUE CHURCH?

To bring the conversation back towards its title, but to build on the previous exchanges, which are, I believe, relevant, my contention is that there is not only "one true church" and yours is that there is only "one true church". For me to succeed, I have to persuade you that, to take just one example, the Baptist church I attend here in Wrexham is in fact a Christian church: then I can put QED on my post, for I shall have won my case. For you to succeed, you have to prove that we (like other non-Orthodox) are not a real Christian church. Then you can put QED. Over to you...

We are...factually.....the Ancient...Original Church. Your Church is not and we can easily prove it with historical evidence.

If then we are the Actual, Original Church you then must prove heresy in order for us not to also be the "True Church"... We merely need to demonstrate that you are not the Historical Church. The most you can hope for is to be like the True Church in your idea's, but you can never in a concrete way be the Original Church. You simply arent.

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,144


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #363 on: February 06, 2009, 06:22:36 PM »

I am fully ready to believe that the richly symbolic ceremony which you practise is meaningful, helpful and edifying for some people, and that they genuinely find and experience Christ in it.

The form and structure of Orthodox liturgical worship is based on the worship of the synagogue, and the descriptions in the Book of Revelation. Can't get more historic or scriptural than that.

Quote
I have no wish at all to draw any such away from it. I also think that our more cerebral, didactic approach, on the other hand, is helpful to other people, especially those of a western mindset and culture. By this means they find an open pathway to the knowledge and experience of Christ.

Cerebral and didactic. Hmmm. Attend an Orthodox vigil service, David, or vespers, or matins, keep your eyes and ears open, and then tell me whether or not that service is didactic, or unscriptural. The same goes for any other office, including the Divine Liturgy, and the sublime and incomparable Great Canon of St Andrew of Crete, which is part of the Great Compline service on the first four evenings of Great Lent, which begins on March 2 this year. The text of this canon is readily available online in English, if you cannot attend an Orthodox church for this service, I strongly recommend you at least read it.

Quote
To some extent I guess my personality falls mainly into the 'cerebral' Protestant approach, but I appreciate the more 'symbolic' approach as well; which is presumably why I like to pray at special times at very ancient places of worship, where men have at least reached out for God (Acts 17.27) from time immemorial, or in some 1000-year-old Orthodox or Anglican church (which can't happen if it is locked and has to be opened by a key-holder who hovers whilst one admires the frescoes, carvings and icons: but some are open, and one is usually alone then to pray and think).

Very nice. But praying alone in an empty church, even if it were Aghia Sophia, does not come anywhere near to tasting what Orthodoxy is.

Quote
Or, better still ... Vespers and Matins... Have you read and contemplated the priestly prayers ?

I used very much to enjoy the midnight service before Christmas Day or before New Year's Day when I attended a church which practised it (i.e. when I was the pastor!), but my present church does not hold such. If this is the sort of thing you would recommend, I should gladly enter it in my diary for Christmas or New Year's Eve, and perhaps take my daughter if she wished to come: she virtually never attends church, but enjoys the Anglican midnight service on Christmas Eve.

It should be obvious I was referring to Orthodox vigils, not Anglican ones.

Quote
I have read the Liturgy of John Chrysostom. Is this what you have in mind?

It's a start. Does your copy have the priestly prayers, or is it simply the "layman's handbook", which usually omit the "inaudible" portions?

Quote
...for if what I say is true, then our churches and your churches are both Christian churches but with widely different approaches.

The trouble is, is that your church has stripped out so much of what is needful, in the mistaken belief that these things were unnecessary. Orthodoxy has maintained this fullness, and has no need to "reverse-engineer" an idealised "church of the apostles" as so many protestants are constantly trying to do.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2009, 06:24:07 PM by LBK » 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 #364 on: February 06, 2009, 06:35:31 PM »

The trouble is, is that your church has stripped out so much of what is needful, in the mistaken belief that these things were unnecessary. Orthodoxy has maintained this fullness, and has no need to "reverse-engineer" an idealised "church of the apostles" as so many protestants are constantly trying to do.

And for us the trouble is that your church has added so much to the faith -- outside of the revelation of Scripture itself.
You see us as taking away from the faith. But we see you as adding to it. Without clear Scriptural grounds for such additional practices, they cannot hold an authoritative place among us, or be considered properly part of the faith once for all delivered. They can be held in conjunction to the faith (when not in opposition thereto), but not on par therewith. For that, to us, is an adding to the word of the Lord.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2009, 06:36:42 PM by Cleopas » Logged

Cleopas
Christopher Hart

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

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #365 on: February 06, 2009, 06:43:39 PM »

The trouble is, is that your church has stripped out so much of what is needful, in the mistaken belief that these things were unnecessary. Orthodoxy has maintained this fullness, and has no need to "reverse-engineer" an idealised "church of the apostles" as so many protestants are constantly trying to do.

And for us the trouble is that your church has added so much to the faith -- outside of the revelation of Scripture itself.
You see us as taking away from the faith. But we see you as adding to it. Without clear Scriptural grounds for such additional practices, they cannot hold an authoritative place among us, or be considered properly part of the faith once for all delivered. They can be held in conjunction to the faith (when not in opposition thereto), but not on par therewith. For that, to us, is an adding to the word of the Lord.
But Scripture is/was not the revelation of the logos, Christ is and said revelation is found in His Church.

It's not your fault, you're not 'wired' to recognize this.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
GreekChef
Prez
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America: Metropolis of Atlanta
Posts: 884



« Reply #366 on: February 06, 2009, 07:23:55 PM »

The trouble is, is that your church has stripped out so much of what is needful, in the mistaken belief that these things were unnecessary. Orthodoxy has maintained this fullness, and has no need to "reverse-engineer" an idealised "church of the apostles" as so many protestants are constantly trying to do.

And for us the trouble is that your church has added so much to the faith -- outside of the revelation of Scripture itself.
You see us as taking away from the faith. But we see you as adding to it. Without clear Scriptural grounds for such additional practices, they cannot hold an authoritative place among us, or be considered properly part of the faith once for all delivered. They can be held in conjunction to the faith (when not in opposition thereto), but not on par therewith. For that, to us, is an adding to the word of the Lord.

We have added nothing, friend.  What we have RETAINED has been there all along.  Nothing has been added.  Nothing taken away. 

It is historical inaccuracy, scholarly irresponsible, and frankly, unrealistic, to delude oneself by thinking that Protestants DID NOT take away from the faith.  We can trace our faith and practices to the apostles (and have evidenced a little of that on this forum).  We can also show where the beliefs and practices of Protestants are innovative, and contrary to what the apostles and their followers believed.  How, my friend, are we "adding to" the faith, when it is in line with the teachings and practices that the apostles left us?  And how are you NOT taking away from it, when we can prove such as I have said (and have proved it)? 

Basically, this just goes back to the Sola Scriptura argument.  It all does.  It's circular.  Until there is some understanding in that area, you will never understand or accept anything else we have to say.  You said once that our trump card is Tradition.  Yours is Sola Scriptura.  The only difference is, we can prove where Sola Scriptura is innovative and contrary to the belief of the apostles.  You CANNOT prove that about Tradition.  You can try, though.  I would be very happy to read it!
Logged

Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.
Matthew 18:5
GreekChef
Prez
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America: Metropolis of Atlanta
Posts: 884



« Reply #367 on: February 06, 2009, 07:26:01 PM »

The trouble is, is that your church has stripped out so much of what is needful, in the mistaken belief that these things were unnecessary. Orthodoxy has maintained this fullness, and has no need to "reverse-engineer" an idealised "church of the apostles" as so many protestants are constantly trying to do.

And for us the trouble is that your church has added so much to the faith -- outside of the revelation of Scripture itself.
You see us as taking away from the faith. But we see you as adding to it. Without clear Scriptural grounds for such additional practices, they cannot hold an authoritative place among us, or be considered properly part of the faith once for all delivered. They can be held in conjunction to the faith (when not in opposition thereto), but not on par therewith. For that, to us, is an adding to the word of the Lord.
But Scripture is/was not the revelation of the logos, Christ is and said revelation is found in His Church.

It's not your fault, you're not 'wired' to recognize this.

YES!!  Scripture is NOT revelation.  It is a RECORD of revelation (and a fallible one at that, considering it was written by men and is the literal word not of God, but of man), not revelation itself.  And it becomes revelation when we use it!
Logged

Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.
Matthew 18:5
HandmaidenofGod
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,378


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #368 on: February 06, 2009, 08:03:24 PM »

Your missing the literary aspect of the sacrament. When two people get married in the sacrament of marriage. They are joining spiritually as well as physically. Without the physical interaction there can't be a spiritual interaction. You can always look at your wife, but without the intimacy you can't call yourself married. Wink



What a beautiful illustration.

Is it too early to nominate this for "Post of the Month"?
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 #369 on: February 06, 2009, 08:28:08 PM »

You can always look at your wife, but without the intimacy you can't call yourself married. Wink

Why not? That's precisely what you all contend Joseph did with Mary.
Logged

Cleopas
Christopher Hart

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

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,378


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #370 on: February 06, 2009, 08:30:08 PM »

Why not? That's precisely what you all contend Joseph did with Mary.

They were betrothed, not married.

That's the differance.
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 #371 on: February 06, 2009, 08:43:01 PM »

Why not? That's precisely what you all contend Joseph did with Mary.

They were betrothed, not married.

That's the differance.

Oh, pish posh.  Tongue
NT era Jewish espousal was a legally binding covenant exchange for the purpose of matrimony, hence marriage.
Besides, the angel commanded Joseph not to "put away" Mary, but rather to end the espousal period (what you call betrothal) when he charged him to take her unto himself. Hence, we find here record of their espousal being concluded, which would render them (sex or no sex), even by modern betrothal standards, fully wed -- man and wife.

My point? The contention Demetrios G has made will not hold.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2009, 08:43:21 PM by Cleopas » Logged

Cleopas
Christopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley
SolEX01
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 10,975


WWW
« Reply #372 on: February 06, 2009, 08:46:30 PM »

Oh, pish posh.  Tongue
NT era Jewish espousal was a legally binding covenant exchange for the purpose of matrimony, hence marriage.
Besides, the angel commanded Joseph not to "put away" Mary, but rather to end the espousal period (what you call betrothal) when he charged him to take her unto himself. Hence, we find here record of their espousal being concluded, which would render them (sex or no sex), even by modern betrothal standards, fully wed -- man and wife.

My point? The contention Demetrios G has made will not hold.

How would you know?  So, the Angel had the authority to marry two people?   Huh  Roll Eyes

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 #373 on: February 06, 2009, 08:56:26 PM »


How would you know?  So, the Angel had the authority to marry two people?   Huh  Roll Eyes

As to your 1st question -- Because I am familiar with Jewish wedding custom of that era, having learned from converted Jews.

As to your 2nd question -- No. The angel did not marry them. They were joined with the initiation/acceptance of the espousal contract/covenant.

But alas, we are digressing.  Undecided
That was not my intention. Lips Sealed


« Last Edit: February 06, 2009, 08:58:07 PM by Cleopas » Logged

Cleopas
Christopher Hart

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

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,378


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #374 on: February 06, 2009, 09:18:25 PM »

^I'm not going to get into this with you on this thread as many other threads have been dedicated to this topic.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2009, 09:18:52 PM by HandmaidenofGod » 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
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #375 on: February 06, 2009, 10:55:15 PM »

The trouble is, is that your church has stripped out so much of what is needful, in the mistaken belief that these things were unnecessary. Orthodoxy has maintained this fullness, and has no need to "reverse-engineer" an idealised "church of the apostles" as so many protestants are constantly trying to do.

And for us the trouble is that your church has added so much to the faith -- outside of the revelation of Scripture itself.
You see us as taking away from the faith. But we see you as adding to it. Without clear Scriptural grounds for such additional practices, they cannot hold an authoritative place among us, or be considered properly part of the faith once for all delivered. They can be held in conjunction to the faith (when not in opposition thereto), but not on par therewith. For that, to us, is an adding to the word of the Lord.
But Scripture is/was not the revelation of the logos, Christ is and said revelation is found in His Church.

It's not your fault, you're not 'wired' to recognize this.

YES!!  Scripture is NOT revelation.  It is a RECORD of revelation (and a fallible one at that, considering it was written by men and is the literal word not of God, but of man), not revelation itself.  And it becomes revelation when we use it!
A record, yes...but not it is not ALL revelation. That is in His Church.
As to you closing statement...HuhHuh?, huh.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #376 on: February 06, 2009, 11:02:04 PM »


How would you know?  So, the Angel had the authority to marry two people?   Huh  Roll Eyes

As to your 1st question -- Because I am familiar with Jewish wedding custom of that era, having learned from converted Jews.

Wow!  You don't look 2,000 years old.

We learned it from a converted Jew from that era named Paul and his friends.

Quote
As to your 2nd question -- No. The angel did not marry them. They were joined with the initiation/acceptance of the espousal contract/covenant.
not consumated.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2009, 11:03:25 PM 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
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: 37,124



« Reply #377 on: February 06, 2009, 11:14:14 PM »

The trouble is, is that your church has stripped out so much of what is needful, in the mistaken belief that these things were unnecessary. Orthodoxy has maintained this fullness, and has no need to "reverse-engineer" an idealised "church of the apostles" as so many protestants are constantly trying to do.

And for us the trouble is that your church has added so much to the faith

We added the NT. You don't seem to be bothered by that.

Quote
-- outside of the revelation of Scripture itself.

We are the revelation of Scripture itself.

Quote
You see us as taking away from the faith. But we see you as adding to it.


You've added sola scriptura. It's not in the scriptura.

You've taken away the transmission of Tradition, which the Bible clearly mandates:

1 Corinthians 11:2 ἐπαινῶ δὲ ὑμᾶς ὅτι πάντα μου μέμνησθε καὶ, καθὼς παρέδωκα ὑμῖν, τὰς παραδόσεις κατέχετε.
Now I praise you, brothers, that you remember me in all things, and hold firm the traditions, even as I delivered them to you.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 ἄρα οὖν, ἀδελφοί, στήκετε καὶ κρατεῖτε τὰς παραδόσεις ἃς ἐδιδάχθητε εἴτε διὰ λόγου εἴτε δι' ἐπιστολῆς ἡμῶν.
So then, brothers, stand firm, and hold the traditions which you were taught by us, whether by word, or by letter.

2 Thessalonians 3:6 Παραγγέλλομεν δὲ ὑμῖν, ἀδελφοί, ἐν ὀνόματι τοῦ κυρίου [ἡμῶν] Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ στέλλεσθαι ὑμᾶς ἀπὸ παντὸς ἀδελφοῦ ἀτάκτως περιπατοῦντος καὶ μὴ κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν ἣν παρελάβετε / παρελάβοσαν παρ' ἡμῶν.
Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother who walks in rebellion, and not after the tradition which they received from us.

Quote
Without clear Scriptural grounds for such additional practices, they cannot hold an authoritative place among us, or be considered properly part of the faith once for all delivered
.

You mean, like the deaconate?

Quote
They can be held in conjunction to the faith (when not in opposition thereto), but not on par therewith.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 ἄρα οὖν, ἀδελφοί, στήκετε καὶ κρατεῖτε τὰς παραδόσεις ἃς ἐδιδάχθητε εἴτε διὰ λόγου εἴτε δι' ἐπιστολῆς ἡμῶν.
So then, brothers, stand firm, and hold the traditions which you were taught by us, whether by word, or by letter.

I repeat myself (or rather, St. Paul).


 
Quote
For that, to us, is an adding to the word of the Lord.

Then you will be chucking everything but your Torah, eh?
« Last Edit: February 06, 2009, 11:14:42 PM 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
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #378 on: February 06, 2009, 11:21:34 PM »

Why not? That's precisely what you all contend Joseph did with Mary.

They were betrothed, not married.

That's the differance.

Oh, pish posh.  Tongue
NT era Jewish espousal was a legally binding covenant exchange for the purpose of matrimony, hence marriage.
Besides, the angel commanded Joseph not to "put away" Mary, but rather to end the espousal period (what you call betrothal) when he charged him to take her unto himself. Hence, we find here record of their espousal being concluded, which would render them (sex or no sex), even by modern betrothal standards, fully wed -- man and wife.

My point? The contention Demetrios G has made will not hold.
OK. I'll rephrase it like my Protestant friends.   What's the first thing that ends before a divorce? Wink
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.
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #379 on: February 07, 2009, 12:19:23 AM »

You believe in O.S.A.S.(once saved always saved) for individuals,

You are putting words into my mouth - or rather, on to my keyboard. I have not written that I believe in eternal security; rather, I said I am agnostic on that question (actually I wrote 'apophatic'). But I have attempted to give a clearer description of the doctrine - without committing myself to it - out of fairness to those who do hold it, because the way it is described on the forum is a caricture of the classic Calvinist teaching.

Quote
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.

Ah! I think I see what you mean. Before I attempt a reply, you'd better tell me whether I am understanding you better now. You mean a sort of institutional or organisational continuity in time and space, whereby the true church spread and continues to spread from the beginning to all its branches, twigs and outermost leaves, and that it is in this body that Christ dwells in his Spirit - that this body is the temple of the Holy Ghost. Of course, I don't share that view - but is it what you are arguing for?


I am arguing for both Physical & spiritual continuity. A composite of both. It's either the Church was preserved or She was destroyed only to come back to life some many many many centuries later. Somewhat like the late Saint Augustinian doctrine of the destruction/annihilation of free will after the fall of Adam, only for it to be ressurected again some time later in the future.

But in this case we are talking about the Church. Was the Church preserved or annihilated?

I believe the Church to be dynamic......not static.....not trapped in the 1st century alone. Just as a Tree grows....so also the Church. And just as a tree trunk has rings everytime it goes through a time of turbulance through the seasons. In like mannor.......we can see the rings of the Church everytime she goes through a time of turbulance throughout the centuries.

It is said that a person can tell how old a tree is by counting the number of rings it has. Well, we can look at the historicl record of the Church .......just by looking at Her rings.




JNORM888

David?





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 #380 on: February 07, 2009, 12:25:31 AM »

The trouble is, is that your church has stripped out so much of what is needful, in the mistaken belief that these things were unnecessary. Orthodoxy has maintained this fullness, and has no need to "reverse-engineer" an idealised "church of the apostles" as so many protestants are constantly trying to do.

And for us the trouble is that your church has added so much to the faith -- outside of the revelation of Scripture itself.
You see us as taking away from the faith. But we see you as adding to it. Without clear Scriptural grounds for such additional practices, they cannot hold an authoritative place among us, or be considered properly part of the faith once for all delivered. They can be held in conjunction to the faith (when not in opposition thereto), but not on par therewith. For that, to us, is an adding to the word of the Lord.

Who is the one that "decides" what is and isn't in "opposition"? Every American Protestant group does something different. Your new group will do something different from PCA, OPC, ECUSA, TEC, ICCEC, CEEC, SBC, NBC, COGIC, AOG,UMC........ect.


It is too subjective and individualistic.

In your brand new church......you will be the one who will decide what is what. And it will differ from another protestant group.




JNORM888
« Last Edit: February 07, 2009, 12:31:42 AM 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 #381 on: February 07, 2009, 12:29:37 AM »

ONE TRUE CHURCH?

To bring the conversation back towards its title, but to build on the previous exchanges, which are, I believe, relevant, my contention is that there is not only "one true church" and yours is that there is only "one true church". For me to succeed, I have to persuade you that, to take just one example, the Baptist church I attend here in Wrexham is in fact a Christian church: then I can put QED on my post, for I shall have won my case. For you to succeed, you have to prove that we (like other non-Orthodox) are not a real Christian church. Then you can put QED. Over to you...

Was Arianism christian? What about Marcianism? What about the many christian gnostics? What about the Montanists? The Ebionites? The Novationists?........ect.

The One True Church is in regards to Orthodoxy. There is only one True Orthodox Church. There always has been and always will be.







JNORM888
« Last Edit: February 07, 2009, 12:33:49 AM 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/
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 #382 on: February 07, 2009, 03:57:36 AM »

You said once that our trump card is Tradition.  Yours is Sola Scriptura.

Indeed. And touche.  laugh And as you indicated it appears that "Sola Scriptura" and "Holy Tradition" shall never the twain be humanly possible.

Quote
The only difference is, we can prove where Sola Scriptura is innovative and contrary to the belief of the apostles.  You CANNOT prove that about Tradition.  You can try, though.  I would be very happy to read it!

Yes, well, I am considering attempting to broach the subject formally. What with this reply, and then the reply from ialmisry along the same lines, it seems only logical. Undecided
Logged

Cleopas
Christopher Hart

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

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,378


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #383 on: February 07, 2009, 04:07:46 AM »

Quote
"At rechurch, we are active participants in every worship gathering.  We don’t believe God meant worship to be a passive experience. Even our sermons are designed to promote dialogue and interaction around spiritual truths.  We prefer to to touch, to smell, to create, to produce as we worship God in community.  The stations described below have been created to facilitate an active, participatory worship environment.  They are, of course, better experienced that explained...   

...At rechurch, we invite you to slow down, to contemplate, to commune.  At any point during our worship gathering, feel free to  visit our prayer & meditation station.  Here you will find prayer books, votive candles, and meditation crosses to help your mind focus on God and to slow down your heart, mind, body, and soul."

You claim you don't need tradition.

You claim you don't need the outward "trappings" of man.

You claim you don't want any "extra's."

I say bologna.

The above quotes were taken from the website of a local Baptist Church not two blocks from my home. (http://www.acswebnetworks.com/wieucanew/alternative/article109754.htm?body=1)

Don't you see? The more you try to run away from that which God has ordained the more you come right back to it.

These folks think they're doing something original with worship that involves all the senses! They think they're being original with prayer books and candles! Let me tell you, I have the good mind to grab their Pastor by the hand and drag him to Divine Liturgy on Sunday!

You may think that your churches are free of tradition and the trappings of man. You may think they are free from ritual and repetitiveness.

I have news for you my friend.

You are wrong.

People can get lost in ritualism whether it be waving their hands in the air to "Open the Eyes of My Heart Lord" with an electric guitar background, or to the acapella beauty expressed in the "Cherubic Hymn."

The differance is that our style of worship can be proven both scripturally and historically.

I can gaurantee that guitar-jam sessions were NOT part of Upper-Room worship.

THAT is what defines us as the One, True, Church.
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
HandmaidenofGod
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,378


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #384 on: February 07, 2009, 04:43:18 AM »

P.S. Love your line about being a Pope, however I wouldn't use it on your wife if I were you.  Grin  laugh
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 #385 on: February 07, 2009, 04:45:32 AM »

P.S. Love your line about being a Pope, however I wouldn't use it on your wife if I were you.  Grin  laugh

Thank you.  laugh That was actually inspired by a friendly PM from Alveus Lacuna.  Wink
« Last Edit: February 07, 2009, 04:46:59 AM by Cleopas » Logged

Cleopas
Christopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,797


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #386 on: February 07, 2009, 08:45:28 AM »

Was the Church preserved or annihilated?

The true church has always been preserved, and always shall be till our Lord appears in glory, and then for eternity. I think you know what I mean by that: those Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Anabaptists who truly know and follow the Son of God.

As regards the physical, the institutional church, I have no problem with your arguments for unbroken historical Orthodox continuity of life and development back to the Apostles. You have the strongest, probably the only, claim to that. I do not dispute it. Even if it is incorrect, I have insufficient knowledge to gainsay it. So let us accept it as true at least for now.

What I do say is that the Orthodox organisation, despite its historical record, does not thereby make up the entire Body of Christ. Both Cleopas and I have argued for this from scripture. GreekChef is probably her usual perceptive self in pointing out that the whole thing brings us back to the question of where final authority for belief and practice lies - the scriptures alone, or Holy Tradition as the only correct interpretation of scripture - together with unbroken physical continuity.

I believe our church here is Christian and is part of the Body of Christ - but ultimately, only "the Day will reveal it".
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #387 on: February 07, 2009, 11:12:56 AM »

But of course you must hold this belief, or become Orthodox.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #388 on: February 07, 2009, 01:30:03 PM »

Was the Church preserved or annihilated?

The true church has always been preserved, and always shall be till our Lord appears in glory, and then for eternity. I think you know what I mean by that: those Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Anabaptists who truly know and follow the Son of God.

As regards the physical, the institutional church, I have no problem with your arguments for unbroken historical Orthodox continuity of life and development back to the Apostles. You have the strongest, probably the only, claim to that. I do not dispute it. Even if it is incorrect, I have insufficient knowledge to gainsay it. So let us accept it as true at least for now.

What I do say is that the Orthodox organisation, despite its historical record, does not thereby make up the entire Body of Christ. Both Cleopas and I have argued for this from scripture. GreekChef is probably her usual perceptive self in pointing out that the whole thing brings us back to the question of where final authority for belief and practice lies - the scriptures alone, or Holy Tradition as the only correct interpretation of scripture - together with unbroken physical continuity.

I believe our church here is Christian and is part of the Body of Christ - but ultimately, only "the Day will reveal it".

We don't see "Scripture" as being "outside" of Holy Tradition.

Scripture itself is an aspect of Holy Tradition.


You should read up on the influence the Renaissance had on the Protestant Reformation. Dr. Peter Harrison http://www.hmc.ox.ac.uk/people/pharrison.html wrote a good book called "The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science ( Cambridge, 1998)",. In it he talks a little bit about how the backdrop of the Renaissance influenced the Protestant Reformation, and in turn how the Protestant Reformation caused the rise of Natural Science by changing the way we look at the world. Later in the book he shows how this would soon backfire for these same weopons would soon cause Protestant liberals to deny the supernatural in Scripture.....if not the inspiration of Scripture itself. It is an interesting read. It shows the rise of modern secularism ....especially in science.


But anyway, your focus of "scripture alone" can be traced to the German Renaissance. The Italian Renaissance was more focused on "architecture", whereas, the German Renaissance was focused on "literature".

Your form of Protestantism seems to think that "Truth" exists in "Literature" alone. As if truth couldn't be found elsewhere. Modern Rationalistic Cynics share the same problem, for they too deny the legitimacy of alot of things that are not written. They deny the truth that symbols carry. They deny the truth that rituals carry.

All of these things ....... "Rituals" & "Symbols" embody an ambience of the context of a givin culture. In this case.....Christianity. Our Liturgy, our Icons, our, Rituals, and other symbols all portray the correct interpretation of Scripture. Thus, "Truth", permeates the Church itself.

The idea of Sola Scriptora was not passed on to the Church by Jesus, nor was it passed on by His Apostles. It is an invention of man.....a 16nth century scientific invention. But it is not a "Christian Historic" doctrine/idea.





JNORM888
« Last Edit: February 07, 2009, 01:56:37 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/
GreekChef
Prez
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America: Metropolis of Atlanta
Posts: 884



« Reply #389 on: February 07, 2009, 03:32:05 PM »

The trouble is, is that your church has stripped out so much of what is needful, in the mistaken belief that these things were unnecessary. Orthodoxy has maintained this fullness, and has no need to "reverse-engineer" an idealised "church of the apostles" as so many protestants are constantly trying to do.

And for us the trouble is that your church has added so much to the faith -- outside of the revelation of Scripture itself.
You see us as taking away from the faith. But we see you as adding to it. Without clear Scriptural grounds for such additional practices, they cannot hold an authoritative place among us, or be considered properly part of the faith once for all delivered. They can be held in conjunction to the faith (when not in opposition thereto), but not on par therewith. For that, to us, is an adding to the word of the Lord.
But Scripture is/was not the revelation of the logos, Christ is and said revelation is found in His Church.

It's not your fault, you're not 'wired' to recognize this.

YES!!  Scripture is NOT revelation.  It is a RECORD of revelation (and a fallible one at that, considering it was written by men and is the literal word not of God, but of man), not revelation itself.  And it becomes revelation when we use it!
A record, yes...but not it is not ALL revelation. That is in His Church.
As to you closing statement...HuhHuh?, huh.

Sorry... Clarity...
Scripture becomes alive and dynamic when we use it the way it is intended... liturgically, to experience God, to know God, to have a relationship with God, to apply it in our every day lives, etc.  If we do not use it and live by it as Christ intended, it's just words in a book.  Make more sense?
« Last Edit: February 07, 2009, 03:39:12 PM by GreekChef » Logged

Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.
Matthew 18:5
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,488


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #390 on: February 08, 2009, 10:10:40 PM »


The true church has always been preserved, and always shall be till our Lord appears in glory, and then for eternity. I think you know what I mean by that: those Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Anabaptists who truly know and follow the Son of God.

There are two types of religion. One is based on "Principle" ( Manifestation in principle). You shoot for this set of Principles ( sometimes in our own way) but it is the Principle that binds . Therefore "The Church" is a "Principle". Principles are invisible. They are idea's. That is how Protestants come to believe The Church is invisible.

The other type of religion is based on Actual Manifestation . The Church ACTUALLY exists in a concrete manner. It has an address. You can take a bus ride and get there , attend it's Liturgy and be joined with it physically through Baptism.

This is the root of many differences between Protestants and Orthodox ( The Church). The Eucharist within The Church actually manifests the body blood and divinity of Christ. We actually are transformed ( Theosis) through our participation in the sacraments  to be Like God (Theosis). We must confess outloud..on and on. 



As regards the physical, the institutional church, I have no problem with your arguments for unbroken historical Orthodox continuity of life and development back to the Apostles. You have the strongest, probably the only, claim to that. I do not dispute it. Even if it is incorrect, I have insufficient knowledge to gainsay it. So let us accept it as true at least for now.

Yes, the same Church that was founded on the day of Petacost still ACTUALLY exists.

 
What I do say is that the Orthodox organisation, despite its historical record, does not thereby make up the entire Body of Christ. Both Cleopas and I have argued for this from scripture. GreekChef is probably her usual perceptive self in pointing out that the whole thing brings us back to the question of where final authority for belief and practice lies - the scriptures alone, or Holy Tradition as the only correct interpretation of scripture - together with unbroken physical continuity.


The Ancient Church, THE Original Church does not make up the entirety of those whom will be saved. But it is THE Body of Christ on Earth, so your best bet for salvation is to
be Baptised into it .
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #391 on: February 09, 2009, 11:05:53 PM »

Where is the invisible Church in the NT?  Is it because it is invisible that we don't see it?
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: 3,378


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #392 on: February 11, 2009, 01:58:37 AM »


The true church has always been preserved, and always shall be till our Lord appears in glory, and then for eternity. I think you know what I mean by that: those Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Anabaptists who truly know and follow the Son of God.

There are two types of religion. One is based on "Principle" ( Manifestation in principle). You shoot for this set of Principles ( sometimes in our own way) but it is the Principle that binds . Therefore "The Church" is a "Principle". Principles are invisible. They are idea's. That is how Protestants come to believe The Church is invisible.

The other type of religion is based on Actual Manifestation . The Church ACTUALLY exists in a concrete manner. It has an address. You can take a bus ride and get there , attend it's Liturgy and be joined with it physically through Baptism.

This is the root of many differences between Protestants and Orthodox ( The Church). The Eucharist within The Church actually manifests the body blood and divinity of Christ. We actually are transformed ( Theosis) through our participation in the sacraments  to be Like God (Theosis). We must confess outloud..on and on. 



As regards the physical, the institutional church, I have no problem with your arguments for unbroken historical Orthodox continuity of life and development back to the Apostles. You have the strongest, probably the only, claim to that. I do not dispute it. Even if it is incorrect, I have insufficient knowledge to gainsay it. So let us accept it as true at least for now.

Yes, the same Church that was founded on the day of Petacost still ACTUALLY exists.

 
What I do say is that the Orthodox organisation, despite its historical record, does not thereby make up the entire Body of Christ. Both Cleopas and I have argued for this from scripture. GreekChef is probably her usual perceptive self in pointing out that the whole thing brings us back to the question of where final authority for belief and practice lies - the scriptures alone, or Holy Tradition as the only correct interpretation of scripture - together with unbroken physical continuity.


The Ancient Church, THE Original Church does not make up the entirety of those whom will be saved. But it is THE Body of Christ on Earth, so your best bet for salvation is to
be Baptised into it .


QFT!

Fr. Alexander Schmemann actually talks about this in his book For the Life of the World if our Protestant friends are interested in reading more about this. It's a short book (155 pages) but very well written. It's in English and available on Amazon.com!  Grin
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
Hening
Fr Deacon Michael Heningham
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 104



WWW
« Reply #393 on: February 13, 2009, 10:06:00 AM »


Of course Mormonism is a sect.  That was never the question.  I know what Mormons believe, and of course it's not Christianity.  THat's not the point.

Yes Brother, that is the point of why I replied.  Mormonism in no way is representative of a division or sub-division of Christianity. To apply it as an example in order to measure or weigh an actual sect or breakaway subdivision of the church is misleading.  Those who practice this usually are not aware of the history or theology of Mormonism.  The television series "South Park" includes Jesus Christ as a cartoon character with a cable television show.  That does not make being a fan of "South Park" inclusive as a formal Christian sect.

In a tread splitting theological slivers, let's not let the beams slip by.

Logged

Associate Pastor, Emmanuel Orthodox Church
Warren, MA, USA
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #394 on: February 13, 2009, 10:40:52 AM »


Of course Mormonism is a sect.  That was never the question.  I know what Mormons believe, and of course it's not Christianity.  THat's not the point.

Yes Brother, that is the point of why I replied.  Mormonism in no way is representative of a division or sub-division of Christianity. To apply it as an example in order to measure or weigh an actual sect or breakaway subdivision of the church is misleading.  Those who practice this usually are not aware of the history or theology of Mormonism.  The television series "South Park" includes Jesus Christ as a cartoon character with a cable television show.  That does not make being a fan of "South Park" inclusive as a formal Christian sect.

In a tread splitting theological slivers, let's not let the beams slip by.



It's not off base: the process the that went into the formation of the Mormon "church," which started in the same revivals as other Protestants, went into the formation of the Evangelicals.
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
Hening
Fr Deacon Michael Heningham
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 104



WWW
« Reply #395 on: February 13, 2009, 11:19:18 AM »

Comparing the invention of the Mormon's to the Evangelical movement is too much of a stretch.  The Mormon faith is based on a recipe which includes a large portion of Masonic gnostic teachings, combined with a dab of science fiction and a liberal application of reverse biblical insight  (as in Islam).  The Evangelical movement is identified in the belief in personal conversion and living the imitation of Christ pertaining to the adherence of the actual four Gospels.  Applications of the Evangelical movement can be found in Protestant, Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches.  One would be burdened to find the same trace of Mormon beliefs since the process that began the church was not based in actual biblical teachings or Christian theology.  The application of revivals is a technique for promotion, not a platform for theological association.
Logged

Associate Pastor, Emmanuel Orthodox Church
Warren, MA, USA
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #396 on: February 13, 2009, 01:09:41 PM »

Comparing the invention of the Mormon's to the Evangelical movement is too much of a stretch.  The Mormon faith is based on a recipe which includes a large portion of Masonic gnostic teachings, combined with a dab of science fiction and a liberal application of reverse biblical insight  (as in Islam).  The Evangelical movement is identified in the belief in personal conversion and living the imitation of Christ pertaining to the adherence of the actual four Gospels.  Applications of the Evangelical movement can be found in Protestant, Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches.  One would be burdened to find the same trace of Mormon beliefs since the process that began the church was not based in actual biblical teachings or Christian theology.  The application of revivals is a technique for promotion, not a platform for theological association.

Do you think Mormonism sprung from Joe Smith's forehead fully equipped with the Book of Mormon and the rest?  No, you can see the development.  The only real difference is that Mormonism canonized its scripture. The Evangelicals haven't.  Oh, and that the Mormonism did return to the Apostolic views of the sacramental nature of the Church.
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
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,797


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #397 on: April 26, 2009, 01:54:21 PM »

Maybe it would not be out of place to briefly tell of her death...

This is superb, and most moving. Would you allow me to print it for others to read?

Be my guest. 

Thank you. I quoted it in our mission newsletter without comment except to say that it came from an Orthodox who had written under a nom de plume. It was appreciated.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA (Old Calendar)
Posts: 6,785



« Reply #398 on: April 26, 2009, 03:37:23 PM »

Oh, and that the Mormonism did return to the Apostolic views of the sacramental nature of the Church.

Quite true, and often overlooked.
Logged
Tikhon.of.Colorado
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Denver
Posts: 2,362



« Reply #399 on: July 28, 2010, 10:38:09 AM »

Christ did not incarnate in an 'invisible/abstract/undefined/illusionary' body. He was incarnate as a specific human being, in a single, defined physical body, in a specific space and time. While in that specific, defined, circumscribable human body, He established His Church and gave His apostles authority to organize and spread it--which they did as a specific, defined, and identifiable community. 

If John Smith says, "I will start my business", do we assume that he actually means he will set up a specific business ("John Smith Industries, ltd") or that he is referring to an abstract concept such that anyone, anywhere, at anytime can set up an organization that shares some essential philosophies or practices with the original and that all such organizations constitute "John Smith Industries, ltd".? Or do we recognize that "Ted Smith Industries", "Smith Productions", "Smitt Industries", etc may be very close imitations of 'John Smith Industries, ltd' but are not the company John Smith said he would set up (and did, complete with designation of administrators after He Himself moved on).
wow! painfully good example!  I'll use this with my Protestant friends (there's a non-denom Christian group at school, which my priest tells me to avoid.  I think that this is exactly why!)
Logged

"It is true that I am not always faithful, but I never lose courage, I leave myself in the Arms of Our Lord." - St. Thérèse of Lisieux
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,797


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #400 on: July 28, 2010, 12:10:43 PM »

I'll use this with my Protestant friends

I don't think it will convince them. You can hardly compare John Smith, a now-dead mortal man only, with the eternal risen Son of God, who indwells his church by his Spirit. I am as persuaded as you are that Mormonism is a non-Christian religion, but I don't think your analogy of the putative John Smith Industries with the Body of Christ will persuade anyone that it is a convincing parallel with Jesus Christ and the late John Smith. I think you need to try again.
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,274


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #401 on: July 28, 2010, 11:57:25 PM »

I'll use this with my Protestant friends

I don't think it will convince them. You can hardly compare John Smith, a now-dead mortal man only, with the eternal risen Son of God, who indwells his church by his Spirit. I am as persuaded as you are that Mormonism is a non-Christian religion, but I don't think your analogy of the putative John Smith Industries with the Body of Christ will persuade anyone that it is a convincing parallel with Jesus Christ and the late John Smith. I think you need to try again.
Joseph Smith, not John Smith, founded Mormonism.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #402 on: July 29, 2010, 12:21:34 AM »

ONE TRUE CHURCH?

To bring the conversation back towards its title, but to build on the previous exchanges, which are, I believe, relevant, my contention is that there is not only "one true church" and yours is that there is only "one true church". For me to succeed, I have to persuade you that, to take just one example, the Baptist church I attend here in Wrexham is in fact a Christian church: then I can put QED on my post, for I shall have won my case. For you to succeed, you have to prove that we (like other non-Orthodox) are not a real Christian church. Then you can put QED. Over to you...

We are...factually.....the Ancient...Original Church. Your Church is not and we can easily prove it with historical evidence.

If then we are the Actual, Original Church you then must prove heresy in order for us not to also be the "True Church"... We merely need to demonstrate that you are not the Historical Church. The most you can hope for is to be like the True Church in your idea's, but you can never in a concrete way be the Original Church. You simply arent.



And nor are you.  Wink
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #403 on: July 29, 2010, 12:22:55 AM »

You can always look at your wife, but without the intimacy you can't call yourself married. Wink

Why not? That's precisely what you all contend Joseph did with Mary.

And the same people commonly do not regard them as having been married.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #404 on: July 29, 2010, 12:27:26 AM »

What I do say is that the Orthodox organisation, despite its historical record, does not thereby make up the entire Body of Christ. Both Cleopas and I have argued for this from scripture.

Could you point to where the most significant argument for this was?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.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 0.177 seconds with 72 queries.