OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 22, 2014, 04:23:07 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 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Protestant innovations  (Read 11939 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Mivac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 247


« Reply #45 on: January 24, 2010, 01:28:40 PM »

I would just like to add.  There is a song that my old baptist church would sing often called, open the eyes of my heart.  I would spend hours seeking truth, asking God to open the eyes of my heart, much like we do with the Prayer of the heart.  I wanted unity so bad, but it turned out it was on my own term.  Well, he did open the eyes of my heart, to my astonishment, even though now, I know I already knew the truth, but it wasn't until I was leading focus on the family, "truth project" and found myself also crying out to St. Paul that my heart and mind both were opened up.  I believe the Lord honored St. Pauls prayer and allowed me to find a great treasure.

Needless to say, this was very upsetting developement for my wife and still is to this day.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2010, 01:51:59 PM by Mivac » Logged
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,834


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #46 on: January 24, 2010, 01:46:58 PM »

you have a belief system and faith that is unique to David Young,

This is probably true. But each component of that belief system lies within what, if one wished, one might call "Evangelical Tradition". I expect the same unique combination of elements drawn from within "The Tradition" in anyone I have fellowship with in the churches, and in any preacher whom I hear. It is indeed quite surprising when a thinking person comes across someone whose beliefs coincide entirely with his own.

This is not felt to be a bad thing; it is normal. As an imperfect explanation, think of the early Fathers: they did not agree on all matters, and (y'all say) occasionally were in error on some point. But there was a consensus within which they all belonged. It is perhaps something like that.

Frankly, I think this part of our exchange is on the wrong thread: it belongs more readily on the "I don't understand the Evangelical mindset" thread, and I do respectfully wonder whether you have understood that what you rail against in me is quite normal for us, and is an integral part of that "Evangelical mindset". We could of course continue to discuss whether it is good or bad, but I do suspect it verifies the title of that "I don't understand" thread, for the mindset does not involve anything like the individuality of thought, judgement and belief which you ascribe to us, but rather only variation (probably, as you say, unique to each believer) within a well-defined Tradition - though not usually called by that term.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2010, 01:47:38 PM by David Young » Logged

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

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,834


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #47 on: January 24, 2010, 06:24:03 PM »

My heart aches ... that  ... all of us who call themselves Christian would be One.

Amen.
Logged

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

Faith: Latin Rite
Posts: 936


Saint Aloysius Gonzaga


« Reply #48 on: January 24, 2010, 07:41:11 PM »

My heart aches ... that  ... all of us who call themselves Christian would be One.

Amen.
by their fruits you shall know them.. Jn 7:16 (myself included)
Logged

There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga
GreekChef
Prez
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #49 on: January 24, 2010, 10:25:46 PM »

you have a belief system and faith that is unique to David Young,

This is probably true. But each component of that belief system lies within what, if one wished, one might call "Evangelical Tradition". I expect the same unique combination of elements drawn from within "The Tradition" in anyone I have fellowship with in the churches, and in any preacher whom I hear. It is indeed quite surprising when a thinking person comes across someone whose beliefs coincide entirely with his own.

This is not felt to be a bad thing; it is normal. As an imperfect explanation, think of the early Fathers: they did not agree on all matters, and (y'all say) occasionally were in error on some point. But there was a consensus within which they all belonged. It is perhaps something like that.

Frankly, I think this part of our exchange is on the wrong thread: it belongs more readily on the "I don't understand the Evangelical mindset" thread, and I do respectfully wonder whether you have understood that what you rail against in me is quite normal for us, and is an integral part of that "Evangelical mindset". We could of course continue to discuss whether it is good or bad, but I do suspect it verifies the title of that "I don't understand" thread, for the mindset does not involve anything like the individuality of thought, judgement and belief which you ascribe to us, but rather only variation (probably, as you say, unique to each believer) within a well-defined Tradition - though not usually called by that term.


You are correct, the discussion of such as being good or bad probably belongs on the "Evangelical Mindset" thread.  But what matters for this thread is that such a mindset is an innovation unique to Protestantism

The fathers may have had slight disagreements over minute details, and may have erred in one belief or another at some given point, but they never erred so much that they were outside the body of the Church's belief, otherwise they were deemed heretical and not accepted by the Church.  They never went outside of the faith and Tradition of the Church, though, and whatever they wrote, they recognized the authority of the Church to tell them if they were correct.  That's a huge, huge difference from what you describe. 
Logged

Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.
Matthew 18:5
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,666



« Reply #50 on: January 24, 2010, 11:42:28 PM »

you have a belief system and faith that is unique to David Young,

This is probably true. But each component of that belief system lies within what, if one wished, one might call "Evangelical Tradition". I expect the same unique combination of elements drawn from within "The Tradition" in anyone I have fellowship with in the churches, and in any preacher whom I hear. It is indeed quite surprising when a thinking person comes across someone whose beliefs coincide entirely with his own.

This is not felt to be a bad thing; it is normal. As an imperfect explanation, think of the early Fathers: they did not agree on all matters, and (y'all say) occasionally were in error on some point. But there was a consensus within which they all belonged. It is perhaps something like that.

Frankly, I think this part of our exchange is on the wrong thread: it belongs more readily on the "I don't understand the Evangelical mindset" thread, and I do respectfully wonder whether you have understood that what you rail against in me is quite normal for us, and is an integral part of that "Evangelical mindset". We could of course continue to discuss whether it is good or bad, but I do suspect it verifies the title of that "I don't understand" thread, for the mindset does not involve anything like the individuality of thought, judgement and belief which you ascribe to us, but rather only variation (probably, as you say, unique to each believer) within a well-defined Tradition - though not usually called by that term.


You are correct, the discussion of such as being good or bad probably belongs on the "Evangelical Mindset" thread.  But what matters for this thread is that such a mindset is an innovation unique to Protestantism

The fathers may have had slight disagreements over minute details, and may have erred in one belief or another at some given point, but they never erred so much that they were outside the body of the Church's belief, otherwise they were deemed heretical and not accepted by the Church.  They never went outside of the faith and Tradition of the Church, though, and whatever they wrote, they recognized the authority of the Church to tell them if they were correct.  That's a huge, huge difference from what you describe. 
that indeed is the issue: the Fathers would be able to commune in our Church.  Indeed, they do.  The idea that the Church was only an ad hoc association of the like minded was unknown until the 16th century, if not later.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,666



« Reply #51 on: January 24, 2010, 11:46:53 PM »

Part one of my quote from you is true, but is only part of the truth. Sadly, there are very few Protestants on the forum, even though the title (Orthodox-Protestant Discussion) might lead us all to hope for an approximately equal balance. I have tried to get people interested in participating, both in Britain and in Albania, but people are not interested in theological discussion forums, or are too busy with other activities, or have hardly heard of Orthodoxy and cannot imagine the relevance of such discussion.  Sad If there were an even balance between participants, the number of posts saying what I say and the number saying what you might would presumably more nearly balance each other out.

You know, I was just struck by this all of a sudden.  You say this kind of thing all the time, as though it is our fault.  Admittedly, we should be evangelizing more, of course.  But, how do you explain the fact that Catholics are WIDELY aware of our presence?  From my understanding and experience (my mother was raised Catholic, went to Catholic school, etc), Church history and the existence and beliefs of Orthodoxy are widely taught in Catholic seminaries and in Catholic Sunday Schools and Catechism classes.  Of course, it's not true of EVERY Catholic Sunday School, but they are much more broadly aware of us.  This is evidenced also by the strong Catholic presence on this forum.  It is also evidenced by the strong Ecumenical movement (which is a topic for another thread, should anyone feel the need to attack this statement) between the Orthodox and Catholic churches.

Could it be, instead, that the responsibility lies with the Protestant churches?  The Catholics are, generally, fairly well educated in Orthodoxy.  Orthodox are, generally, aware of and educated on at least a very basic level in the faith of Catholics and Protestants.  Maybe the Protestant churches should start teaching church history.  My experience has been that Protestants skip everything between Acts and the Reformation.  Why?  Why haven't they thought, "hmmmm... I wonder what happened in those 1500 years?"  Why haven't they gone to a bookstore and bought a book on church history?  It's not as though they're not available.  If books are really that hard to come by, we have these wonderful things called computers now, too.

There's a reason for that: what do you call a Protestant who learns Church history?  An Orthodox catechumen.
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
DavidH
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 531



WWW
« Reply #52 on: January 25, 2010, 12:34:39 AM »


There's a reason for that: what do you call a Protestant who learns Church history?  An Orthodox catechumen.
[/quote]

Love it! Reminds me of Archbishop Sheen's quip: "To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant."
Logged
Mivac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 247


« Reply #53 on: January 25, 2010, 09:16:33 AM »

you have a belief system and faith that is unique to David Young,

This is probably true. But each component of that belief system lies within what, if one wished, one might call "Evangelical Tradition". I expect the same unique combination of elements drawn from within "The Tradition" in anyone I have fellowship with in the churches, and in any preacher whom I hear. It is indeed quite surprising when a thinking person comes across someone whose beliefs coincide entirely with his own.

This is not felt to be a bad thing; it is normal. As an imperfect explanation, think of the early Fathers: they did not agree on all matters, and (y'all say) occasionally were in error on some point. But there was a consensus within which they all belonged. It is perhaps something like that.

Frankly, I think this part of our exchange is on the wrong thread: it belongs more readily on the "I don't understand the Evangelical mindset" thread, and I do respectfully wonder whether you have understood that what you rail against in me is quite normal for us, and is an integral part of that "Evangelical mindset". We could of course continue to discuss whether it is good or bad, but I do suspect it verifies the title of that "I don't understand" thread, for the mindset does not involve anything like the individuality of thought, judgement and belief which you ascribe to us, but rather only variation (probably, as you say, unique to each believer) within a well-defined Tradition - though not usually called by that term.


You are correct, the discussion of such as being good or bad probably belongs on the "Evangelical Mindset" thread.  But what matters for this thread is that such a mindset is an innovation unique to Protestantism

The fathers may have had slight disagreements over minute details, and may have erred in one belief or another at some given point, but they never erred so much that they were outside the body of the Church's belief, otherwise they were deemed heretical and not accepted by the Church.  They never went outside of the faith and Tradition of the Church, though, and whatever they wrote, they recognized the authority of the Church to tell them if they were correct.  That's a huge, huge difference from what you describe. 

The hardest part for me was getting myself out of the way.  Until one realizes that they put themselves as the final authority and the constant my, my, I, I, mentality then there really isn't much a person can do for the "Evangelical Mindset."

Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #54 on: January 25, 2010, 10:26:27 AM »

I am slightly puzzled by the frequent Orthodox references in people’s posts to our Protestant or Evangelical “innovations”, for I am not aware of any. If you were saying that we have pared down the true Faith and removed vital aspects, I’d know what you mean: things like prayer for the dead, prayer to the saints, the effect of the epiclesis, baptismal regeneration, chrismation as the way to receive the Holy Spirit, sacraments additional to baptism and the Lord’s Supper, even the perpetual virginity of Mary – and doubtless others. But I cannot see what you mean when you say we have added new beliefs, that is, innovations. (I do not of course refer to such recent and regrettable practices as the ordination in some churches of women; nor to what many of us view (as you do) as irreverent entertainment-based ‘megachurches’; nor to various practices brought in by groups who might assume the name 'Protestant' but hardly retain its beliefs and practices – such as those who praise homosexuality). Leaving aside such recent innovations, and looking only at real, classic Evangelicalism or Protestantism, let me ask you: what do you mean by our “innovations”?

You know, I didn't realize you were against the ordination of women, David. Is that the usual Baptist view?

I would say: Yes, we innovate. This is because we are the living Church; we do not stagnate.
Logged
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,834


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #55 on: January 25, 2010, 10:43:15 AM »

I didn't realize you were against the ordination of women, David. Is that the usual Baptist view?

I am not as well versed in church history as I would like to be (not being an Orthodox catechumen!), but I would say that the idea of women ministers is an innovation among Baptists. None of the churches I have been a member of in Kent (Hadlow and Borough Green) and North Wales (Llay and Wrexham) or attended regularly (Cambridge, Tunbridge Wells and Basingstoke) ever had a female preacher whilst I was there. This spans the period 1965-2010. Nonetheless it is true that a lot of Baptist churches nowadays do go in for a female ministry.  Sad
Logged

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

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,834


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #56 on: January 25, 2010, 10:49:53 AM »

I recently read a paper that I believe speaks directly to the problem within protestantism and speaks directly concerning the rampant innovations. http://www.eastern-orthodoxy.com/paradosis2.doc

I have printed it out to read at leisure in the next few days. Thank you.
Logged

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

Posts: 874

Anglican (but not Episcopagan)


« Reply #57 on: January 25, 2010, 01:33:34 PM »


There's a reason for that: what do you call a Protestant who learns Church history?  An Orthodox catechumen.
You could call him that--I was an Orthodox catechumen for a few weeks about 4 years ago.  However, you could also call him an "Anglican Catholic".  Grin
Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #58 on: January 25, 2010, 01:37:56 PM »

Grace and Peace,

The Apostle Paul spoke of Christianity as a Spiritual Journey or an Athletic Exercise, a Race or a Good Fight.

Modern Christianity has lost this, even amongst Catholics. We have become spiritually flabby...  Wink

We need to get 'in shape' to that which is why I am here.
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Cymbyz
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 496



« Reply #59 on: January 25, 2010, 02:37:47 PM »

Well, Great Lent is coming up:  Spring Training.
Logged

The end of the world
is as near as the day of your death;
watch and pray.
 
 Yahoo! & WLM ID: Owen
HandmaidenofGod
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #60 on: January 25, 2010, 09:41:32 PM »

I am slightly puzzled by the frequent Orthodox references in people’s posts to our Protestant or Evangelical “innovations”, for I am not aware of any. If you were saying that we have pared down the true Faith and removed vital aspects, I’d know what you mean: things like prayer for the dead, prayer to the saints, the effect of the epiclesis, baptismal regeneration, chrismation as the way to receive the Holy Spirit, sacraments additional to baptism and the Lord’s Supper, even the perpetual virginity of Mary – and doubtless others. But I cannot see what you mean when you say we have added new beliefs, that is, innovations. (I do not of course refer to such recent and regrettable practices as the ordination in some churches of women; nor to what many of us view (as you do) as irreverent entertainment-based ‘megachurches’; nor to various practices brought in by groups who might assume the name 'Protestant' but hardly retain its beliefs and practices – such as those who praise homosexuality). Leaving aside such recent innovations, and looking only at real, classic Evangelicalism or Protestantism, let me ask you: what do you mean by our “innovations”?

You know, I didn't realize you were against the ordination of women, David. Is that the usual Baptist view?

I would say: Yes, we innovate. This is because we are the living Church; we do not stagnate.

Liz,

As someone who spent a good number of years in the Baptist Church (Dad is Orthodox, Mom is Baptist) I can affirm that this is a traditional Baptist view.

In XC,

Maureen
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
ChristusDominus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Rite
Posts: 936


Saint Aloysius Gonzaga


« Reply #61 on: January 26, 2010, 01:14:17 AM »

Grace and Peace,

The Apostle Paul spoke of Christianity as a Spiritual Journey or an Athletic Exercise, a Race or a Good Fight.

Modern Christianity has lost this, even amongst Catholics. We have become spiritually flabby...  Wink

We need to get 'in shape' to that which is why I am here.
O.K! In the meantime...no spiritual Speedos for you until you whip your spiritual self back into shape Smiley
Logged

There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga
Tallitot
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jewish
Jurisdiction: United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
Posts: 2,612



WWW
« Reply #62 on: January 26, 2010, 01:45:43 AM »

Here in VA many Baptist churches have women in ministry, and I know of at least one congregation that is known as being gay-friendly.
Logged

Proverbs 22:7
Alveus Lacuna
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,888



« Reply #63 on: January 26, 2010, 02:29:11 AM »

There's a reason for that: what do you call a Protestant who learns Church history?  An Orthodox catechumen.

Or an agnostic, an apostate, a biblical critical scholar, etc.
Logged
Mivac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 247


« Reply #64 on: January 26, 2010, 08:58:28 AM »

Here in VA many Baptist churches have women in ministry, and I know of at least one congregation that is known as being gay-friendly.

In the United States atleast the Baptist churches are now all over the theological map.  You have your conservative baptist, arminian baptist, calvinist baptist, women ordination baptist, fundamentalist  baptist, charismatic baptist (which is kind of puzzling lol), what ever you want to believe baptist, etc.

As for your last part what do you mean by gay-friendly?  If someone who is gay comes seeking God and seeking to over come their particular passion that controls them why would you reject them and not be friendly to them?
Logged
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,834


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #65 on: January 26, 2010, 09:52:42 AM »

Quote
The Prosperity Gospel/"Name it and Claim it" theology

Martin Luther's version of the Bible.

"Speaking in tongues" a la Assemblies of God. I'm not speaking about the "speaking in tongues" as stated in the Bible. I'm talking about the incessent babbiling done at Charismatic services that is labeled as "Biblical" but is, in fact, NOT.

Being "slain in the Spirit."

The theology that once you have "accepted Jesus as your Savior" all your sins are washed away and you are no longer guilty of any sin. Ever. You can go out and kill someone, but it's okay, because Jesus died for your sins.

Televangelists.

Holy Communion is seen as a simple "rememberance meal"

Baptism confers no grace; a simple declaration of one's faith and not as spiritual regeneration (John 3:5).

You lack apostolic succession,
you have no Holy Mysteries,
you do not venerate the Theotokos and the saints,
you have stripped the Old Testament,
you have abstracted the New Testament from the context of the tradition of the Fathers.

I have extracted the above from your posts. I'll try to comment on them in a different order, lumping together the ones that seem similar to each other.

REAL INNOVATIONS

The Prosperity Gospel/"Name it and Claim it" theology

As far as I know this is a very recent innovation, and is rejected by orthodox Evangelcials.

You can go out and kill someone, but it's okay, because Jesus died for your sins.

This is repeatedly and strongly denied from our pulpits - but there have been people who were (inaccurately, I think) dubbed Antinomians who have taught such heresy.

Televangelists.

Well... if one is going to preach by broadcasting, which in itself is a good thing, surely it must be an innovation?

MAYBE INNOVATIONS

"Speaking in tongues" a la Assemblies of God. I'm not speaking about the "speaking in tongues" as stated in the Bible. I'm talking about the incessent babbling done at Charismatic services.

The problem is that no-one has direct knowledge of what speaking in tongues was in the early church, either in people's private devotions or in church gatherings. But yes - the introduction of what you describe probably dates from 1906 in Azusa Street.

Being "slain in the Spirit."

This happened in the 18th cenury awakening, though then it was discouraged and died down or out, whilst today I gather on hearsay that there are people who encourage it. Nonetheless, it must be admitted that there are cases of people falling to the ground when they meet the holy - God, Jesus, and angel - both in the days of our Lord's flesh, and at other times.

NOT INNOVATIONS

The theology that once you have "accepted Jesus as your Savior" all your sins are washed away

This, of course, we hold to be NT teaching, not an innovation.

Martin Luther's version of the Bible... you have stripped the Old Testament,

I assume you are referring to his use of the Hebrew canon rather than the LXX. Whether you are right to use the LXX or we are right to use the Hebrew OT is no doubt open to debate - but I don't think the Hebrew canon can be dubbed a specifically Protestant idea, nor an innovation

WHOSE INNOVATIONS?

you have no Holy Mysteries

See my comments on the Lord's Supper and baptism: if you mean the other sacraments, again we think these are your innovations.

you do not venerate the Theotokos and the saints,

It depends what you mean by "venerate". You are right that we do not do it in the manner you do, but again, we think it is your innovation, not the other way round!

Holy Communion is seen as a simple "rememberance meal"

By many, called Zwinglians. Again, those who hold this view do not believe it is an innovation, but rather was the biblical understanding.

Baptism confers no grace; a simple declaration of one's faith and not as spiritual regeneration

A similar view to the Zwinglian one on the Supper, believed by those who teaching it to be biblical. Others do believe that God meets one in a special way and does indeed impart a influx of grace at that moment.

You lack apostolic succession

Yes, we lack that: but we think it is your innovation, not the other way round!

you have abstracted the New Testament from the context of the tradition of the Fathers.

I'd need to think a lot more about this one. We believe, of course, that the Fathers developed theology beyond the beliefs of the apostles, and that as it evolved not every new idea was correct. But, as I've said before, we read other Christian writers in the same spirit, and here the difference between you and us seems to me to be that we treat all post-canonical writings on the same level, whereas you accord special authority to the Church Fathers as part of Holy Tradition. Again, the question is, which of us has created the innovation?
« Last Edit: January 26, 2010, 10:22:40 AM by David Young » Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 2,495



« Reply #66 on: January 26, 2010, 10:02:58 AM »

Here in VA many Baptist churches have women in ministry, and I know of at least one congregation that is known as being gay-friendly.
As for your last part what do you mean by gay-friendly?  If someone who is gay comes seeking God and seeking to over come their particular passion that controls them why would you reject them and not be friendly to them?
I'm going to guess that what Tallitot means by "gay-friendly" is how I understand the term myself: friendly towards (i.e. not opposed to) a gay lifestyle usually including sexual behaviour between two loving, consenting, and committed adults of the same sex.
Logged
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,834


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #67 on: January 26, 2010, 10:24:29 AM »

Quote
The Prosperity Gospel/"Name it and Claim it" theology

Martin Luther's version of the Bible.

"Speaking in tongues" a la Assemblies of God. I'm not speaking about the "speaking in tongues" as stated in the Bible. I'm talking about the incessent babbiling done at Charismatic services that is labeled as "Biblical" but is, in fact, NOT.

Being "slain in the Spirit."

The theology that once you have "accepted Jesus as your Savior" all your sins are washed away and you are no longer guilty of any sin. Ever. You can go out and kill someone, but it's okay, because Jesus died for your sins.

Televangelists.

Holy Communion is seen as a simple "rememberance meal"

Baptism confers no grace; a simple declaration of one's faith and not as spiritual regeneration (John 3:5).

You lack apostolic succession,
you have no Holy Mysteries,
you do not venerate the Theotokos and the saints,
you have stripped the Old Testament,
you have abstracted the New Testament from the context of the tradition of the Fathers.

THIS SEEMS TO HAVE GOT ITSELF ON TWICE. NO IDEA HOW. SORRY.

I have extracted the above from your posts. I'll try to comment on them in a different order, lumping together the ones that seem similar to each other.

REAL INNOVATIONS

The Prosperity Gospel/"Name it and Claim it" theology

As far as I know this is a very recent innovation, and is rejected by orthodox Evangelcials.

You can go out and kill someone, but it's okay, because Jesus died for your sins.

This is repeatedly and strongly denied from our pulpits - but there have been people who were (inaccurately, I think) dubbed Antinomians who have taught such heresy.

Televangelists.

Well... if one is going to preach by broadcasting, which in itself is a good thing, surely it must be an innovation?

MAYBE INNOVATIONS

"Speaking in tongues" a la Assemblies of God. I'm not speaking about the "speaking in tongues" as stated in the Bible. I'm talking about the incessent babbling done at Charismatic services.

The problem is that no-one has direct knowledge of what speaking in tongues was in the early church, either in people's private devotions or in church gatherings. But yes - the introduction of what you describe probably dates from 1906 in Azusa Street.

Being "slain in the Spirit."

This happened in the 18th century awakening, though then it was discouraged and died down or out, whilst today I gather on hearsay that there are people who encourage it. Nonetheless, it must be admitted that there are cases in the Bible of people falling to the ground when they meet the holy - God, Jesus, and angel - both in the days of our Lord's flesh, and at other times.

NOT INNOVATIONS

The theology that once you have "accepted Jesus as your Savior" all your sins are washed away

This, of course, we hold to be NT teaching, not an innovation.

Martin Luther's version of the Bible... you have stripped the Old Testament,

I assume you are referring to his use of the Hebrew canon rather than the LXX. Whether you are right to use the LXX or we are right to use the Hebrew OT is no doubt open to debate - but I don't think the Hebrew canon can be dubbed a specifically Protestant idea, nor an innovation

WHOSE INNOVATIONS?

you have no Holy Mysteries

See my comments on the Lord's Supper and baptism: if you mean the other sacraments, again we think these are your innovations.

you do not venerate the Theotokos and the saints,

It depends what you mean by "venerate". You are right that we do not do it in the manner you do, but again, we think it is your innovation, not the other way round!

Holy Communion is seen as a simple "rememberance meal"

By many, called Zwinglians. Again, those who hold this view do not believe it is an innovation, but rather was the biblical understanding.

Baptism confers no grace; a simple declaration of one's faith and not as spiritual regeneration

A similar view to the Zwinglian one on the Supper, believed by those who teaching it to be biblical. Others do believe that God meets one in a special way and does indeed impart a influx of grace at that moment.

You lack apostolic succession

Yes, we lack that: but we think it is your innovation, not the other way round!

you have abstracted the New Testament from the context of the tradition of the Fathers.

I'd need to think a lot more about this one. We believe, of course, that the Fathers developed theology beyond the beliefs of the apostles, and that as it evolved not every new idea was correct. But, as I've said before, we read other Christian writers in the same spirit, and here the difference between you and us seems to me to be that we treat all post-canonical writings on the same level, whereas you accord special authority to the Church Fathers as part of Holy Tradition. Again, the question is, which of us has created the innovation?
« Last Edit: January 26, 2010, 10:28:56 AM by David Young » Logged

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

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,834


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #68 on: January 26, 2010, 10:31:50 AM »

sexual behaviour between two loving ... adults of the same sex.

I agree with your understanding of how the term is usually used, but can it in any true sense be called "loving" to encourage another person in a perversion which scripture plainly calls an abomination to the Lord?
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 2,495



« Reply #69 on: January 26, 2010, 11:35:19 AM »

sexual behaviour between two loving ... adults of the same sex.

I agree with your understanding of how the term is usually used, but can it in any true sense be called "loving" to encourage another person in a perversion which scripture plainly calls an abomination to the Lord?
You are exactly right on that. I was using words that others frequently use in order to create a definition. While such people may indeed love each other (and consent, and be committed) that love falls short of God's best for us.
Logged
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,834


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #70 on: January 26, 2010, 11:53:53 AM »

that love falls short of God's best for us.

Amen. And I believe it is the higher and more conspicuous moral stance taken by the Catholic Church, in comparison with the feeble bleatings of so-called Protestant leaders, that is leading people to convert to Catholicism here in Britain. Not the only reason, but a significant one. But we are wandering off the theme...

Or are we? Isn't this vagueness adopted by so many Protestant leaders itself an innovation? "The bland leading the bland," as one wag said. I would have expected a higher proportion of those who leave Protestantism to convert to Orthodoxy rather than Catholicism than seems to be the case - but perhaps I am biassed.  Smiley
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,298



« Reply #71 on: January 26, 2010, 12:43:14 PM »

how many times are we going to go around about this?

I was thinking the same thing. Many people have provided evidence (which you refuse to accept) on threads without number that those things you continue to reject were in fact and always have been part of the Apostolic Faith. You can't bring yourself to accept that - why not be honest about it?

Quote
Why should we place ANY value whatsoever in your opinion ... why should YOU place any value in your opinion ...?

No reason at all. But it was of course not I who dreamed up these ideas. Rightly or wrongly they have been held by thousands and probably millions for some centuries. I think that this at least means they deserve serious and respectful consideration.
Why? Are you really saying that if a lot of people believe something, even if it's wrong, it deserves serious consideration? And anyway do you really want to play a numbers game? Because if so, our team "wins" - more of us have believed this longer.  Wink

Quote
your faith is based ... not in the FAITH of the apostles as it was originally practiced,

And that's the truth of it, really. No matter how much evidence we present, no matter how much we discuss, you will never accept it because it might just possibly mean that you might be wrong.
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,666



« Reply #72 on: January 26, 2010, 12:47:24 PM »

that love falls short of God's best for us.

Amen. And I believe it is the higher and more conspicuous moral stance taken by the Catholic Church, in comparison with the feeble bleatings of so-called Protestant leaders, that is leading people to convert to Catholicism here in Britain. Not the only reason, but a significant one. But we are wandering off the theme...

Or are we? Isn't this vagueness adopted by so many Protestant leaders itself an innovation? "The bland leading the bland," as one wag said. I would have expected a higher proportion of those who leave Protestantism to convert to Orthodoxy rather than Catholicism than seems to be the case - but perhaps I am biassed.  Smiley
That's assuming that they know about Orthodoxy. Sadly (and largely our fault) such is not the case.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,666



« Reply #73 on: January 26, 2010, 12:50:31 PM »

Grace and Peace,

The Apostle Paul spoke of Christianity as a Spiritual Journey or an Athletic Exercise, a Race or a Good Fight.

Modern Christianity has lost this, even amongst Catholics. We have become spiritually flabby...  Wink

We need to get 'in shape' to that which is why I am here.
O.K! In the meantime...no spiritual Speedos for you until you whip your spiritual self back into shape Smiley
OK

http://www.processionemisteritp.it/confraternite/flagellanti.jpg
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
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,298



« Reply #74 on: January 26, 2010, 12:52:32 PM »

There's a reason for that: what do you call a Protestant who learns Church history?  An Orthodox catechumen.

First of all, david, let me apologize for my sharp tongue. With Lent staring me in the face, it ill behooves me to criticize anyone else.

The thing is, I was probably one of the more reluctant Orthodox converts in the history of the Church. I spent months looking for loopholes that would allow me to ignore it, and go back to my comfortable Protestant church, with friends and family, where everyone thought I was wonderful and smart. (of course, I knew differently, but that's another story... Smiley)

Unfortunately, the more I read, the more I studied, the "worse" it got!

And finally the only honest thing to do was to quote Bro. Martin, "Here I stand. I can do no other, God helping me," and admit to myself that the Orthodox Church was the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and to take a deep breath and step off into the unknown.

It hasn't been easy, I can assure you. But it has been a blessing.
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,666



« Reply #75 on: January 26, 2010, 12:54:00 PM »


There's a reason for that: what do you call a Protestant who learns Church history?  An Orthodox catechumen.
You could call him that--I was an Orthodox catechumen for a few weeks about 4 years ago.  However, you could also call him an "Anglican Catholic".  Grin
In which case he has become an afficionado of Alternative History, a more accurate form of Protestant fiction, but fiction none the less.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,666



« Reply #76 on: January 26, 2010, 12:55:42 PM »

I didn't realize you were against the ordination of women, David. Is that the usual Baptist view?

I am not as well versed in church history as I would like to be (not being an Orthodox catechumen!), but I would say that the idea of women ministers is an innovation among Baptists. None of the churches I have been a member of in Kent (Hadlow and Borough Green) and North Wales (Llay and Wrexham) or attended regularly (Cambridge, Tunbridge Wells and Basingstoke) ever had a female preacher whilst I was there. This spans the period 1965-2010. Nonetheless it is true that a lot of Baptist churches nowadays do go in for a female ministry.  Sad
I remember the debate in the Southern Baptist Conference, and trying to controll my laughter as the conservatives tried to appeal to Tradition to stop 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
Doubting Thomas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 874

Anglican (but not Episcopagan)


« Reply #77 on: January 26, 2010, 01:40:31 PM »


There's a reason for that: what do you call a Protestant who learns Church history?  An Orthodox catechumen.
You could call him that--I was an Orthodox catechumen for a few weeks about 4 years ago.  However, you could also call him an "Anglican Catholic".  Grin
In which case he has become an afficionado of Alternative History, a more accurate form of Protestant fiction, but fiction none the less.
And how specifically is it a fiction?
Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,009


"My god is greater."


« Reply #78 on: January 26, 2010, 01:55:51 PM »


There's a reason for that: what do you call a Protestant who learns Church history?  An Orthodox catechumen.
You could call him that--I was an Orthodox catechumen for a few weeks about 4 years ago.  However, you could also call him an "Anglican Catholic".  Grin
In which case he has become an afficionado of Alternative History, a more accurate form of Protestant fiction, but fiction none the less.
And how specifically is it a fiction?

It is a fiction when Anglicans pretend that their Protestant church really isn't Protestant, really wasn't founded by Henry VIII so he could divorce his wife, and is in fact one of three (or more) "branches" of the invisible Catholic church.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,410



« Reply #79 on: January 26, 2010, 02:14:25 PM »


There's a reason for that: what do you call a Protestant who learns Church history?  An Orthodox catechumen.
You could call him that--I was an Orthodox catechumen for a few weeks about 4 years ago.  However, you could also call him an "Anglican Catholic".  Grin
In which case he has become an afficionado of Alternative History, a more accurate form of Protestant fiction, but fiction none the less.
And how specifically is it a fiction?

It is a fiction when Anglicans pretend that their Protestant church really isn't Protestant, really wasn't founded by Henry VIII so he could divorce his wife, and is in fact one of three (or more) "branches" of the invisible Catholic church.

As to the point on King Henry VIII it was not a divorce but an annulment.  There is a thread here on the forum in which the real history and the complicated situation is looked at.  It was also not the first such request made by a king or noble to the Bishop of Rome; there had been other in centuries previous. 

As a long time poster on this forum, I hope and believe that others may read that I have and still do study history, real history, and that I take it seriously.
I am not EO or OO or RC.   As a side point I have seen the same little quip about one who studies history made with EO changed to RC.  A question of alignment and point of view, it would seem.

But it is just that, a remark that does not apply to real human beings such as, to give an example, Sir Steven Runciman, a paramount scholar and historian who did know EO history and yet did not become EO himself as far as I have been able to find out. 

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,076


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #80 on: January 26, 2010, 02:19:23 PM »

As to the point on King Henry VIII it was not a divorce but an annulment.  There is a thread here on the forum in which the real history and the complicated situation is looked at.  It was also not the first such request made by a king or noble to the Bishop of Rome; there had been other in centuries previous.   

I remember that thread... You don't happen to remember the title, or anything that could be used to narrow a search, do you?
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,410



« Reply #81 on: January 26, 2010, 02:24:38 PM »

If I recall correctly, it had Anglican in the title, it may have been in response to a question by Sloga. I shouldn't be lazy and expect others to search for it.  I'll take a look.  I had to do something after my last...

Found it.  It was from a bit over 2 years ago.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13426.0.html

There may have been other threads, but that might take more digging.

« Last Edit: January 26, 2010, 02:27:34 PM by Ebor » Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,666



« Reply #82 on: January 26, 2010, 03:39:34 PM »


There's a reason for that: what do you call a Protestant who learns Church history?  An Orthodox catechumen.
You could call him that--I was an Orthodox catechumen for a few weeks about 4 years ago.  However, you could also call him an "Anglican Catholic".  Grin
In which case he has become an afficionado of Alternative History, a more accurate form of Protestant fiction, but fiction none the less.
And how specifically is it a fiction?
It is a communion in name only, a bridge to nowhere, universal in England, defined by double entendres, a Protestant faith wrapped in a historicized (rather than historic) Apostolic shell.  The 39 Articles do not summarize the Faith brought by the evangelizers of the British Isles.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,666



« Reply #83 on: January 26, 2010, 03:48:24 PM »


There's a reason for that: what do you call a Protestant who learns Church history?  An Orthodox catechumen.
You could call him that--I was an Orthodox catechumen for a few weeks about 4 years ago.  However, you could also call him an "Anglican Catholic".  Grin
In which case he has become an afficionado of Alternative History, a more accurate form of Protestant fiction, but fiction none the less.
And how specifically is it a fiction?

It is a fiction when Anglicans pretend that their Protestant church really isn't Protestant, really wasn't founded by Henry VIII so he could divorce his wife, and is in fact one of three (or more) "branches" of the invisible Catholic church.

As to the point on King Henry VIII it was not a divorce but an annulment. 
A distinction without a difference.  We don't approve of the Vatican's Korban Tribunals, why would we Henry's actions?

Quote
There is a thread here on the forum in which the real history and the complicated situation is looked at.  It was also not the first such request made by a king or noble to the Bishop of Rome; there had been other in centuries previous. 

And more recent: Henry condemned his aunt's "shameless sentence sent from Rome," and her progeny (including Elisabeth II) shouldn't have inherited the throne according to him.


Quote
As a long time poster on this forum, I hope and believe that others may read that I have and still do study history, real history, and that I take it seriously.
I am not EO or OO or RC.   As a side point I have seen the same little quip about one who studies history made with EO changed to RC.  A question of alignment and point of view, it would seem.

Not quite.  The RC has to explain how filioque wasn't an innovation, an impossible task.  But at least the RC is aware of the question: Protestants fight for it without knowing what they are fighting for.

But it is just that, a remark that does not apply to real human beings such as, to give an example, Sir Steven Runciman, a paramount scholar and historian who did know EO history and yet did not become EO himself as far as I have been able to find out. 
[/quote]
He delved into the occult. One can be familiar with history but not know it.

As for real human being: Jaroslav Pelikan.
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
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,009


"My god is greater."


« Reply #84 on: January 26, 2010, 06:10:12 PM »

Re: the 39 articles, some Anglo-Catholics will retort that they aren't binding, or give them a dramatically different interpretation, thereby compounding Anglicanism's bad doctrine with disunity.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,834


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #85 on: January 26, 2010, 07:02:02 PM »

...always have been part of the Apostolic Faith. You can't bring yourself to accept that - why not be honest about it?

I think you have to admit that some people really are Baptist by conviction, not through laziness, or inheritance, or unwillingness to think. Being Baptist can itself be an honest conviction.

Quote
Are you really saying that if a lot of people believe something, even if it's wrong, it deserves serious consideration?

I probably am. There have been - and are - many atheists, agnostics, Communists, Jews, Moslems, and so on. I do not think it does any harm for an honest, thinking person to give thought to those views, assess them, and have good solid reasons for rejecting them. You may say this is rejecting authority, and contrast it with a call to submit to apostolic Tradition: but I am aware from many posts that people have given long, deep and often sacrificial thought and decision to their conversion to Orthodoxy.

We must be ready to give account for the hope that is in us, and I suspect that that "reason" is wise to include one's reasons for rejecting other, false hopes and submitting to Christ (however one understands that). I want to know (for example) why I am not an atheist.

In re your second post - I have previously expressed my admiration for those who have risked severance from background, fellowship, friendship and familiarity and converted to Orthodoxy - or for that matter to Catholicism. It bears some resemblance to an abrahamic exodus. I do not say I think their decision was the right one, but I deeply admire their willingness to pay the price for what they believe to be right. I have no reason, nor indeed wish, to exclude you from that number; and indeed, reading many of your posts who live in Dixie, I wonder what on earth I would do if I lived among the kind of Evangelical you describe, if they really are all like that. It would be a profound dilemma: yet I find a oneness with Cleopas in all he writes (including his recent posts on the Mindset thread), so I guess I would fit in somewhere among them.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,742


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #86 on: January 26, 2010, 07:17:44 PM »

...always have been part of the Apostolic Faith. You can't bring yourself to accept that - why not be honest about it?

I think you have to admit that some people really are Baptist by conviction, not through laziness, or inheritance, or unwillingness to think. Being Baptist can itself be an honest conviction.

Quote
Are you really saying that if a lot of people believe something, even if it's wrong, it deserves serious consideration?

I probably am. There have been - and are - many atheists, agnostics, Communists, Jews, Moslems, and so on. I do not think it does any harm for an honest, thinking person to give thought to those views, assess them, and have good solid reasons for rejecting them. You may say this is rejecting authority, and contrast it with a call to submit to apostolic Tradition: but I am aware from many posts that people have given long, deep and often sacrificial thought and decision to their conversion to Orthodoxy.

We must be ready to give account for the hope that is in us, and I suspect that that "reason" is wise to include one's reasons for rejecting other, false hopes and submitting to Christ (however one understands that). I want to know (for example) why I am not an atheist.

In re your second post - I have previously expressed my admiration for those who have risked severance from background, fellowship, friendship and familiarity and converted to Orthodoxy - or for that matter to Catholicism. It bears some resemblance to an abrahamic exodus. I do not say I think their decision was the right one, but I deeply admire their willingness to pay the price for what they believe to be right. I have no reason, nor indeed wish, to exclude you from that number; and indeed, reading many of your posts who live in Dixie, I wonder what on earth I would do if I lived among the kind of Evangelical you describe, if they really are all like that. It would be a profound dilemma: yet I find a oneness with Cleopas in all he writes (including his recent posts on the Mindset thread), so I guess I would fit in somewhere among them.

Is Christ divided, David? Do we follow Apollos, or Cephas, or Cleopas? Genuine, honest "ignorance" of the true Christ and the true Faith, through cultural or geographic isolation, is entirely excusable (though not irredeemable), and the Orthodox have never disagreed with this. But, someone like yourself has now long been exposed to this Truth, the true Christ and His true Church. For goodness sake, David, how on earth can you say that all these disparate and dissonant strands of "christianity" of the various versions of evangelicals and many, many others who proclaim to be Christians (let alone those who are not, such as your aforementioned Moslems, atheists, etc), are somehow one unified whole, entire, intact, true, Apostolic faith?

Please answer this honestly.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2010, 07:24:29 PM by LBK » Logged
ChristusDominus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Rite
Posts: 936


Saint Aloysius Gonzaga


« Reply #87 on: January 26, 2010, 07:22:28 PM »

Grace and Peace,

The Apostle Paul spoke of Christianity as a Spiritual Journey or an Athletic Exercise, a Race or a Good Fight.

Modern Christianity has lost this, even amongst Catholics. We have become spiritually flabby...  Wink

We need to get 'in shape' to that which is why I am here.
O.K! In the meantime...no spiritual Speedos for you until you whip your spiritual self back into shape Smiley
OK

http://www.processionemisteritp.it/confraternite/flagellanti.jpg
I was being facetious. I don't think Ignatius is a Flagellant, but I suspected someone would take a jab at that one.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2010, 07:34:44 PM by ChristusDominus » Logged

There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #88 on: January 26, 2010, 08:36:18 PM »

sexual behaviour between two loving ... adults of the same sex.

I agree with your understanding of how the term is usually used, but can it in any true sense be called "loving" to encourage another person in a perversion which scripture plainly calls an abomination to the Lord?
Its definitely not loving to encourage another person to engage in a sin that could put his or her soul at risk. Homosexual sex is not only a sin againts yourself but also against the other person involved. Real loves wants what's best for the other even if it means giving that person up.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,834


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #89 on: January 27, 2010, 04:11:31 AM »

David, how on earth can you say that all these... Moslems, atheists, etc, are somehow one unified whole, entire, intact, true, Apostolic faith?

I never said that at all. What I said was, that as a considerable number of honourable people hold these views, it is not a bad thing to know why I reject them, rather than simply saying, "I'm a Christian, your beliefs are mistaken," whilst in reality I have little or no idea about what those beliefs are. Surely, not to consider why one rejects other belief systems is to put oneself at risk of being overcome and entrapped by one of them, if a suave, well-informed and clever person tries to win you over. Is not this exactly one reason why people fall into the grasp of such heretics as the JWs? or lose their faith and become atheist?

In re how your other question (not quoted above) - how disparate Christians can be one in Christ - please call to mind our doctrine (erroneous in your view, I know) of "the invisible church". I haven't time to defend it now, as work calls, but in any case I suspect it has been dealt with on other threads at no small length - certainly it has been mentioned several times. We do believe that all those who truly repent of their sins and turn in faith to Christ - yes, the faith that works by love, not a hollow profession of assent - are united to him and thus also to each other.

But I must away...
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 »  All   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 0.18 seconds with 72 queries.