Topic: One True Church?

[ialmisry]

John 17:18 As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world.  19 And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, and that they also may be sanctified by the truth.  20 I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word

Indeed! It was and is their word, the gospel, the message of Jesus, that we believed through.

Actually, historically speaking, their word was much more than just the canonical gospels.  It was the entire teaching of those such as the much-discussed Ignatius which is now preserved in the church.  To say that it is JUST the gospel is simply to be deluding oneself.

I Corinthians 11:1 Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ. 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delievered them to you.

Evidently not, as you keep quoting OUR word (see John 17:20 above).

No, I am quoting THEIR word, which is HIS word. Not your word.

Ialmisry is referring to the fact that it is the Church (that would be the Orthodox Church) that preserved and defended the Gospels and Christianity which was canonized in 419, and handed down to be subsequently changed and diluted by Protestants and filtered down to you.   

Yes, if you reject the Church, you can't use her Gospel.  You will have to officially get another one.

no, you fall on your own.

Thankfully your judgment doesn't matter. I know in whom I have believed, and I know to Him I stand or fall, and I shall by His grace stand.

I don't believe ialmisry was attempting to pass judgment on you.  I think he was referring to the authority of the Church, the body of Christ on earth, which you are outside of, and thus on your own.  Does that make a little more sense?

I'm not in a position to judge anyone.  I liken him to St. Apollos.

Funny you should use the phrase "on your own."  Our priest (a proud graduate of Southern Baptist) was talking about that on Saturday at Vespers.  He was reading from the Pentateuch, how God says that if anyone disobeys the instructions, they are to be "cut off from the people."  "Some," he pointed out, "think this means capital punishment.  Whether it does or not, the Church sees it as something more serious: it means excommunication.  They are no longer part of God's plan of redemption.  'that person shall then be cut off from his people, for he did not present the offering of the LORD at its appointed time. That man will bear his sin.' (Numbers 9:13).  He is on his own."

Isa, correct me if I am wrong on any of these things.  I'm just trying to help so that the discussion remains productive and doesn't disintegrate.

No, you are correct in all of the above, just nicer than me in the saying.

[ialmisry]

HandmaidenofGod,

It is not other faiths!!! It is other followers of THE Faith, even if you do not wish to acknowledge it. To use a term that for DY carries some negative connotation (for which I apologize) we are ALL more or less sects of the ONE Christian faith -- be we Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant.

Orthodoxy is not a sect.

It is the ONE Christian Faith.

[David Young]

I don't understand what you mean. What treasures do you want us to share?

I have replied to this on the "A Challenge to you Orthodox" thread, as being more relevant there. I hope you will take a look.

[David Young]

(else we would all be accepting gay bishops, female priests, Christ as god-with-a-little-g, and all manner of other bizarre beliefs that I think we can all agree are not in line with Christ's teaching). 

If you look back over the posts of the past months, since Rosehip put my two articles (amalgamated into one) on to a thread in May last year, you will see that I have stressed that these same deviations and distortions disturb us also. Many Evangelicals like me are undoubtedly much more deeply alarmed and distressed by them than you are, because we are insiders, and we see men and women in positions of leadership in the churches, dismantling and perverting the very faith they profess (and often are paid) to uphold.  Many of the criticisms Orthodox posts on these fora refer to find us in complete and much saddened agreement. But we must compare the best Orthodoxy with the best Protestantism; it would not be impossible to find poor examples of Orthodox life and compare them in the same manner with the best Evangelical examples - but it would be quite unfair. Perversions of the Faith are not really germane to the discussion, and they are all too easy to find.

There are more important things than holding hands and singing kumbayah together.

Or stin kardia, Kyrie, as they do in Greece.
 

[SolEX01]

Let it be stated that Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria is part of the Coptic Orthodox Church and is in no way in communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church.

So are the people we are talking to on this thread David Young and Cleopas.  We can sit back and entertain our Protestant friends while slamming an OO Hierarch because He's not in "official" Communion with Eastern Orthodoxy?   

[SolEX01]

Do these words of Peter the Aleut (see his 17th May 2008 post) have any bearing on your question?

We Orthodox can certainly do well to learn the Evangelical mantra that conversion of the inner man is necessary for salvation, that mere application of the name Orthodox to ourselves because this is the title we inherited from our forebears is not enough to make us truly Christian.  (Is this, in fact, not the message of such great saints as St. John Chrysostom?) 

Sure, unless you are trying to convert the "inner man" of an Orthodox Christian to your perspective on Christ just like many martyrs were asked to bow down and worship idols of the Roman Emperor.  These martrys received their inheritance for staying loyal under persecution as the Church Triumphant.  Where are your martyrs?  your witnesses? those who rejected temptation for the eternal kingdom?

[SolEX01]

Our Protestant friends do not ask us for anything.  Example, Cleopas won't talk to me and that's perfectly fine.   

I'm sorry for any perceived slight, dear fellow. It was not intentional.

Forgive me for I did feel a little bad about calling you out, in a sense.  My point was that you engaged others in discussion and not me and if you thought that I was making little or no sense, I understand.   

It's just that I have learned to reply only to those comments, persons, or aspects of a post that solicit particular interest at a given time or reading. You see, being as an Evagelical so few in comparison to you many, varied, and well spoken Orthodox

On this forum, yes.  In the world, you know that the reverse is true.   

I realized early on I could not, indded would be foolish to try to, respond to everyone and/or every single comment. So, I try to make my comments count when I make them, and hope that as such they will fuel the dialog, and even if not addressing everyone directly will indirectly create a sense of interaction.

My sincere apologies if I made you feel ignored or neglected. Indeed, sometimes I have not had the time or liberty to formulate a reply and mentally have placed some responses on a back burner -- hoping to get to them later perhaps.

Just an FYI.

I look forward to your replies when your schedule permits.   

[ozgeorge]

Let it be stated that Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria is part of the Coptic Orthodox Church and is in no way in communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church.

So are the people we are talking to on this thread David Young and Cleopas.  We can sit back and entertain our Protestant friends while slamming an OO Hierarch because He's not in "official" Communion with Eastern Orthodoxy?   

SolEX01,
Again this is a completely unfounded claim, emotionally based rather than based on fact, and is distracting and derailing to the dialogue on this thread.
I'm now asking you as a Moderator to desist from such posts. Please contribute to the dialogue if you so desire, but stop making posts which are unrelated to the topic and which derail the thread.
I would also ask that those on the thread do not respond to this post of SolEX01 or comment on this Moderation in the thread. If you wish to say anything about this Moderation, please either pm myself, cleveland or Fr. Chris.
George
(Global Moderator)

[GreekChef]

(else we would all be accepting gay bishops, female priests, Christ as god-with-a-little-g, and all manner of other bizarre beliefs that I think we can all agree are not in line with Christ's teaching). 

If you look back over the posts of the past months, since Rosehip put my two articles (amalgamated into one) on to a thread in May last year, you will see that I have stressed that these same deviations and distortions disturb us also. Many Evangelicals like me are undoubtedly much more deeply alarmed and distressed by them than you are, because we are insiders, and we see men and women in positions of leadership in the churches, dismantling and perverting the very faith they profess (and often are paid) to uphold.  Many of the criticisms Orthodox posts on these fora refer to find us in complete and much saddened agreement. But we must compare the best Orthodoxy with the best Protestantism; it would not be impossible to find poor examples of Orthodox life and compare them in the same manner with the best Evangelical examples - but it would be quite unfair. Perversions of the Faith are not really germane to the discussion, and they are all too easy to find.

There are more important things than holding hands and singing kumbayah together.

Or stin kardia, Kyrie, as they do in Greece.
 

David, I have no doubt that those deviations and distortions disturb you.  No doubt whatsoever.  I'm sure that you feel them very deeply and are saddened by them.  This is how we Orthodox feel about ALL Christians outside of Orthodoxy, how we feel about ALL of the denominations of Christianity that have deviated and distorted so badly the teachings of the Church.  As I said, no one prays more for the unity of the Church than the Orthodox.  We pray for this unity several times in the Divine Liturgy alone!

I'm not trying to say that these deviations and distortions are invalid.  In fact, my point is exactly the opposite.  They are totally invalid, but used the SAME criterion for arriving at their invalid ways/beliefs that you have for your valid ones!  Do you believe that their motives were as pure as you believe the other denominations to be?  If so, then logic follows that this idea that the Holy Spirit tells you what to believe must be false, otherwise the problem would not be there to begin with!  If their motives are NOT pure, then there must be a LOT of people out there, yes, entire denominations full of people who have ulterior motives behind their beliefs! 

Besides that, while you (and yes, I) say that they are invalid, if you look at the U.S., it is quite clear that they have now been accepted as mainstream!  The National Prayer Service for the Inauguration of President Obama just the other day featured a woman (in a rainbow colored stole, no less) preaching the sermon!  She was an ordained "minister" who was considered to be a "safe" and "non-controversial" choice to give the sermon!  So, obviously, there are a LOT of people out there who disagree with what you and I say about their validity (and who believe themselves to be God-fearing Christians).  But, I must say with no disrespect meant whatsoever, we Orthodox have MUCH firmer ground to stand on in saying that she is invalid.  We have 2000 years of beliefs, tradition, doctrine, dogma, and obviously the Holy Spirit on our side!  We have the concrete evidence to prove that this is the position the Church has always held, the theological reasoning (aided by the writings of the Fathers and the decisions of councils) to back it up, etc.  But as each individual Protestant is free to believe what he or she wishes and make such doctrinal and dogmatic decisions for themselves, the only ground they have to stand on is "the Holy Spirit told me, and it says in the Bible."  Both of these statements (Holy Spirit and Bible) are open to interpretation--- your interpretation of what the Holy Spirit told you and what you think the Bible says (this is the hypothetical you, not you personally).  Our stance, however, is in no way open to interpretation.  The Church has spoken concretely on these matters. 

I'm not attempting to compare the best of Orthodoxy to the worst of Protestantism.  Far from it.  My point, as I said, was exactly the opposite.  But as you are quite keen on examining the motives of particular groups and such, I'm going to try and state what I said a little clearer ('cause I think I muddled it a little above).  I would love to hear your thoughts.

With regard to the fringe groups that have "deviated from" and "distorted" the Truth...  by the Protestant logic which says that pure motives/ pure heart (I'm not sure I'm putting that correctly, but hopefully you grasp my meaning) will result in proper interpretation of Scripture and enlightenment by the Holy Spirit, one of the two following options must be the result:

1) The motives of these groups (which include MILLIONS in the US alone) are impure and thus there are millions of so-called Christians and those who believe themselves to be the true Church (Mormons and JW's and Seventh Day Adventists and Oneness Pentecostals, etc) who, while they believe they have the proper interpretation of the Scriptures cannot possibly because their motives are so impure and they are thus lost.

or

2) The motives of these groups are as you say they are (an effort to recover lost teaching--- I know the JW's say this), and the whole "the Holy Spirit guides my interpretation because I pray and have a pure heart" idea does not actually work.  Rather, relying on one's own self to interpret the Scriptures (with the "aid" of the Holy Spirit) is a dangerous path, as we are in fact subjecting the Scriptures to our limited knowledge, limited world view, and of course our pride and sin, thus arriving at false teaching.

Clear as mud? 

Any thoughts?

[ialmisry]

(else we would all be accepting gay bishops, female priests, Christ as god-with-a-little-g, and all manner of other bizarre beliefs that I think we can all agree are not in line with Christ's teaching). 

If you look back over the posts of the past months, since Rosehip put my two articles (amalgamated into one) on to a thread in May last year, you will see that I have stressed that these same deviations and distortions disturb us also. Many Evangelicals like me are undoubtedly much more deeply alarmed and distressed by them than you are, because we are insiders, and we see men and women in positions of leadership in the churches, dismantling and perverting the very faith they profess (and often are paid) to uphold.  Many of the criticisms Orthodox posts on these fora refer to find us in complete and much saddened agreement. But we must compare the best Orthodoxy with the best Protestantism; it would not be impossible to find poor examples of Orthodox life and compare them in the same manner with the best Evangelical examples - but it would be quite unfair. Perversions of the Faith are not really germane to the discussion, and they are all too easy to find.

There are more important things than holding hands and singing kumbayah together.

Or stin kardia, Kyrie, as they do in Greece.
 

David, I have no doubt that those deviations and distortions disturb you.  No doubt whatsoever.  I'm sure that you feel them very deeply and are saddened by them.  This is how we Orthodox feel about ALL Christians outside of Orthodoxy, how we feel about ALL of the denominations of Christianity that have deviated and distorted so badly the teachings of the Church.  As I said, no one prays more for the unity of the Church than the Orthodox.  We pray for this unity several times in the Divine Liturgy alone!

I'm not trying to say that these deviations and distortions are invalid.  In fact, my point is exactly the opposite.  They are totally invalid, but used the SAME criterion for arriving at their invalid ways/beliefs that you have for your valid ones!  Do you believe that their motives were as pure as you believe the other denominations to be?  If so, then logic follows that this idea that the Holy Spirit tells you what to believe must be false, otherwise the problem would not be there to begin with!  If their motives are NOT pure, then there must be a LOT of people out there, yes, entire denominations full of people who have ulterior motives behind their beliefs! 

Besides that, while you (and yes, I) say that they are invalid, if you look at the U.S., it is quite clear that they have now been accepted as mainstream!  The National Prayer Service for the Inauguration of President Obama just the other day featured a woman (in a rainbow colored stole, no less) preaching the sermon!  She was an ordained "minister" who was considered to be a "safe" and "non-controversial" choice to give the sermon!  So, obviously, there are a LOT of people out there who disagree with what you and I say about their validity (and who believe themselves to be God-fearing Christians).  But, I must say with no disrespect meant whatsoever, we Orthodox have MUCH firmer ground to stand on in saying that she is invalid.  We have 2000 years of beliefs, tradition, doctrine, dogma, and obviously the Holy Spirit on our side!  We have the concrete evidence to prove that this is the position the Church has always held, the theological reasoning (aided by the writings of the Fathers and the decisions of councils) to back it up, etc.  But as each individual Protestant is free to believe what he or she wishes and make such doctrinal and dogmatic decisions for themselves, the only ground they have to stand on is "the Holy Spirit told me, and it says in the Bible."  Both of these statements (Holy Spirit and Bible) are open to interpretation--- your interpretation of what the Holy Spirit told you and what you think the Bible says (this is the hypothetical you, not you personally).  Our stance, however, is in no way open to interpretation.  The Church has spoken concretely on these matters. 

I'm not attempting to compare the best of Orthodoxy to the worst of Protestantism.  Far from it.  My point, as I said, was exactly the opposite.  But as you are quite keen on examining the motives of particular groups and such, I'm going to try and state what I said a little clearer ('cause I think I muddled it a little above).  I would love to hear your thoughts.

With regard to the fringe groups that have "deviated from" and "distorted" the Truth...  by the Protestant logic which says that pure motives/ pure heart (I'm not sure I'm putting that correctly, but hopefully you grasp my meaning) will result in proper interpretation of Scripture and enlightenment by the Holy Spirit, one of the two following options must be the result:

1) The motives of these groups (which include MILLIONS in the US alone) are impure and thus there are millions of so-called Christians and those who believe themselves to be the true Church (Mormons and JW's and Seventh Day Adventists and Oneness Pentecostals, etc) who, while they believe they have the proper interpretation of the Scriptures cannot possibly because their motives are so impure and they are thus lost.

or

2) The motives of these groups are as you say they are (an effort to recover lost teaching--- I know the JW's say this), and the whole "the Holy Spirit guides my interpretation because I pray and have a pure heart" idea does not actually work.  Rather, relying on one's own self to interpret the Scriptures (with the "aid" of the Holy Spirit) is a dangerous path, as we are in fact subjecting the Scriptures to our limited knowledge, limited world view, and of course our pride and sin, thus arriving at false teaching.

Clear as mud? 

Any thoughts?

I remember seeing the debate in the Southern Baptist Convention over ordaining women, seeing the conservatives being shown up on the issue using their own criteria.  They had dealt their trump card out.

The problem with the Mormons and JW is that many of them have pure, but misguided, motives.  They are duped, but much like Pelagius, their personal motives and behavior are pure.  How does the "best of Protestantism" tell them that they are wrong?

[John of the North]

Any thoughts?

In Christianity truth is not a philosophical concept nor is it a theory, a teaching, or a system, but rather, it is the living theanthropic hypostasis - the historical Jesus Christ (John 14:6). Before Christ men could only conjecture about the Truth since they did not possess it. With Christ as the incarnate divine Logos the eternally complete divine Truth enters into the world. For this reason the Gospel says: "Truth came by Jesus Christ" (John 1:17). - St. Justin Popovich

[David Young]

...unless you are trying to convert the "inner man" of an Orthodox Christian to your perspective

I am not.

Where are your martyrs?  your witnesses? those who rejected temptation for the eternal kingdom?

Together with yours, awaiting the resurrection at the last day.

[LBK]

Where are your martyrs?  your witnesses? those who rejected temptation for the eternal kingdom?

Together with yours, awaiting the resurrection at the last day.

I didn't think Baptists recognise the idea of saints as do the Orthodox and RC.

[David Young]

I didn't think Baptists recognise the idea of saints as do the Orthodox and RC.

This is true. Not that we deny their saintliness, or fail to derive inspiration from their example or nourishment from their writings. We may well. But we do not use the title "Saint" to distinguish between some of the Lord's servants and others.

[David Young]

David, I have no doubt that those deviations and distortions disturb you. 

I think we are dealing with three different matters all entangled together: geographical; chronological; and religious.

One of the most persistent complaints you all put on these various threads is the "OSAS" teaching - "once saved, always saved" - which is usually called "eternal security" or "the perseverance of the saints" over here in Britain. As I wrote on a previous thread, I have never heard such a teaching here in Britain, except from one man who is an American Baptist from California pastoring a church in Wales. It jarred on my ears. Now remember that from 1971 to 1976 I was among the straitest, most orthodox Calvinists in the south of England, and even there I never heard anything like the counsel that was given to 11-year-old Handmaiden and has so troubled and disturbed her. She says, "it is a life-long walk, my friend," and even the strongest believer in eternal security would agree with her entirely on that. The only evidence which "makes your calling and election sure" or proves the genuineness of your personal salvation is a godly life. So I think here we are dealing with a geographically located problem: it is an American thing. Not that that reduces its seriousness in any way. But it is not universal, and I guess it must be new, for the Calvinists to whom I referred just now constantly feed their souls on the writings of Calvin, the Calvinist confessions of faith, and the Puritans.

Then there is what I have called chronological: that is, I think the current Zeitgeist is infecting the church of God in a devastating and debilitating way. We live in a shallow, silly and entertainment-based age, and we expect our religion to be the same. Schoolchildren get good exam results now because, as is widely known, the standards for grades have been lowered so much. Even Oxford and Cambridge have been forced to change their entry requirements  .  Marriages last a while, and then people move on: it's called 'serial monogamy', Even the news on television has to have a break, and be accompanied by music. Sentences passed on criminals are lamentably lenient, and some people deliberately get caught so as to get back into prison where they feel at home. Nothing matters any more. Have you ever heard anything so ridiculous as dowsing someone with rose petals and calling it baptism, as one post relates? Such is the spirit of our age.

Thirdly there is what I called 'religious'. People want the privilege of being deemed Christian, or ordained, without the submission to God's requirements which have always been part of Christianity. So if you are a woman and want a dog-collar or stole, you find a way to explain away the passages in the Bible which forbid it. If you are a sodomite and want to practise your perversion and still be called Rev So-and-So, you find a way to explain it away. But this is not 'sola scriptura' or real Protestantism: it's a new-fangled religious spirit usurping our name and hijacking our institutions. People have shaken their heads in weary despair over Obama's politically correct inauguration: what a travesty, and surely what an offence to God Almighty!

They ... used the SAME criterion for arriving at their invalid ways/beliefs that you have for your valid ones! 

I dispute that most vehemently!

Do you believe that their motives were as pure as you believe the other denominations to be? 

No! Someone may post a reply asking who is DMY to judge another's motives? Well, so be it! I like your attitude of submission to a God-given authority. You see that as the Church; we see it as the scripture. These people submit to nothing but their own whims and ambitions.

there must be ... entire denominations full of people who have ulterior motives behind their beliefs! 

I don't think we can go that far. Many people are simple believers - the scripture, nay the Lord himself, calls them 'sheep'. They follow trustingly and are led to believe that these perversions are OK.

I would love to hear your thoughts.

There! You have them.

With regard to the fringe groups that have "deviated from" and "distorted" the Truth...  by the Protestant logic which says that pure motives/ pure heart (I'm not sure I'm putting that correctly, but hopefully you grasp my meaning) will result in proper interpretation of Scripture and enlightenment by the Holy Spirit, one of the two following options must be the result:

1) The motives of these groups (which include MILLIONS in the US alone) are impure and thus there are millions of so-called Christians and those who believe themselves to be the true Church (Mormons and JW's and Seventh Day Adventists and Oneness Pentecostals, etc) ...

or

2) The motives of these groups are as you say they are (an effort to recover lost teaching

No. Let us remove 7th Day Adventists from the list, as I know nothing about them, and I am aware that some people accept them and others don't. You are then mixing sects (JWs, Mormons, Sabellians) with the truly trinitarian groups listed in my side of our "wager". I believe all those listed by me would accept the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds, and all (from the early church to the 20th century Pentecostals in Azusa Street) believe what you, we and the RCs believe about our Lord's Person. The ones in your list a few lines above do not. I don't think we should confuse them.

[SolEX01]

Thirdly there is what I called 'religious'. People want the privilege of being deemed Christian, or ordained, without the submission to God's requirements which have always been part of Christianity.

How about indulgenices and simony?  Is it fair to say that not much has changed in the 5 Centuries since Luther?  How about modern day analogs to indulgencies like donating $X a month to have one's name scroll across a televangelist's screen?

So if you are a woman and want a dog-collar or stole, you find a way to explain away the passages in the Bible which forbid it.

Simple, translate the Bible to fit the world view and not the other way around.  The Old Testament and the Gospel, handed to us by the scribes, writers and Apostles, establish the bedrock for the One True Church, not an academic translation modified to justify one's agenda.

If you are a sodomite and want to practise your perversion and still be called Rev So-and-So, you find a way to explain it away. But this is not 'sola scriptura' or real Protestantism: it's a new-fangled religious spirit usurping our name and hijacking our institutions.

Here, we see the fruits of 'sola scriptura' and every Church a "Pope."  Every Church's "Pope" can commission their own translation of the Bible to justify anything and that translation becomes the "One True Church" for that Pope....

People have shaken their heads in weary despair over Obama's politically correct inauguration: what a travesty, and surely what an offence to God Almighty!

Was the "One True Church" really in the National Cathedral where one loved another and didn't judge anyone?  Does the same spirit of love and charity and mercy (gifts of the Holy Spirit, BTW) apply outside of the National Cathedral; in the courtrooms of USA and UK? in neighborhoods where people are being burned out of their homes or being evicted from their homes or when old people freeze to death when the utilities are disconnected or when charities lose money to swindlers and are unable to help people in need?  Where is the "One True Church" in those cases?

[ytterbiumanalyst]

I didn't think Baptists recognise the idea of saints as do the Orthodox and RC.

This is true. Not that we deny their saintliness, or fail to derive inspiration from their example or nourishment from their writings. We may well. But we do not use the title "Saint" to distinguish between some of the Lord's servants and others.

I have noticed this. I have also noticed, however, having been in the Southern Baptist Convention for two years, that the Baptists do recognize the holiness of certain individuals, and they do attribute that holiness to having received salvation. In fact, the only difference I can see between their idea of sanctification (which shares the Latin root from which we derive the word saint) and ours is that the Baptists believe that people are saved instantaneously upon the decision to become Christ-like, and we claim that people are saved when they actually become Christ-like. Thus for them, all Christians living and dead are saints, whereas for us, some are saints and some are still on the path of sanctification. I don't think we would disagree with the Baptists that Christians are being sanctified, but I do believe that we would hesitate to claim that all Christians have already been sanctified. In other words, I do not believe that an Orthodox would be wrong if they made the claim that Baptists do that all Christians are saints--in fact, St. Paul often refers to the churches in his care as "saints"--but I do believe that we are more cautious than they about making such a claim.

[David Young]

the only difference I can see between their idea of sanctification ... and ours is that the Baptists believe that people are saved instantaneously upon the decision to become Christ-like, and we claim that people are saved when they actually become Christ-like.

Yes, very well put, and it's very similar to what I've been trying to say for a long time. We wouldn't use the phrase "the decision to become Christ-like" for only the working of the Spirit in our lives, coupled with our co-operation with him (synergy, I believe it's called), can make us Christ-like. But yes, we believe that a person is saved instantaneously, the first event in a life-long process of growth in holiness and Christlikeness (sanctification / theosis). We use the word "saved" to denote what happens at the start, and you use it to denote what happens at the end. In fact, I think the Bible uses it in different passages with both senses.

This post has no bearing on the question of eternal security (OSAS as you call it), for the question about whether true salvation can ever be lost is a different one, and one on which I have nothing to say.

For your meaning of "saved" we would perhaps say glorified or perfected, and (apart from Wesleyans) we do not look for it in this life. But - and here we may perhaps be different from you - we do have the assurance that we shall get there, because of God's promise that he will complete the work he began in us.

[David Young]

How about modern day analogs to indulgencies like donating $X a month to have one's name scroll across a televangelist's screen?

Sickening.

Was the "One True Church" really in the National Cathedral ...?

I assume you are referring to the Inauguration. I didn't watch it, but from what you and others have told me, it was a religious disaster - Obama putting together his own politically correct religion, not Protestant, Catholic, Jewish or Orthodox. I imagine I would have switched it off in digust, or done like Elvis Presley used to and shot the television.

[Cleopas]

Yes, very well put, and it's very similar to what I've been trying to say for a long time. We wouldn't use the phrase "the decision to become Christ-like" for only the working of the Spirit in our lives, coupled with our co-operation with him (synergy, I believe it's called), can make us Christ-like. But yes, we believe that a person is saved instantaneously, the first event in a life-long process of growth in holiness and Christlikeness (sanctification / theosis). We use the word "saved" to denote what happens at the start, and you use it to denote what happens at the end. In fact, I think the Bible uses it in different passages with both senses.

This post has no bearing on the question of eternal security (OSAS as you call it), for the question about whether true salvation can ever be lost is a different one, and one on which I have nothing to say.

For your meaning of "saved" we would perhaps say glorified or perfected, and (apart from Wesleyans) we do not look for it in this life. But - and here we may perhaps be different from you - we do have the assurance that we shall get there, because of God's promise that he will complete the work he began in us.

Very well stated David Young!

I would only add that we also see salvation as a bit of paradox, both/and not either/or. That is to say we are both now truly saved and yet will be (finally) saved.
For us salvation entails conversion itself through eternal life, and not just eternal life.

I am saved (we are now the children of God)
I am being saved (I am becoming more Christ-like).
&, I will be saved (at the redemption of the body at the appearing of the Lord).

[ytterbiumanalyst]

For your meaning of "saved" we would perhaps say glorified or perfected, and (apart from Wesleyans) we do not look for it in this life.

This is precisely why we are so reluctant to use the term "saint" in regards to the living. For though we try very hard to achieve the perfection to which Christ calls us, we too do not expect it to come in this life.

But - and here we may perhaps be different from you - we do have the assurance that we shall get there, because of God's promise that he will complete the work he began in us.

No, we are not different in this aspect. We do have the assurance that we will be saved; we just do not believe that we have already been saved. For this reason, we cling to the Church, for we believe that by following the plan She offers, we will be saved. We do not know if there are other ways to salvation, and so we cling tenaciously to the one way we do know. Salvation is just too important to risk being wrong.

[HandmaidenofGod]

One of the most persistent complaints you all put on these various threads is the "OSAS" teaching - "once saved, always saved" - which is usually called "eternal security" or "the perseverance of the saints" over here in Britain. As I wrote on a previous thread, I have never heard such a teaching here in Britain, except from one man who is an American Baptist from California pastoring a church in Wales.

This is interesting. While it has been joked before that the U.S. and Britain are two countries divided by one language, the "Baptists" in England seem to be a completely different lot than the "Baptists" in America.

Having said that, this is a perfect example as to the neccesity of Church Authority. From the English point of view, the Americans have taken what was started in Britain and run it through the mud.

I dispute that most vehemently!

How can you? While these groups may have an idealogy quite different than yours, was it not derived by the same method of prayer, reading of scripture, and believing in one's own interpretation of said scripture? You cited examples of gross mis-interpretation of scripture. But in all reality, how is searching scripture to justify gay ordination any different than searching scripture to justify denying the authority of the Church? In both cases, it is man using God's word to justify his own actions.

You see that as the Church; we see it as the scripture. These people submit to nothing but their own whims and ambitions.

How can you say that you look to scripture for authority, yet deny the Church that gave you the scripture? The Bible didn't just fall from heaven leatherbound with the stamp of Thomas Nelson publisher's on the side, and the words of Christ in red. Remember, the Bible was not canonized until 419. Luther, apparantly finding the canon of 419 too heavy to carry around, threw out 13 books, and some chapters from Esther and Daniel to satisfy his own theology.

You say you look to the Bible for authority, yet you do not even have the complete Bible in your possession. You accuse others of submitting to nothing but their own whims and ambitions, yet you accept the canon from one who altered the original canon to satisfy his own whims and ambitions.

Pot meet Kettle.

I don't think we can go that far. Many people are simple believers - the scripture, nay the Lord himself, calls them 'sheep'. They follow trustingly and are led to believe that these perversions are OK.

By what authority do you have to judge these other sects? Are we not all sheep? This is why we need a God given authority to lead us. A shepherd, a vicar, a Bishop.

No. Let us remove 7th Day Adventists from the list, as I know nothing about them, and I am aware that some people accept them and others don't. You are then mixing sects (JWs, Mormons, Sabellians) with the truly trinitarian groups listed in my side of our "wager". I believe all those listed by me would accept the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds, and all (from the early church to the 20th century Pentecostals in Azusa Street) believe what you, we and the RCs believe about our Lord's Person. The ones in your list a few lines above do not. I don't think we should confuse them.

By what authority do you have to say that those that accept the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds are okay, but those that don't aren't? I know of many non-denominational sects that reject both creeds yet accept the points made in the creeds. (I don't understand it either.)

By setting the above standards, you are (whether you realize it or not) declaring yourself your own Pope.

You are saying, "I, David Young, say that all who believe in teh Apostles' and Nicene Creeds are truly Christian and those who don't aren't." Also, I find it interesting that you use a measuring stick, that although based on scripture, cannot be found in scripture. In fact, who was it given to us by? Oh yes, THE CHURCH!

[HandmaidenofGod]

Very well stated David Young!

I would only add that we also see salvation as a bit of paradox, both/and not either/or. That is to say we are both now truly saved and yet will be (finally) saved.
For us salvation entails conversion itself through eternal life, and not just eternal life.

I am saved (we are now the children of God)
I am being saved (I am becoming more Christ-like).
&, I will be saved (at the redemption of the body at the appearing of the Lord).

Whoa! You guys have been spending too much time with us here on OC.net! Cleopas my friend, you just stated the Orthodox view of salvation!

Be careful, you're starting to become Orthodox!

[Cleopas]

Whoa! You guys have been spending too much time with us here on OC.net! Cleopas my friend, you just stated the Orthodox view of salvation!

Be careful, you're starting to become Orthodox!

Kewl! Interesting as well. 
BTW, I have believed this before ever coming to OC.net. 

[LBK]

Whoa! You guys have been spending too much time with us here on OC.net! Cleopas my friend, you just stated the Orthodox view of salvation!

Be careful, you're starting to become Orthodox!

Kewl! Interesting as well. 
BTW, I have believed this before ever coming to OC.net. 

So, Cleopas, why are you trying to set up your own denomination? Why not "cut out the middle man", and become Orthodox? Or are you simply cherry-picking the bits of Orthodoxy you like for your new melange "church"?

[Cleopas]

So, Cleopas, why are you trying to set up your own denomination? Why not "cut out the middle man", and become Orthodox?

I'm not.

I do pastor an independent church. But it was an existing church plant, without a pastor. I was a pastor without a church.
God Led me, in His providence, to them. That is why I am there.

If you mean why am I an evangelical? Well because that is what led me to Christ, and where Christ has seen fit to keep me. 
Besides, I sincerely believe it to contain the most accurate beliefs and conformity to NT Christianity (as recorded in the Scripture) of any of the 3 branches.

I really didn't know anything much about Orthodoxy before coming across OC.net. I had assumed you were pretty much the same thing as Catholics (which in some ways you still are, to me).

It is neat to see that some Scriptural truths pertaining to personal salvation are common. It gives me greater hope, and a bit more understanfing as to how, that saving grace can exist among your fellowship, in spite of the ecclessiastical systems, traditions, etc. that, in our perspective, would serve to impede it.

Or are you simply cherry-picking the bits of Orthodoxy you like for your new melange "church"?

Not at all. I came to increase knowledge of your beliefs, practices, and polity as well as to help relay mine and those who believe the same or similar to me.
However, anything I can learn here that would enlarge my understanding of Scripture, edify my relayionship with the Lord, or otherwise serve to properly glorify and exalt the name of Christ, well I'm all for it. But it has nothing to do with cherry picking your beliefs or practices. I have no such motivation or undertaking in any wise.

I am here building bridges, building relationships, and hopefully in some way building others up in Christ. 

[David Young]

I am saved (we are now the children of God)
I am being saved (I am becoming more Christ-like).
&, I will be saved (at the redemption of the body at the appearing of the Lord).

Amen. So we believe.

[David Young]

If you mean why am I an evangelical? Well because that is what led me to Christ, and where Christ has seen fit to keep me. Besides, I sincerely believe it to contain the most accurate beliefs and conformity to NT Christianity (as recorded in the Scripture) of any of the 3 branches.

I really didn't know anything much about Orthodoxy ... I had assumed you were pretty much the same thing as Catholics (which in some ways you still are, to me).

It is neat to see that some Scriptural truths pertaining to personal salvation are common. It gives me greater hope, and a bit more understanding as to how that saving grace can exist among your fellowship, in spite of the ecclesiastical systems, traditions, etc. that, in our perspective, would serve to impede it.

However, anything I can learn here that would enlarge my understanding of Scripture, edify my relationship with the Lord, or otherwise serve to properly glorify and exalt the name of Christ, well I'm all for it.

I assure you I am not really Cleopas breaking the rules by posting under a second name. Even so, his thoughts coincide precisely with mine. I have put dots where he referred to this Net, because it was in Albania, not via the Net, that I came across Orthodoxy and began studying it - first for no other reason than my work, then because of its many good, wholesome and attractive features.

[David Young]

By what authority do you have to judge these other sects?

I haven't replied to this long post, not out of discourtesy or lack of respect for your questions, but because it still doesn't seem entirely relevant to me for us to discuss sects to which we both deny the name Christian anyway, and are thus a priori in agreement. The most we would achieve (and someone has already said this - maybe yourgoodself) would be to end by saying we have arrived at the same conclusion about them from different starting points. There may be a thread about sects, but as I know so little about them, and have even less interest in them, I am unlikely to post on it.

The other reason is that most of your questions in this posting seem to belong more on the 'sola scriptura' thread. That is not to deny their value as questions, but I think I have probably said all I can on that subject, on that thread. I have your Orthodox book opposing sola scriptura, and I have ordered a book which studies and compares the Orthodox position and the Protestant one, by a Protestant, and I shall read that too. So I shall have the argument presented to me by an author from each side. By then I may know a good deal more and be better able to make worthwhile contributions to that thread. At present, on that theme I am written out.

[jnorm888]

HandmaidenofGod,

It is not other faiths!!! It is other followers of THE Faith, even if you do not wish to acknowledge it. To use a term that for DY carries some negative connotation (for which I apologize) we are ALL more or less sects of the ONE Christian faith -- be we Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant.

As it was among the the Old economy (one faith with various sects, i.e. Pharisees, Sadducees, and even Samaritans), so it is under the New economy.

I disagree.

That's like me reading the book of mormon, and deciding to start a Mormon church (with no connection to the original mormons at all) and claiming that the Original Mormons can't call my new mormon group "a new faith".

New groups can't tell the Original what they can and can't say.

Orthodoxy has been making these claims before both you and I were born. Before Protestantism was born 500 years, and before Rome split from us 1,000 years ago. And you can see Orthodox Christians saying this to gnostics in the 2nd century.

So you have no right to say we can't talk this way. If Orthodoxy has been talking this way for almost 2,000 years, then who are you....or me.....or anyone to say we can no longer talk this way?







JNORM888

[jnorm888]

David Young said:

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.




JNORM888

[jnorm888]

David Young said:

No. Let us remove 7th Day Adventists from the list, as I know nothing about them, and I am aware that some people accept them and others don't. You are then mixing sects (JWs, Mormons, Sabellians) with the truly trinitarian groups listed in my side of our "wager". I believe all those listed by me would accept the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds, and all (from the early church to the 20th century Pentecostals in Azusa Street) believe what you, we and the RCs believe about our Lord's Person. The ones in your list a few lines above do not. I don't think we should confuse them.

After reading his book, I doubt if Robert Morey believes in those creeds. At least it seemed that way when he attacked them in his book. He thought the Apostles creed and Athansians creed were written by the East (I know, I know....you don't gotta say it). But he is a Reformed Baptist, and he seems to differ from you.







JNORM888

[Cleopas]

David Young said:

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.

[Tzimis]

After the "third blessing" are all sins covered? I ask because there is no difference before or after than. Why even become a christian if you are no better off afterwards than when you started.

[GreekChef]

David, I have no doubt that those deviations and distortions disturb you. 

I think we are dealing with three different matters all entangled together: geographical; chronological; and religious.

One of the most persistent complaints you all put on these various threads is the "OSAS" teaching - "once saved, always saved" - which is usually called "eternal security" or "the perseverance of the saints" over here in Britain. As I wrote on a previous thread, I have never heard such a teaching here in Britain, except from one man who is an American Baptist from California pastoring a church in Wales. It jarred on my ears. Now remember that from 1971 to 1976 I was among the straitest, most orthodox Calvinists in the south of England, and even there I never heard anything like the counsel that was given to 11-year-old Handmaiden and has so troubled and disturbed her. She says, "it is a life-long walk, my friend," and even the strongest believer in eternal security would agree with her entirely on that. The only evidence which "makes your calling and election sure" or proves the genuineness of your personal salvation is a godly life. So I think here we are dealing with a geographically located problem: it is an American thing. Not that that reduces its seriousness in any way. But it is not universal, and I guess it must be new, for the Calvinists to whom I referred just now constantly feed their souls on the writings of Calvin, the Calvinist confessions of faith, and the Puritans.

You admit, then, that in fact Protestantism is NOT consistent in faith?  You have stated several times that the beliefs in Britain differ dramatically from the beliefs in the U.S (as though this is an answer to what I've said--- it's not).  How is it then, that with such differences in faith, Protestantism is unified in faith?  I'm afraid you can't have it both ways.

There are, by the way, over 8,000 denominations within Protestantism alone (and that's just the ones that readily identify themselves as being Protestant-- that's not even counting the non-denominational ones-- altogether over 33,000, with 200-300 new ones every year!).  Just because it "doesn't exist in Britain" doesn't mean that Protestantism is not accountable, so to speak.  It is still Protestant.

Then there is what I have called chronological: that is, I think the current Zeitgeist is infecting the church of God in a devastating and debilitating way. We live in a shallow, silly and entertainment-based age, and we expect our religion to be the same. Schoolchildren get good exam results now because, as is widely known, the standards for grades have been lowered so much. Even Oxford and Cambridge have been forced to change their entry requirements  .  Marriages last a while, and then people move on: it's called 'serial monogamy', Even the news on television has to have a break, and be accompanied by music. Sentences passed on criminals are lamentably lenient, and some people deliberately get caught so as to get back into prison where they feel at home. Nothing matters any more. Have you ever heard anything so ridiculous as dowsing someone with rose petals and calling it baptism, as one post relates? Such is the spirit of our age.

This is exactly an example of what I'm talking about.  Without the authority of the Church to guide us, we are led into problems like this, trying to make the faith relevant to these kids, for example.  The voice of the Church has been consistent and steady since 33 AD, and is always relevant, and always ready to address these issues.  There is no watering down according to society.  Yeah, we've had to learn how to utilize the internet to get the Gospel out.  Yeah, we've had to use radio, and television, and whatnot.  Yeah, we have to address all of these things.  But nothing, and I mean nothing, changes the consistency and the Truth of Orthodoxy.

Thirdly there is what I called 'religious'. People want the privilege of being deemed Christian, or ordained, without the submission to God's requirements which have always been part of Christianity. So if you are a woman and want a dog-collar or stole, you find a way to explain away the passages in the Bible which forbid it. If you are a sodomite and want to practise your perversion and still be called Rev So-and-So, you find a way to explain it away. But this is not 'sola scriptura' or real Protestantism: it's a new-fangled religious spirit usurping our name and hijacking our institutions. People have shaken their heads in weary despair over Obama's politically correct inauguration: what a travesty, and surely what an offence to God Almighty!

And where did they get the idea that they can do this?  From Sola Scriptura!  All they have to say is, "I prayed and fasted and the Holy Spirit enlightened me!"  All of a sudden, they're preaching at the President's inauguration!  And it's not as though they are considered fringe and unaccepted!  They are perfectly mainstream.  You are saying that these millions of people are invalid.  Who is being exclusive now?  I think those millions of people would disagree with you that it's not Sola Scriptura and not Protestant.  What assurance do you have that you are right and they are ALL wrong, aside from your own opinion and your private interpretation of Scripture?  Our assurance is the consistent voice of the Church with 2000 years of doctrine and dogma to back us up.

The point is not that you or I find all these perversions to be travesties.  The point is that they exist to begin with, as a result of the Protestant mindset of Sola Scriptura, as a result of the idea that one can properly interpret the Scriptures by oneself.

They ... used the SAME criterion for arriving at their invalid ways/beliefs that you have for your valid ones! 

I dispute that most vehemently!

David, I certainly did not mean that as a criticism of you, I hope you didn't receive it that way.
I was pointing out that the method used by both parties (you and them) to arrive at beliefs held is purportedly the same-- faithful Christian living such that the Holy Spirit guides you to interpret the Scriptures.  They say this.  You say this.  Who is right?  Because the same methodology has resulted in 33,000 separate denominations (and still growing)-- each believing something different, or interpreting something different, or at the very LEAST stressing something different.  As far as stressing different things (which you have yourself stated is often the case in different Protestant denominations)-- we would say that this in and of itself is a violation of Scripture, as it takes God's word out of context, tips the balance, etc.  When one thing is stressed, something else is sacrificed.  Only the Church can maintain perfect balance.  So 33,000 denominations...as has been stated so many times, Christ does NOT keep a harem.

May I ask, please, what is your grounds for dispute?  You did not give a reason or proof that I said something wrong.

Do you believe that their motives were as pure as you believe the other denominations to be? 

No! Someone may post a reply asking who is DMY to judge another's motives? Well, so be it! I like your attitude of submission to a God-given authority. You see that as the Church; we see it as the scripture. These people submit to nothing but their own whims and ambitions.

And yet that very "submission to Scripture" absent of the authority of the Church is what landed us here to begin with!  And that is quite a value judgment you're making there, I must say.  One of my best friends, for example, is a member of one of these "forward-thinking" parishes that has a female priest (Episcopalian) and has other major problems.  But she is a beautiful, God-fearing person who searches her heart constantly for enlightenment.  And her (female) priest, whom I happen to know personally, is a beautiful, God-fearing person as well who has wholly submitted her life to God.  Neither of them has any regard for their whims or ambitions.  I have NO doubt of their motives.  How is it that you do?  It is not the motives that make the problem, friend, but the method.

At least you are acknowledging, though, that it is you who are judging motives solely of your own opinion and without any authority.  That's a step in the right direction, I'd say.  I say that with love and sincerity, not as an attack or out of sarcasm.  I truly believe that the conversation will move forward a lot more when we (both of us) are honest, and not rationalizing and using circular reasoning.

By the way, just a technical note.  We would not say that the authority is the Church and NOT the Scriptures.  The Scriptures are part of the Church, and the two cannot be separated.  Just thought I'd mention that.

there must be ... entire denominations full of people who have ulterior motives behind their beliefs! 

I don't think we can go that far. Many people are simple believers - the scripture, nay the Lord himself, calls them 'sheep'. They follow trustingly and are led to believe that these perversions are OK.

I'm sure that this is true, which is perfect evidence of what I am saying-- it is not the motives that are the problem, but the method.  Interpreting Scripture absent of the guidance of the Church is dangerous.  What makes you think that they will not trustingly (naively) fall prey to the evil one when trying to interpret Christ's word on their own?  I mean, the evil one didn't hesitate to tempt Christ in the Wilderness, using the words of Scripture.  What makes you think he would not tempt those naive believers?  And what makes you think that they (who are naive) would then not fall prey? 

I would love to hear your thoughts.

There! You have them.

And indeed, I appreciate them.  I feel like maybe you are frustrated?  I think I am reading that in your posts, but I pray not.  Please, I hope I'm not overwhelming you again or frustrating you.  If so, I do apologize.

With regard to the fringe groups that have "deviated from" and "distorted" the Truth...  by the Protestant logic which says that pure motives/ pure heart (I'm not sure I'm putting that correctly, but hopefully you grasp my meaning) will result in proper interpretation of Scripture and enlightenment by the Holy Spirit, one of the two following options must be the result:

1) The motives of these groups (which include MILLIONS in the US alone) are impure and thus there are millions of so-called Christians and those who believe themselves to be the true Church (Mormons and JW's and Seventh Day Adventists and Oneness Pentecostals, etc) ...

or

2) The motives of these groups are as you say they are (an effort to recover lost teaching

No. Let us remove 7th Day Adventists from the list, as I know nothing about them, and I am aware that some people accept them and others don't. You are then mixing sects (JWs, Mormons, Sabellians) with the truly trinitarian groups listed in my side of our "wager". I believe all those listed by me would accept the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds, and all (from the early church to the 20th century Pentecostals in Azusa Street) believe what you, we and the RCs believe about our Lord's Person. The ones in your list a few lines above do not. I don't think we should confuse them.

Actually, how much one knows about 7th Day Adventists is really irrelevant.  I know almost nothing about them.  The point is not that these sects are invalid.  You are correct that we agree on that.  The point that you continue to dance around and rationalize is how they got to their invalid conclusions. 

I am interested to know, by the way...
Earlier in the thread, jnorm888 mentioned that the idea which you presented of the Church (Acts 2) is a novel one, innovative, foreign, new, etc.  I don't recall you addressing that.  If I may, I will quote it below and ask that you address it in addition to our ongoing discussion.

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. The One True Church idea is not noval. It is old. So by the bases of "time" itself, the idea expressed above is "counterfit".


We know where it came from and it didn't come from Jesus and the Apostles......nor from Orthodox Christians for the first 4 hundred years. The beginnings (ruff draft) of 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".


If the Church is Incarnate then their is only ONE TRUE CHURCH......with a spiritual and physical aspect.

If the Church is some phantom ghost then there is no such thing as a ONE TRUE (physical) CHURCH......because the onlything that's important is the spiritual aspect.

As I said, I pray I am not causing you frustration or offense, as it is the last thing I want.  I appreciate your sticking with the conversation.  I am, truly, still having trouble grasping the logic of much of Protestant theology.  As Handmaiden said in one of her posts, it just doesn't make sense.  I can't wrap my head around it without arriving at the conclusion that it is nothing more than circular reasoning.  I am continuing to ask questions and drive home points in the hope that you will say something that will click with me and I will understand the logic and the vicious circle of reasoning will be broken.  At the very least, these conversations are always enlightening and cause me to constantly examine and re-examine my faith.  For that, I am grateful, as it deepens and strengthens my faith always!

With love in Christ,
Presbytera Mari

[ialmisry]

So, Cleopas, why are you trying to set up your own denomination? Why not "cut out the middle man", and become Orthodox?

I'm not.

I do pastor an independent church. But it was an existing church plant, without a pastor. I was a pastor without a church.
God Led me, in His providence, to them. That is why I am there.

If you mean why am I an evangelical? Well because that is what led me to Christ, and where Christ has seen fit to keep me. 
Besides, I sincerely believe it to contain the most accurate beliefs and conformity to NT Christianity (as recorded in the Scripture) of any of the 3 branches.

I really didn't know anything much about Orthodoxy before coming across OC.net. I had assumed you were pretty much the same thing as Catholics (which in some ways you still are, to me).

It is neat to see that some Scriptural truths pertaining to personal salvation are common. It gives me greater hope, and a bit more understanfing as to how, that saving grace can exist among your fellowship, in spite of the ecclessiastical systems, traditions, etc. that, in our perspective, would serve to impede it.

Au contraire, it is precisely BECAUSE of the Church's ecclesiology (not an "ecclessiastical sytem," as if it was just an organization incorporation question), traditions etc., including OUR scripture, that have given us saving grace.

They are what St. Paul praised us for (I Cor. 11):
"1 Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.
2 Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you"

That, btw, is what Apostolic succession is about.

[GreekChef]

So, Cleopas, why are you trying to set up your own denomination? Why not "cut out the middle man", and become Orthodox?

I'm not.

I do pastor an independent church. But it was an existing church plant, without a pastor. I was a pastor without a church.
God Led me, in His providence, to them. That is why I am there.

Glory to God!

If you mean why am I an evangelical? Well because that is what led me to Christ, and where Christ has seen fit to keep me. 
Besides, I sincerely believe it to contain the most accurate beliefs and conformity to NT Christianity (as recorded in the Scripture) of any of the 3 branches.

First off, may I ask to what 3 branches you are referring?
Secondly, honestly, you believe your Church to "contain the most accurate beliefs and conformity to NT Christianity (as recorded in the Scripture)?"  I don't mean that to sound crass or harsh.  But the next thing you say is this:

I really didn't know anything much about Orthodoxy before coming across OC.net. I had assumed you were pretty much the same thing as Catholics (which in some ways you still are, to me).

So how can you believe that when you don't even know what else is out there?  Historically, I'm sorry, whether you want to acknowledge it or not (oops, there's that expression again), we ARE the historical Church, the Church of Acts.  You had no clue what we believe before, and obviously still have little knowledge (if you think we are the same as Catholics).  So how is it that you believe you possess NT Christianity?  Just because you can't see how anyone could know more than you?  Again, not meant in a nasty way, but you and David Young are the very ones who have been asking us to share what you don't know.  Is it just that you can't see how there could possibly be something else that is closer than you?  I'm really genuinely mystified by this... how one can think that they can just suddenly reinvent the NT faith, or return to it, WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT WAS THERE TO BEGIN WITH (AND AS IS OBVIOUSLY THE CASE WITH THE ORTHODOX, WHAT STILL IS THERE).  There are so many Protestant Churches out there that are founded on this notion... claiming to be the NT Church, or the closest thing to it.  Have you any type of Liturgy?  Because they did...  I'm still trying to get my husband to join the forum, as this is his area of expertise... he has studied the historical sources that speak about the liturgy of the Early Church (and by Early, I mean 1st century).  Do you know anything of them?  If so, have you incorporated those into your worship?  If not, why not, since you seem to think you are the closest thing to NT Christianity?  Do you see the point I'm trying to make here?  Again, these are genuine questions, not meant to be nasty or critical.  I'm seriously confused and mystified, almost to the point of kind of a snorting laughter like, "uhhh, what???!!!  NO WAY!!  How'd he arrive at that!!??!!"  Make sense?  Again, not meant to be ugly...

It is neat to see that some Scriptural truths pertaining to personal salvation are common. It gives me greater hope, and a bit more understanfing as to how, that saving grace can exist among your fellowship, in spite of the ecclessiastical systems, traditions, etc. that, in our perspective, would serve to impede it.

Interesting that you (hypothetical you plural) feel yourself qualified, having little knowledge of our faith, to make that judgment.  Even if you did know of our faith, what makes you qualified to judge the presence of saving grace among us, again?  Somehow I thought that was God's job... As we've said over and over, we make no judgments of saving grace among you.  We just know what we have. 

Or are you simply cherry-picking the bits of Orthodoxy you like for your new melange "church"?

Not at all. I came to increase knowledge of your beliefs, practices, and polity as well as to help relay mine and those who believe the same or similar to me.
However, anything I can learn here that would enlarge my understanding of Scripture, edify my relayionship with the Lord, or otherwise serve to properly glorify and exalt the name of Christ, well I'm all for it. But it has nothing to do with cherry picking your beliefs or practices. I have no such motivation or undertaking in any wise.

I am here building bridges, building relationships, and hopefully in some way building others up in Christ. 

I am truly glad to hear you say this.  I think building bridges and relationships is, indeed, a worthy reason.  I always feel edified by conversation with you, my friend!

[GreekChef]

By what authority do you have to judge these other sects?

I haven't replied to this long post, not out of discourtesy or lack of respect for your questions, but because it still doesn't seem entirely relevant to me for us to discuss sects to which we both deny the name Christian anyway, and are thus a priori in agreement. The most we would achieve (and someone has already said this - maybe yourgoodself) would be to end by saying we have arrived at the same conclusion about them from different starting points. There may be a thread about sects, but as I know so little about them, and have even less interest in them, I am unlikely to post on it.

I know this wasn't directed at me, so please forgive me if I'm interfering... It doesn't matter that we both believe them to be invalid.  That's beside the point.  What does matter is that we arrive at the same conclusion from different starting points (or maybe, rather, by different methods).  It's that starting point, or that method, that matters.  Your conclusion is based solely in your opinion based on your reading of Scripture (not the authority of Scripture, but your reading of it... they submit to the authority of Scripture too, but your reading of it is different from theirs, and, as there is no proof backing up your reading to establish it as authoritative, it is just your opinion) and your judgment of them, their beliefs, and their motives.  This is what we are trying to get you to address.  We arrive at our conclusion by way of submitting to the authority of the Church and what she says.  It matters not how we individually judge them, or how we individually read and interpret the Scriptures, or how we individually view their motives (in fact, motives has NOTHING to do with it at all for us).  It is THIS that we are trying so hard to stress.  By what authority do you establish that your reading and interpretation of the Scriptures, which allows you to view them as invalid, is right and theirs is wrong?

The other reason is that most of your questions in this posting seem to belong more on the 'sola scriptura' thread. That is not to deny their value as questions, but I think I have probably said all I can on that subject, on that thread. I have your Orthodox book opposing sola scriptura, and I have ordered a book which studies and compares the Orthodox position and the Protestant one, by a Protestant, and I shall read that too. So I shall have the argument presented to me by an author from each side. By then I may know a good deal more and be better able to make worthwhile contributions to that thread. At present, on that theme I am written out.

The two questions are completely intertwined, as your Church IS Sola Scriptura, so to speak.  Your "church" is made up of the individual believers.  To establish that this is invalid is to establish that the other is valid (being the Orthodox way).  So, all do respect, her questions are perfectly appropriate for this thread.  Either way, I don't really see how her questions ARE so much about Sola Scriptura.  But maybe that's just me.

Honestly, David, your last couple posts (as I said before) sound like frustrated side-stepping of the direct questions we are asking and the direct issues.  I can't speak for Handmaiden (although knowing her personally, I'm sure she feels the same way), but I personally have no desire what-so-ever to frustrate or offend you.  Please do tell me if I am doing so.  But it is starting to feel as though once you run out of answers (in other words, once we've stumped you to the point that you have no valid response), you move on to a new thread, side step the question, give what amounts to a tangential answer, etc.  I say this, again, sincerely and with love.  I look forward, as always, to your ever gentle, sincere, and loving responses.

[ialmisry]

So, Cleopas, why are you trying to set up your own denomination? Why not "cut out the middle man", and become Orthodox?

Besides, I sincerely believe it to contain the most accurate beliefs and conformity to NT Christianity (as recorded in the Scripture) of any of the 3 branches.

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

That, btw, is what Apostolic succession is about.

4. How do you explain, and is their some significance to, the overlap between Bishops and Apostles both being present in the NT church itself?

I don't think it has ever been put better than by St. Clement:...42 The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the command of the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture in a certain place, “I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith."...44 Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry.

[David Young]

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.

[David Young]

You admit, then, that in fact Protestantism is NOT consistent in faith? 

I must be brief, for someone is coming to see me soon. There is variety within Protestantism, but we hold the core doctrines in common. I have listed them elsewhere.

they're preaching at the President's inauguration!  ... They are perfectly mainstream. 

They are a new-fangled main-stream religion favoured by possibly post-modern politicians. That does not make them true to Orthodoxy, Catholicism or Protestantism. We have the same compromised religiosity over here. People want the form of godliness without the power thereof - that is, without the life-changing inner work of producing holiness and commitment to one who is Lord of lords.

I feel like maybe you are frustrated?  I hope I'm not ... frustrating you.  If so, I do apologize.

No need to apologise, but perhaps I am a bit frustrated. I ask myself why. Probably because:

- I long for better relations between Christians in Orthodox and Evangelical churches, not for conversion from one church to another but, among those who know the Lord, mutual acceptance and respect as children of God.

- I hope for mutual benefit: learning from each other, being a help and blessing to each other.

But it seems to come across from the Orthodox side that you are saying two things to us:

1) You are wrong, because we are the only true church and we have nothing to learn from you
2) Even when you happen to be right on something, you are still wrong really, because your churches are not real Christian churches, and your ministry and sacraments are invalid.

It has been eloquently said that Cleopas, I and the rest of us cannot derive blessing from Orthodox spirituality, but must accept an "all or nothing" arrangement. No cafeteria religion: the banquet, or nothing.

But thirdly, I am not a learned church historian or theologian, and I have a family and a job. I have neither the knowledge nor the time to respond adequately to the cascade of posts you good people kindly offer me for my consideration. But if I overlook one, someone may feel belittled, or that I have deliberately sidestepped an issue. There are many things I simply don't know, and others that would take considerable time to deal with worthily.

I should be delighted to attend the studies at your church, not least the accomopanying dinners, but you are thousands of miles away. Face to face, I think, we might annul the impression of frustration. But it cannot be. Let us however do our best.

[David Young]

it is precisely BECAUSE of the Church's ecclesiology , traditions etc., ... that have given us saving grace.

I hoped someone would pick up on Cleopas's point here, for I think it is fairly near the centre of our discussion. It seems to me that our view of you is a mirror image of your view of us. You see us as impoverished because we lack the Holy Tradition, and this lack makes it harder for us to find Christ.

We see you as encountering obstacles to finding Christ, because your faith is encrusted with additional beliefs and practices which obscure or eclipse him, and thus make it harder for you to find him: the need for priests, prayers to and by the saints, ex opere operato sacraments, etc.

This post (which must in any case be cut short for I now have a visitor) is not a goad to discuss these issues, though we could do so later if you wished: rather, it is an observation which I hope will clarify the character of the debate.

[David Young]

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.

[Cleopas]

After the "third blessing" are all sins covered? I ask because there is no difference before or after than. Why even become a christian if you are no better off afterwards than when you started.

I'm sorry friend. I do not understand the question.
Could you rephrase or clarify, please?

[Cleopas]

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.