Topic: Make God's path straight by being born again

[DennyB]

It seems to me that Protestants need to believe in Sola Scriptura because then God can be examined and classified into neat little categories that can be observed by man, rather than allowing for the fact that God is the transcendant mystery. This seems like a very humanistic religion and it may explain why you never really hear of true Protestant mystics.

You sound more Eastern Orthodox,than you do Catholic.  I think it could be said that some of these effects can be in part blamed on the Scholasticism introduced into the mindset of the Church.

Read my signature. St. Thomas Aquinas believed in apophatic theology.

Even negative theology is just as risking,one is using reasoning to deduce what God isn't in His essense,we could get into a lengthy disscussion on Essence and Energies here,but I don't want to get off topic.

[Papist]

It seems to me that Protestants need to believe in Sola Scriptura because then God can be examined and classified into neat little categories that can be observed by man, rather than allowing for the fact that God is the transcendant mystery. This seems like a very humanistic religion and it may explain why you never really hear of true Protestant mystics.

You sound more Eastern Orthodox,than you do Catholic.  I think it could be said that some of these effects can be in part blamed on the Scholasticism introduced into the mindset of the Church.

Read my signature. St. Thomas Aquinas believed in apophatic theology.

Even negative theology is just as risking,one is using reasoning to deduce what God isn't in His essense,we could get into a lengthy disscussion on Essence and Energies here,but I don't want to get off topic.

Nope. We don't want to get off topic. It's enough for us to agree that God is a transcendant mystery and both Catholics and EOs profess this truth.

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

It is not true that I would consider everything that you said to be evidence of your pride. However, just your statement "It doesn't matter what I say, it will be evidence of my pride..." is prima facie evidence of a supreme arrogance that can come only from pride implanted into your heart by the Evil One. Pray with me please that you will be delivered from the clutches of the Great Liar. Lord have mercy on your servant Alfred!

BTW, I am awaiting your PM so that I could send to you the evidence of my critical thinking credentials.

This should be good.

Don't  know about PM, so here is my email

email removed

But why not redact any info you don't want public, and post it here for all to see.

My credentials? GED from Texas (there was a time I wanted to be a plumber's helper and the union required it.)

That's it.


Alfred, I removed the email link from the above message.  For your personal online security and the security of your friends, we ask that you not post personal email addresses on the forum--sending a link to someone via PM is much safer.  Otherwise, you make yourself and others the potential target of web crawlers and spambots that can find your email address and hijack it.  -PtA

I am very impressed; you are doing extremely well--I really mean that. I can only point to GRE scores of 99 and 98 percentile that I got many decades ago. Hang in there! I am changing my mind about your problem being too much pride. Don't take me wrong now; I still think that you are wrong in your conclusions. However, with the facts that you apparently have at your disposal, the Holy Spirit is bound to eventually steer you to the right conclusions.  I am going to say one more thing so that you know that somebody with "critical thinking" credentials has come to the following conclusion:

The Orthodox Church is Christ-centered, Bible-based, and Spirit-filled. In short, it is indeed the continuation of the New Testament Church. Open the New Testament and you will find the Orthodox Church's teachings. Read the dogmatic decisions, particularly those on the Lord, and you will find how the Church has erected walls around the ineffable truths that the Lord and His Holy Apostles taught. Listen to the Church's holy services and you will be struck how much they are based on the Holy Scriptures and how much they teach us about the teachings of the Lord. So please let us not play at this. If you are curious, "come and see."

[SolEX01]

It seems to me that Protestants need to believe in Sola Scriptura because then God can be examined and classified into neat little categories that can be observed by man, rather than allowing for the fact that God is the transcendant mystery. This seems like a very humanistic religion and it may explain why you never really hear of true Protestant mystics.

The 700 Club doesn't count as Protestant Mysticism when most of them are born-again?   

What's that supposed to mean?

Oh, the mystery of being born-again, sending monthly payments to the 700 Club and waiting for the Second Coming, New Israel, Armageddon, etc.  That was intended to be sarcastic and I realized that it wouldn't come across that well until the window for modifying the post had expired.   

[DennyB]

It seems to me that Protestants need to believe in Sola Scriptura because then God can be examined and classified into neat little categories that can be observed by man, rather than allowing for the fact that God is the transcendant mystery. This seems like a very humanistic religion and it may explain why you never really hear of true Protestant mystics.

You sound more Eastern Orthodox,than you do Catholic.  I think it could be said that some of these effects can be in part blamed on the Scholasticism introduced into the mindset of the Church.

Read my signature. St. Thomas Aquinas believed in apophatic theology.

Even negative theology is just as risking,one is using reasoning to deduce what God isn't in His essense,we could get into a lengthy disscussion on Essence and Energies here,but I don't want to get off topic.

Nope. We don't want to get off topic. It's enough for us to agree that God is a transcendant mystery and both Catholics and EOs profess this truth.

Agreed! Thanks for the Charity,I hope I wasn't un-charitable.

[Papist]

It seems to me that Protestants need to believe in Sola Scriptura because then God can be examined and classified into neat little categories that can be observed by man, rather than allowing for the fact that God is the transcendant mystery. This seems like a very humanistic religion and it may explain why you never really hear of true Protestant mystics.

You sound more Eastern Orthodox,than you do Catholic.  I think it could be said that some of these effects can be in part blamed on the Scholasticism introduced into the mindset of the Church.

Read my signature. St. Thomas Aquinas believed in apophatic theology.

Even negative theology is just as risking,one is using reasoning to deduce what God isn't in His essense,we could get into a lengthy disscussion on Essence and Energies here,but I don't want to get off topic.

Nope. We don't want to get off topic. It's enough for us to agree that God is a transcendant mystery and both Catholics and EOs profess this truth.

Agreed! Thanks for the Charity,I hope I wasn't un-charitable.

Thank you for your Charity as well my friend.

[Alfred Persson]

It is not true that I would consider everything that you said to be evidence of your pride. However, just your statement "It doesn't matter what I say, it will be evidence of my pride..." is prima facie evidence of a supreme arrogance that can come only from pride implanted into your heart by the Evil One. Pray with me please that you will be delivered from the clutches of the Great Liar. Lord have mercy on your servant Alfred!

BTW, I am awaiting your PM so that I could send to you the evidence of my critical thinking credentials.

This should be good.

Don't  know about PM, so here is my email

email removed

But why not redact any info you don't want public, and post it here for all to see.

My credentials? GED from Texas (there was a time I wanted to be a plumber's helper and the union required it.)

That's it.


Alfred, I removed the email link from the above message.  For your personal online security and the security of your friends, we ask that you not post personal email addresses on the forum--sending a link to someone via PM is much safer.  Otherwise, you make yourself and others the potential target of web crawlers and spambots that can find your email address and hijack it.  -PtA

I am very impressed; you are doing extremely well--I really mean that. I can only point to GRE scores of 99 and 98 percentile that I got many decades ago. Hang in there! I am changing my mind about your problem being too much pride. Don't take me wrong now; I still think that you are wrong in your conclusions. However, with the facts that you apparently have at your disposal, the Holy Spirit is bound to eventually steer you to the right conclusions.  I am going to say one more thing so that you know that somebody with "critical thinking" credentials has come to the following conclusion:

The Orthodox Church is Christ-centered, Bible-based, and Spirit-filled. In short, it is indeed the continuation of the New Testament Church. Open the New Testament and you will find the Orthodox Church's teachings. Read the dogmatic decisions, particularly those on the Lord, and you will find how the Church has erected walls around the ineffable truths that the Lord and His Holy Apostles taught. Listen to the Church's holy services and you will be struck how much they are based on the Holy Scriptures and how much they teach us about the teachings of the Lord. So please let us not play at this. If you are curious, "come and see."

Bible based isn't good enough, every church deeming scripture inspired is Bible based. I hoped Orthodoxy was a continuation of the NT church when I checked it out, icons are not found in the NT church. There's a lot of other less important things you do, that aren't there either, Marian dogma, asking the dead to intercede for you...you won't find that in the NT.


Its not enough you use the same apostolic ingredients to bake your cake, but add ingredients they never used. That makes your cake different.

Scripture, which we both agree is God's Word, commands we contend for the faith once delivered in the apostolic time, that requires we not change it:

...contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. (Jud 1:3 NKJ)

Everything Orthodoxy added after the apostles is a novelty to be rejected by those who follow apostolic doctrine, true Orthodoxy.

But most of these things do not a "unbeliever" make, save icons. That is the only  thing Orthodox believe, that has the potential of denying you a personal relationship with Christ.

When you image the Infinite Eternal Son of God as a finite sensible form in your heart of hearts, you are no longer speaking to Christ...its someone else you are communing with...someone else you have mystical experiences with...not the Jesus Christ of Scripture.

And he said to me, Son of man, hast thou seen what these do? They commit great abominations here so that I should keep away from my sanctuary (Eze 8:6 LXE)

NKJ  1 Corinthians 3:17 If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are.
 (1Co 3:17 NKJ)



ps: Its satire any have credentials that enable critical thinking. You can have the most valued degrees on the planet and not be a critical thinker...

Critical thinking is a learned science, that anyone of average intelligence can master. Clear thinking is another term for it. Whether one has a college degree or not, is quite beside the point.

[ialmisry]

Bible based isn't good enough, every church deeming scripture inspired is Bible based. I hoped Orthodoxy was a continuation of the NT church when I checked it out, icons are not found in the NT church. There's a lot of other less important things you do, that aren't there either, Marian dogma, asking the dead to intercede for you...you won't find that in the NT.


Its not enough you use the same apostolic ingredients to bake your cake, but add ingredients they never used. That makes your cake different.

Scripture, which we both agree is God's Word, commands we contend for the faith once delivered in the apostolic time, that requires we not change it:

...contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. (Jud 1:3 NKJ)

Everything Orthodoxy added after the apostles is a novelty to be rejected by those who follow apostolic doctrine, true Orthodoxy.

But most of these things do not a "unbeliever" make, save icons. That is the only  thing Orthodox believe, that has the potential of denying you a personal relationship with Christ.

When you image the Infinite Eternal Son of God as a finite sensible form in your heart of hearts, you are no longer speaking to Christ...its someone else you are communing with...someone else you have mystical experiences with...not the Jesus Christ of Scripture.

And he said to me, Son of man, hast thou seen what these do? They commit great abominations here so that I should keep away from my sanctuary (Eze 8:6 LXE)

NKJ  1 Corinthians 3:17 If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are.
 (1Co 3:17 NKJ)



ps: Its satire any have credentials that enable critical thinking. You can have the most valued degrees on the planet and not be a critical thinker...

Critical thinking is a learned science, that anyone of average intelligence can master. Clear thinking is another term for it. Whether one has a college degree or not, is quite beside the point.

You are evading the question: how do you fault the Church of Christ and His Apostles for doing so, when you confess that the changes made AFTER Christ came, AFTER He found His One, Holy, Catholic and Apstolic Orthodox Church on His Apostles, AFTER said Church met in Ecumenical Council for the last time (for now), said changes among the Jews walking in the way of the Pharisees, Scribres and Saduccees are to be accepted as God's continuing revelation?

You equivocate,

No, I'm giving you the Gospel Truth straight: either accept the Church which produced the NT, or find another gospel upon which to build your church.

you did say you prefer house churches, no?

if the Orthodox church today were the primitive version, Nicea and earlier, I'd be Orthodox

The Orthodox Church is fully documented before Nicea, and thereafter until our day. Your repetion of the mistakes of others through history does not pseudo-apostolic succession of heresy make.

Your iconoclasm isn't documented at all until four centuries after Nicea. It even postdates Leo III (who venerated relics) and his son Constantine (who believed in the real presence in the Eucharist).

Like Catholicism, you believe in many things the primitive Orthodox would reject.

Don't know about the primitive Orthodox, an invention of the 16th century in the earliest, but the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church of the 1st century is in communion with the Church in communion according to the diptychs of the Orthodox Churches of the 21st century.

Why don't you make a list of your allegations against our Church, Christ's Church? Then we can put them in the scale and find them wanting.

Hence Orthodoxy today is not apostolic, a Christian who confesses only what is seen in scripture, is rejected by you as heretical.

The same way the Apostles and their disciples would, and did, spew out any such heretic.

I got other examples where the NT doesn't follow that rule, therefore the rule isn't "apostolic".

on the Apostolic rule, by those who know what they are talking about.

some of my thoughts on the matter, and related issues
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19095.0.html
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19811.0.html

More importantly, the statements by those who know the meaning of "apostolic":

St. Irenaeus, who demonstrated the Apostolic preaching against the heresies

Bk III Chapter II.—The heretics follow neither Scripture nor tradition.
1. When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce: wherefore also Paul declared, “But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world.” (1 Cor. ii. 6.) And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent, who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself.
2. But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.
3. Such are the adversaries with whom we have to deal, my very dear friend, endeavouring like slippery serpents to escape at all points. Where-fore they must be opposed at all points, if per-chance, by cutting off their retreat, we may succeed in turning them back to the truth. For, though it is not an easy thing for a soul under the influence of error to repent, yet, on the other hand, it is not altogether impossible to escape from error when the truth is brought alongside it.

Besides adding sola scriptura to the scriptures, there are many other things you add, besides taking others away.

Yet these were perfectly acceptable to Christ and His apostles.

NKJ  Acts 17:11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.
 (Act 17:11 NKJ)

This has been dealt with, and refuted (your eisogesis, that is):

This shows they could judge doctrine by the scripture:

NKJ  Acts 17:11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.
 (Act 17:11 NKJ)

Yes. Searching the LXX, no doubt (cf. Acts 17:12 "Therefore many of them believed, and also not a few of the Greeks"). That's what the Jews in Greece, which the Bereans, as Acts 17:10 tells us, were: "Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews." So your citation tells us about 1st century synagogue practice, but not directly the early Church practice.

This is, however, one of the few areas where the sola scriptura folk stumble upon the Truth. Hence Schaff's summary has validity:

The Protestant Schaff summarizes:

And what had become of the disciples who were the first-fruits of the apostolic ministry? St. Paul had said, “The same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.” How was this injunction realized? St. Peter’s touching words come to mind, “I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance.” Was this endeavour successfully carried out? To these natural and pious inquiries, the Apostolic Fathers, though we have a few specimens only of their fidelity, give an emphatic reply. If the cold-hearted and critical find no charm in the simple, childlike faith which they exhibit, ennobled though it be by heroic devotion to the Master, we need not marvel. Such would probably object: “They teach me nothing; I do not relish their multiplied citations from Scripture.” The answer is, “If you are familiar with Scripture, you owe it largely to these primitive witnesses to its Canon and its spirit. By their testimony we detect what is spurious, and we identify what is real. Is it nothing to find that your Bible is their Bible, your faith their faith, your Saviour their Saviour, your God their God?” Let us reflect also, that, when copies of the entire Scriptures were rare and costly, these citations were “words fitly spoken,—apples of gold in pictures of silver.” We are taught by them also that they obeyed the apostle’s precept, “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing,” etc. Thus they reflect the apostolic care that men should be raised up able to teach others also.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.i.ii.html

More on that thread. You follow neither Scritpure nor Tradition. Nor history.

NKJ  Jude 1:3 Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.
 (Jud 1:3 NKJ)

Yes, so you have claimed:

The only problem is they didn't remain faithful to the gospel,

We remained, remain, and ever shall remain, faithful to the Gospel delievered to us of the Apostles.

The heretics did not, do not, nor ever shall remain faithful to the Gospel of Christ's Church, founded on His Apostles.

they added to it rather than accepting it was delivered to them full and complete:

The heretics did, and do, that. Can't say shall always, as they keep on dying out, a fact that others repeating their mistakes does not efface.

Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. (Jud 1:3 NKJ)

There aren't multiple deliveries down through the ages, it was already "once delivered" when Jude wrote this.

You sola scripturists have the problem that when St. Jude wrote this, St. John had not written his Gospel nor his Revelation, and perhaps not yet his epistles. Indeed, depending on how early you date Jude, none of the Gospels may have been written, nor the Catholic and Pastoral Epistles.
Jude and the relatives of Jesus in the early church By Richard Bauckham
http://books.google.com/books?id=c8h3HWPO8QYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=epistle+of+Jude+relatives+of+jesus&hl=en&ei=5FJtTMGaM8Lflgfk54WYDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=epistle%20of%20Jude%20relatives%20of%20jesus&f=false
(a fascinating study, btw, especially on the Hebrew Church).

That is why sola scriptura is preferable, then you learn the faith once delivered, without novelty that sprang up later.

LOL. It didn't stop the novelty of sola scriptura springing up almost a millenium and a half later.

As Paul said scripture can make us complete, fully equipped, which includes knowing true doctrine, we have faith in God it is so.
[/b]

As said scripture, as Paul teaches, makes us complete by directing us to the Church and its hiearchy-who stand fast and hold the Traditions received of the Apostles, holding firmly to the traditions, just as the Apostles delivered them to the episcopacy-to fully equip us with the true dotrine which the Church has been taught and taught, whether by word or epistle (I Cor. 11:2; II Thes. 2:1, 3:6), rejection of His Church, insubordination to the authority of His episcopacy and despising His Traditions demonstrates bad faith to God.

St. Irenaeus teaches in Bk II, Chapter XII "Against Heresies":"But that both the apostles and their disciples thus taught as the Church preaches, and thus teaching were perfected, wherefore also they were called away to that which is perfect." But you seem not to believe either St. Jude (or any of the other Apostles for that matter) nor St. Irenaeus (or any of the disciples of the Apostles and their successors, for that matter):

Of much less weight is the testimony of sub apostolic church fathers, presumably some of them were taught either by an apostle, or someone they taught. To go further away from the apostles begs the question what they apostles taught.

NKJ  2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle. (2Th 2:15 NKJ)

You reject the word and steal the epistle from us.

Apostolic doctrine once delivered by them is what primitive Orthodox believe, not many of the things the Orthodox have added.

as the 'primitive Orthodox" can't reach across the millenia to reach the Apostles, how did the Apostles deliver anything to them, in particular, not throught their delivery men, the Orthodox epsicopate?

Since the Apostles were Orthodox, their successors, the Orthodox episcopate, continues to deliever, without addition nor subtraction, the Apostolic doctrine.

I got other examples where the NT doesn't follow that rule, therefore the rule isn't "apostolic".

on the Apostolic rule by those who know what they are talking about.
...St. Irenaeus, who demonstrated the Apostolic preaching against the heresies

Bk III Chapter II.—The heretics follow neither Scripture nor tradition....Book IV...
Chapter XXXII.—That one God was the author of both Testaments, is confirmed by the authority of a presbyter who had been taught by the apostles.
1. After this fashion also did a presbyter, a disciple of the apostles, reason with respect to the two testaments, proving that both were truly from one and the same God. For [he maintained] that there was no other God besides Him who made and fashioned us, and that the discourse of those men has no foundation who affirm that this world of ours was made either by angels, or by any other power whatsoever, or by another God. For if a man be once moved away from the Creator of all things, and if he grant that this creation to which we belong was formed by any other or through any other [than the one God], he must of necessity fall into much inconsistency, and many contradictions of this sort; to which he will [be able to] furnish no explanations which can be regarded as either probable or true. And, for this reason, those who introduce other doctrines conceal from us the opinion which they themselves hold respecting God, because they are aware of the untenable and absurd nature of their doctrine, and are afraid lest, should they be vanquished, they should have some difficulty in making good their escape. But if any one believes in [only] one God, who also made all things by the Word, as Moses likewise says, “God said, Let there be light: and there was light;” (Gen. i. 3) and as we read in the Gospel, “All things were made by Him; and without Him was nothing made;” (John i. 3) and the Apostle Paul [says] in like manner, “There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father, who is above all, and through all, and in us all” (Eph. iv. 5, 6)—this man will first of all “hold the head, from which the whole body is compacted and bound together, and, through means of every joint according to the measure of the ministration of each several part, maketh increase of the body to the edification of itself in love.” (Eph. iv. 16; Col. ii. 19)  And then shall every word also seem consistent to him, if he for his part diligently read the Scriptures in company with those who are presbyters in the Church, among whom is the apostolic doctrine, as I have pointed out.
2. For all the apostles taught that there were indeed two testaments among the two peoples; but that it was one and the same God who appointed both for the advantage of those men (for whose sakes the testaments were given) who were to believe in God, I have proved in the third book from the very teaching of the apostles; and that the first testament was not given without reason, or to no purpose, or in an accidental sort of manner; but that it subdued those to whom it was given to the service of God, for their benefit (for God needs no service from men), and exhibited a type of heavenly things, inasmuch as man was not yet able to see the things of God through means of immediate vision; and foreshadowed the images of those things which [now actually] exist in the Church, in order that our faith might be firmly established; [Schaff's note: If this and the former chapter seem to us superfluous, we must reflect that such testimony, from the beginning, has established the unity of Holy Scripture, and preserved to us—the Bible.] and contained a prophecy of things to come, in order that man might learn that God has foreknowledge of all things.

As Pope St. Leo the Great taught "He who was seen as our Redeemer has now passed into the sacraments." Those who were heard as Apostles of Christ have passed into the episcopacy. If one can seperate the Apostles from their preaching, then one can seperate Apostolic from ecclesiastical.

Since one cannot, it cannot be sperated.

One can only draw the living water of apostolicity from the Church's fountain; you cannot get it by trying to purify brackish water.  The character of apostolic comes from being received of the apostles and handed down; it cannot be expropriated by comparison, like one comparing the Resurection of Christ with the cult of Adonis, Osiris, Tammuz, etc. in the search of similarities.  It is what it is.

You still going with this definition of Apostolic?

Lets see you claim to be in apostolic sucession & yet say that someone (me) who finds an apostolic source as evidence of a veneration practice by apostolic Christians of the remains a martyred apsotolic Christian & that I trust these people as observing proper Christian burial rite as relying on unreliable hearsay?

The Church is Apostolic (ecclesia apostolica) inasmuch as all its members to the Last Day come to faith in Christ through the Word of the Apostles (John 17:20: πιστεύσοντες διὰ λόγου αὐτῶν εἰς ἐμέ) and cling to the Word of the Apostles (Acts 2:42: προσκαρτεροῦντες τῇ διδαχῇ τῶν ἀποστόλων), and this over against all departures from the truth of Scripture. Rom. 16:17: “Avoid them,” namely, those who “cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned.”
Pieper, F. (1999). Vol. 3: Christian Dogmatics (electronic ed.) (411). St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House.

1999? That's only 1900 years too late to be in contact with an Apostle to receive their teaching.
President Pieper also comes nearly 1800 years too late too.

Like you, he was sent by no one sent by the Apostles, hence not sent by Christ, therefore not sent by God.
Odd that you should stand on him as an authority, as he was not only a confessional Lutheran, but one who held "quia subscription" to the Book of Concord, one of the examples of the tradition the Protestants supposedly don't have and don't follow.

Your mistake is best illustrated by analogy.

The apostles baked a cake using 10 ingredients.
The Modern Orthodox bake a cake using the same 10 ingredients, but add another 10 of their own and claim its the same cake.

Its not.

No, its not. As you describe it, that is.

No, we bake the cake with the yeast that Christ and His Apostles put in it. The Fathers mixed the ingredients and we just watch the oven and the timer.

(nothing too good for the virgin Bride of Christ)

You borrow (without asking) our recipe, but not our pure yeast.  So you collect spoilt mik and rancid ingredients that you mix with a slice you steal from us, hopping to make it rise. But your cake flopps, as it is half baked. If that.

[genesisone]

Everything Orthodoxy added after the apostles is a novelty to be rejected by those who follow apostolic doctrine, true Orthodoxy.

The Apostles did not hand the Church a list of certain writings saying, "These and only these will be Holy Scripture" so the acceptance by the Church of St. Athanasius' list of 27 Apostolic Writings to be deemed as Holy Scripture in the late fourth century would have been considered a novelty in its time.

My point is that what appears to be a novelty is not necessarily an addition to the faith. Additions to the faith are rejected by the Orthodox, hence the events centred around 1054.

[PeterTheAleut]

It is not true that I would consider everything that you said to be evidence of your pride. However, just your statement "It doesn't matter what I say, it will be evidence of my pride..." is prima facie evidence of a supreme arrogance that can come only from pride implanted into your heart by the Evil One. Pray with me please that you will be delivered from the clutches of the Great Liar. Lord have mercy on your servant Alfred!

BTW, I am awaiting your PM so that I could send to you the evidence of my critical thinking credentials.

This should be good.

Don't  know about PM, so here is my email

email removed

But why not redact any info you don't want public, and post it here for all to see.

My credentials? GED from Texas (there was a time I wanted to be a plumber's helper and the union required it.)

That's it.


Alfred, I removed the email link from the above message.  For your personal online security and the security of your friends, we ask that you not post personal email addresses on the forum--sending a link to someone via PM is much safer.  Otherwise, you make yourself and others the potential target of web crawlers and spambots that can find your email address and hijack it.  -PtA

I am very impressed; you are doing extremely well--I really mean that. I can only point to GRE scores of 99 and 98 percentile that I got many decades ago. Hang in there! I am changing my mind about your problem being too much pride. Don't take me wrong now; I still think that you are wrong in your conclusions. However, with the facts that you apparently have at your disposal, the Holy Spirit is bound to eventually steer you to the right conclusions.  I am going to say one more thing so that you know that somebody with "critical thinking" credentials has come to the following conclusion:

The Orthodox Church is Christ-centered, Bible-based, and Spirit-filled. In short, it is indeed the continuation of the New Testament Church. Open the New Testament and you will find the Orthodox Church's teachings. Read the dogmatic decisions, particularly those on the Lord, and you will find how the Church has erected walls around the ineffable truths that the Lord and His Holy Apostles taught. Listen to the Church's holy services and you will be struck how much they are based on the Holy Scriptures and how much they teach us about the teachings of the Lord. So please let us not play at this. If you are curious, "come and see."

Bible based isn't good enough, every church deeming scripture inspired is Bible based. I hoped Orthodoxy was a continuation of the NT church when I checked it out, icons are not found in the NT church. There's a lot of other less important things you do, that aren't there either, Marian dogma, asking the dead to intercede for you...you won't find that in the NT.

Continuing to assert that which has been soundly refuted many times is not going to win any points in this debate, I'm afraid.

Do you honestly believe that you, 2000 years removed as you are from first-century experience, can just pick up the New Testament Scriptures and see a complete description of the New Testament Church in these texts alone?   That has to be one of the most ridiculous propositions I've ever seen anyone make.

ps: Its satire any have credentials that enable critical thinking. You can have the most valued degrees on the planet and not be a critical thinker...

Critical thinking is a learned science, that anyone of average intelligence can master. Clear thinking is another term for it. Whether one has a college degree or not, is quite beside the point.

Yes, and merely saying you engage in critical thinking is no guarantee that you actually do.

[Alfred Persson]

Everything Orthodoxy added after the apostles is a novelty to be rejected by those who follow apostolic doctrine, true Orthodoxy.

The Apostles did not hand the Church a list of certain writings saying, "These and only these will be Holy Scripture" so the acceptance by the Church of St. Athanasius' list of 27 Apostolic Writings to be deemed as Holy Scripture in the late fourth century would have been considered a novelty in its time.

My point is that what appears to be a novelty is not necessarily an addition to the faith. Additions to the faith are rejected by the Orthodox, hence the events centred around 1054.

Incorrect, the church didn't by its authority determine what books were canon, it determined what books God made canon in the church...there is a difference. They judged books by their apostolicity...and catholicity, and when both were satisfied they checked for internal agreement with other books.

Catholics admit this:

These books the Church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their Author, and were as such committed to the Church. -First Vatican Council, Session 3, Chapter 2.

[Alfred Persson]

It is not true that I would consider everything that you said to be evidence of your pride. However, just your statement "It doesn't matter what I say, it will be evidence of my pride..." is prima facie evidence of a supreme arrogance that can come only from pride implanted into your heart by the Evil One. Pray with me please that you will be delivered from the clutches of the Great Liar. Lord have mercy on your servant Alfred!

BTW, I am awaiting your PM so that I could send to you the evidence of my critical thinking credentials.

This should be good.

Don't  know about PM, so here is my email

email removed

But why not redact any info you don't want public, and post it here for all to see.

My credentials? GED from Texas (there was a time I wanted to be a plumber's helper and the union required it.)

That's it.


Alfred, I removed the email link from the above message.  For your personal online security and the security of your friends, we ask that you not post personal email addresses on the forum--sending a link to someone via PM is much safer.  Otherwise, you make yourself and others the potential target of web crawlers and spambots that can find your email address and hijack it.  -PtA

I am very impressed; you are doing extremely well--I really mean that. I can only point to GRE scores of 99 and 98 percentile that I got many decades ago. Hang in there! I am changing my mind about your problem being too much pride. Don't take me wrong now; I still think that you are wrong in your conclusions. However, with the facts that you apparently have at your disposal, the Holy Spirit is bound to eventually steer you to the right conclusions.  I am going to say one more thing so that you know that somebody with "critical thinking" credentials has come to the following conclusion:

The Orthodox Church is Christ-centered, Bible-based, and Spirit-filled. In short, it is indeed the continuation of the New Testament Church. Open the New Testament and you will find the Orthodox Church's teachings. Read the dogmatic decisions, particularly those on the Lord, and you will find how the Church has erected walls around the ineffable truths that the Lord and His Holy Apostles taught. Listen to the Church's holy services and you will be struck how much they are based on the Holy Scriptures and how much they teach us about the teachings of the Lord. So please let us not play at this. If you are curious, "come and see."

Bible based isn't good enough, every church deeming scripture inspired is Bible based. I hoped Orthodoxy was a continuation of the NT church when I checked it out, icons are not found in the NT church. There's a lot of other less important things you do, that aren't there either, Marian dogma, asking the dead to intercede for you...you won't find that in the NT.

Continuing to assert that which has been soundly refuted many times is not going to win any points in this debate, I'm afraid.

Do you honestly believe that you, 2000 years removed as you are from first-century experience, can just pick up the New Testament Scriptures and see a complete description of the New Testament Church in these texts alone?  That has to be one of the most ridiculous propositions I've ever seen anyone make.

ps: Its satire any have credentials that enable critical thinking. You can have the most valued degrees on the planet and not be a critical thinker...

Critical thinking is a learned science, that anyone of average intelligence can master. Clear thinking is another term for it. Whether one has a college degree or not, is quite beside the point.

Yes, and merely saying you engage in critical thinking is no guarantee that you actually do.

Yes I do, because Paul said scripture can thoroughly  equip me for the good work of teaching true religion to others, that is a good work, is it not?:

 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

 (2Ti 3:16-1 NKJ)

Critical thinking is a science precisely because it follows rules, and when these are broken, they can be identified for why a conclusion is unsound, non sequitur.

Clear thinking is another name for this.

Most non sequitur arises from comparison of dissimilar things. You have heard "we cannot compare apples and oranges", but few know what that means.

You can compare them if you want to discuss fruit in general, both come from a tree, are fruit, generally have the same round shape.

You can't compare them if you want to know what an orange tastes like, biting into an apple won't reveal that. The reason why are the incompatible property(s) relevant to taste, they are different chemically.

Most fallacy in politics and religion comes from comparing dissimilar things.

The basics of critical thinking are so easily learned, and the rewards so great, I recommend every believer check it out, you will be glad you did.

Faith is not incompatible with clear thinking, faith accepts the Bible as the Word of God, they are our facts. Then one thinks clearly about them...that can't be wrong. If it is, then God is evil, not good, writing to confuse us and teach us lies. As that isn't true, clear thinking on God's revelation can reveal God's truth.

[Tzimis]

Everything Orthodoxy added after the apostles is a novelty to be rejected by those who follow apostolic doctrine, true Orthodoxy.

The Apostles did not hand the Church a list of certain writings saying, "These and only these will be Holy Scripture" so the acceptance by the Church of St. Athanasius' list of 27 Apostolic Writings to be deemed as Holy Scripture in the late fourth century would have been considered a novelty in its time.

My point is that what appears to be a novelty is not necessarily an addition to the faith. Additions to the faith are rejected by the Orthodox, hence the events centred around 1054.

Incorrect, the church didn't by its authority determine what books were canon, it determined what books God made canon in the church...there is a difference. They judged books by their apostolicity...and catholicity, and when both were satisfied they checked for internal agreement with other books.

Catholics admit this:

These books the Church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their Author, and were as such committed to the Church. -First Vatican Council, Session 3, Chapter 2.

When you state they judged. Who is they? If you say they the Church. then we don't disagree. If you say of the apostolic succession from the Seventy. We don't disagree. The only thing I see is that you believe the continuity of those apostles from the time of the bibles scriptural gathering up to now have bin lost. We beg to differ on this point.

[bogdan]

Everything Orthodoxy added after the apostles is a novelty to be rejected by those who follow apostolic doctrine, true Orthodoxy.

The Apostles did not hand the Church a list of certain writings saying, "These and only these will be Holy Scripture" so the acceptance by the Church of St. Athanasius' list of 27 Apostolic Writings to be deemed as Holy Scripture in the late fourth century would have been considered a novelty in its time.

My point is that what appears to be a novelty is not necessarily an addition to the faith. Additions to the faith are rejected by the Orthodox, hence the events centred around 1054.

Incorrect, the church didn't by its authority determine what books were canon, it determined what books God made canon in the church...there is a difference. They judged books by their apostolicity...and catholicity, and when both were satisfied they checked for internal agreement with other books.

Catholics admit this:

These books the Church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their Author, and were as such committed to the Church. -First Vatican Council, Session 3, Chapter 2.

God did not come down and announce the list of books. Nobody had a mystical dream about what books to include.

The Church canonized the New Testament books that were being read liturgically in Church services. That is, the list came from the tradition of the Church at the time. It came into being EXACTLY the same way as Icons and everything else. The canon and everything else is a product of Holy Tradition—which is the life of the Spirit in the Church.

[Tzimis]

Yes I do, because Paul said scripture can thoroughly  equip me for the good work of teaching true religion to others, that is a good work, is it not?:

 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

 (2Ti 3:16-1 NKJ)

Cut and pasting only part of scripture will not help your case.  The verse right before that clearly states that the faith was taught and handed down. 14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them,

 I hope you are beginning to see how your case for a bible based church is slowly breaking down.

[Alfred Persson]

Yes I do, because Paul said scripture can thoroughly  equip me for the good work of teaching true religion to others, that is a good work, is it not?:

 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

 (2Ti 3:16-1 NKJ)

Cut and pasting only part of scripture will not help your case.  The verse right before that clearly states that the faith was taught and handed down. 14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them,

 I hope you are beginning to see how your case for a bible based church is slowly breaking down.

You spliced off the next verse, which contradicts what you say:

 14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them,
 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

You argue scripture cannot make wise into salvation, it requires "those Timothy learned from," but the very next verse refutes that premise, saying "scripture is able to make wise EIS (into) salvation".

STE  2 Timothy 3:15 καὶ ὅτι ἀπὸ βρέφους τὰ ἱερὰ γράμματα οἶδας τὰ δυνάμενά σε σοφίσαι εἰς σωτηρίαν διὰ πίστεως τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ
 (2Ti 3:15 STE)

 (2Ti 3:14-15 NKJ)

[bogdan]

make you wise for salvation ≠ give you salvation
profitable ≠ sole basis

[genesisone]

Everything Orthodoxy added after the apostles is a novelty to be rejected by those who follow apostolic doctrine, true Orthodoxy.

The Apostles did not hand the Church a list of certain writings saying, "These and only these will be Holy Scripture" so the acceptance by the Church of St. Athanasius' list of 27 Apostolic Writings to be deemed as Holy Scripture in the late fourth century would have been considered a novelty in its time.

Incorrect, the church didn't by its authority determine what books were canon, it determined what books God made canon in the church...there is a difference. They judged books by their apostolicity...and catholicity, and when both were satisfied they checked for internal agreement with other books.

Catholics admit this:

These books the Church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their Author, and were as such committed to the Church. -First Vatican Council, Session 3, Chapter 2.

[sarcasm]Good grief! I suppose it's my own fault for not spelling out every little detail for you. I must have forgotten how important it is to have all the details nailed down explicitly with precise dictionary-approved vocabulary. [/sarcasm]

I don't argue with your description of the process that led to the Church's canonization of the New Testament.

But, in your usual fashion, you entirely ignored my point.

My point is that what appears to be a novelty is not necessarily an addition to the faith. Additions to the faith are rejected by the Orthodox, hence the events centred around 1054.

I shouldn't be surprised, though, that you would ignore my reference to the Great Schism as you are quite prepared to quote a Roman Catholic source to back up your point .

[PeterTheAleut]

Do you honestly believe that you, 2000 years removed as you are from first-century experience, can just pick up the New Testament Scriptures and see a complete description of the New Testament Church in these texts alone?  That has to be one of the most ridiculous propositions I've ever seen anyone make.

ps: Its satire any have credentials that enable critical thinking. You can have the most valued degrees on the planet and not be a critical thinker...

Critical thinking is a learned science, that anyone of average intelligence can master. Clear thinking is another term for it. Whether one has a college degree or not, is quite beside the point.

Yes, and merely saying you engage in critical thinking is no guarantee that you actually do.

Yes I do, because Paul said scripture can thoroughly  equip me for the good work of teaching true religion to others, that is a good work, is it not?:

And yet I think you're missing something.  The Scriptures are indeed profitable in their ability to equip us for every good work, but they must be properly interpreted, as you well know.  Introducing the concept of sola scriptura is not a proper interpretation of Scripture, however, in that it actually contradicts the Scriptures.  You might find in this article several good reasons why sola scriptura is unbiblical:  http://orthodoxchristianity.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=37:the-unbiblical-doctrine-of-sola-scriptura&catid=14:articles&Itemid=2.  I highly recommend you read it.  If you really examine the doctrine of sola scriptura, I think you'll find that it's not even consistent with itself.  If you take as authoritative only that which is found in Scripture, why do you hold as authoritative a doctrine of sola scriptura that is itself not found in Scripture?

Critical thinking is a science precisely because it follows rules, and when these are broken, they can be identified for why a conclusion is unsound, non sequitur.

Yes, I've used the same critical thinking skills to point out the many non sequiturs in your logic.  Remember?

Clear thinking is another name for this.

Most non sequitur arises from comparison of dissimilar things. You have heard "we cannot compare apples and oranges", but few know what that means.

You can compare them if you want to discuss fruit in general, both come from a tree, are fruit, generally have the same round shape.

You can't compare them if you want to know what an orange tastes like, biting into an apple won't reveal that. The reason why are the incompatible property(s) relevant to taste, they are different chemically.

Most fallacy in politics and religion comes from comparing dissimilar things.

The basics of critical thinking are so easily learned, and the rewards so great, I recommend every believer check it out, you will be glad you did.

Faith is not incompatible with clear thinking, faith accepts the Bible as the Word of God, they are our facts. Then one thinks clearly about them...that can't be wrong. If it is, then God is evil, not good, writing to confuse us and teach us lies. As that isn't true, clear thinking on God's revelation can reveal God's truth.

So, if we disagree with you and think your doctrine wrong and unChristian, we're not thinking critically?  You analyze our beliefs, compare them against your beliefs, and judge as to be heretical.  What makes you think we're not equally qualified (if not more so) to do the same with your doctrine?  Critical thinking doesn't suddenly cease to be critical thinking when it is used against you.

[Alfred Persson]

Yes I do, because Paul said scripture can thoroughly  equip me for the good work of teaching true religion to others, that is a good work, is it not?:

 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

 (2Ti 3:16-1 NKJ)

Cut and pasting only part of scripture will not help your case.  The verse right before that clearly states that the faith was taught and handed down. 14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them,

 I hope you are beginning to see how your case for a bible based church is slowly breaking down.

In addition, the context backs me  up:

 13 But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.
 14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them,
 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
 (2Ti 3:13-17 NKJ)

Paul is concerned the deceptive power these false teachers have to convince, and so he reminds Timothy of whom (founding apostles and prophets, Paul etc) he learned the truth from, their impeccable manner of life, which indicates what they taught is true, they lived it.

AND in addition to that, the scripture he has known since childhood also teaches the way of Christ, it confirms what he has been taught, he knows that.

Paul's "through faith which is in Christ Jesus" may indicate these deceivers were Jewish teachers rejecting Christ or teaching a different Jesus:

 4 For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted-- you may well put up with it!
 5 For I consider that I am not at all inferior to the most eminent apostles....

 22 Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? So am I.
 23 Are they ministers of Christ?-- I speak as a fool-- I am more: in labors more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequently, in deaths often. (2Co 11:4-23 NKJ)

So Paul goes on to deny them any opportunity, no man  of God requires their teaching as God wrote scripture to completely equip for every good work.

 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
 (2Ti 3:15-17 NKJ)

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

It is not true that I would consider everything that you said to be evidence of your pride. However, just your statement "It doesn't matter what I say, it will be evidence of my pride..." is prima facie evidence of a supreme arrogance that can come only from pride implanted into your heart by the Evil One. Pray with me please that you will be delivered from the clutches of the Great Liar. Lord have mercy on your servant Alfred!

BTW, I am awaiting your PM so that I could send to you the evidence of my critical thinking credentials.

This should be good.

Don't  know about PM, so here is my email

email removed

But why not redact any info you don't want public, and post it here for all to see.

My credentials? GED from Texas (there was a time I wanted to be a plumber's helper and the union required it.)

That's it.


Alfred, I removed the email link from the above message.  For your personal online security and the security of your friends, we ask that you not post personal email addresses on the forum--sending a link to someone via PM is much safer.  Otherwise, you make yourself and others the potential target of web crawlers and spambots that can find your email address and hijack it.  -PtA

I am very impressed; you are doing extremely well--I really mean that. I can only point to GRE scores of 99 and 98 percentile that I got many decades ago. Hang in there! I am changing my mind about your problem being too much pride. Don't take me wrong now; I still think that you are wrong in your conclusions. However, with the facts that you apparently have at your disposal, the Holy Spirit is bound to eventually steer you to the right conclusions.  I am going to say one more thing so that you know that somebody with "critical thinking" credentials has come to the following conclusion:

The Orthodox Church is Christ-centered, Bible-based, and Spirit-filled. In short, it is indeed the continuation of the New Testament Church. Open the New Testament and you will find the Orthodox Church's teachings. Read the dogmatic decisions, particularly those on the Lord, and you will find how the Church has erected walls around the ineffable truths that the Lord and His Holy Apostles taught. Listen to the Church's holy services and you will be struck how much they are based on the Holy Scriptures and how much they teach us about the teachings of the Lord. So please let us not play at this. If you are curious, "come and see."

Bible based isn't good enough, every church deeming scripture inspired is Bible based. I hoped Orthodoxy was a continuation of the NT church when I checked it out, icons are not found in the NT church. There's a lot of other less important things you do, that aren't there either, Marian dogma, asking the dead to intercede for you...you won't find that in the NT.

Continuing to assert that which has been soundly refuted many times is not going to win any points in this debate, I'm afraid.

Do you honestly believe that you, 2000 years removed as you are from first-century experience, can just pick up the New Testament Scriptures and see a complete description of the New Testament Church in these texts alone?  That has to be one of the most ridiculous propositions I've ever seen anyone make.

ps: Its satire any have credentials that enable critical thinking. You can have the most valued degrees on the planet and not be a critical thinker...

Critical thinking is a learned science, that anyone of average intelligence can master. Clear thinking is another term for it. Whether one has a college degree or not, is quite beside the point.

Yes, and merely saying you engage in critical thinking is no guarantee that you actually do.

Yes I do, because Paul said scripture can thoroughly  equip me for the good work of teaching true religion to others, that is a good work, is it not?:

 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

 (2Ti 3:16-1 NKJ)

Critical thinking is a science precisely because it follows rules, and when these are broken, they can be identified for why a conclusion is unsound, non sequitur.

Clear thinking is another name for this.

Most non sequitur arises from comparison of dissimilar things. You have heard "we cannot compare apples and oranges", but few know what that means.

You can compare them if you want to discuss fruit in general, both come from a tree, are fruit, generally have the same round shape.

You can't compare them if you want to know what an orange tastes like, biting into an apple won't reveal that. The reason why are the incompatible property(s) relevant to taste, they are different chemically.

Most fallacy in politics and religion comes from comparing dissimilar things.

The basics of critical thinking are so easily learned, and the rewards so great, I recommend every believer check it out, you will be glad you did.

Faith is not incompatible with clear thinking, faith accepts the Bible as the Word of God, they are our facts. Then one thinks clearly about them...that can't be wrong. If it is, then God is evil, not good, writing to confuse us and teach us lies. As that isn't true, clear thinking on God's revelation can reveal God's truth.

If you are indeed adept at deductive logic as you claim to be, you do know the way to arrive to a conclusion from a set of premises. One can make an error of logic when the conclusion does not follow the premises. Or, one can show that the conclusion follows the premises but the argument falls flat because at least one of the premises is false. Therefore, for an argument to be valid, one must prove that (a) the premises are true and (b) the conclusion logically follows from the premises. Note that even if an argument is valid--done in "clear (or critical) thinking," the argument may not carry weight because you may have (a) omitted some premises, (b) misstated one or more premises, or (c) misrepresented a premise as factual, whereas it may be a leap of faith, unsupported by anything other than by itself. You follow so far? (I'll continue later after I receive your answer).  

[biro]

make you wise for salvation ≠ give you salvation
profitable ≠ sole basis

 

Well said!   

[Alfred Persson]

If you are indeed adept at deductive logic as you claim to be, you do know the way to arrive to a conclusion from a set of premises. One can make an error of logic when the conclusion does not follow the premises. Or, one can show that the conclusion follows the premises but the argument falls flat because at least one of the premises is false. Therefore, for an argument to be valid, one must prove that (a) the premises are true and (b) the conclusion logically follows from the premises. Note that even if an argument is valid--done in "clear (or critical) thinking," the argument may not carry weight because you may have (a) omitted some premises, (b) misstated one or more premises, or (c) misrepresented a premise as factual, whereas it may be a leap of faith, unsupported by anything other than by itself. You follow so far? (I'll continue later after I receive your answer).  

Good, you are learning. Now revisit Paul's simple intent, to deny evil deceivers who claimed their traditions were necessary to be wise unto salvation...that without their traditions, Timothy was incomplete, lacking the full traditions necessary to be saved and serve God:

Paul rejected their claims, To paraphrase:

Contrary to what they say, you (Timothy) already know God's truth having learned it from God fearing men who practice what they preach, setting their seal they actually believe it, unlike those deceivers.

Also Scripture, which you have known since being a child, is able to make wise unto salvation WITHOUT THEM...In fact, this is why God inspired scripture, to completely equip men of God for every good work:


 13 But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.
 14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them,
 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

 (2Ti 3:13-1 NKJ)

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

If you are indeed adept at deductive logic as you claim to be, you do know the way to arrive to a conclusion from a set of premises. One can make an error of logic when the conclusion does not follow the premises. Or, one can show that the conclusion follows the premises but the argument falls flat because at least one of the premises is false. Therefore, for an argument to be valid, one must prove that (a) the premises are true and (b) the conclusion logically follows from the premises. Note that even if an argument is valid--done in "clear (or critical) thinking," the argument may not carry weight because you may have (a) omitted some premises, (b) misstated one or more premises, or (c) misrepresented a premise as factual, whereas it may be a leap of faith, unsupported by anything other than by itself. You follow so far? (I'll continue later after I receive your answer).  

Good, you are learning. Now revisit Paul's simple intent, to deny evil deceivers who claimed their traditions were necessary to be wise unto salvation...that without their traditions, Timothy was incomplete, lacking the full traditions necessary to be saved and serve God:

Paul rejected their claims, To paraphrase:

Contrary to what they say, you (Timothy) already know God's truth having learned it from God fearing men who practice what they preach, setting their seal they actually believe it, unlike those deceivers.

Also Scripture, which you have known since being a child, is able to make wise unto salvation WITHOUT THEM...In fact, this is why God inspired scripture, to completely equip men of God for every good work:


 13 But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.
 14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them,
 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

 (2Ti 3:13-1 NKJ)

I am glad that you approve. Frankly, I was afraid that I was not entirely correct in my run down of the basics of deductive logic (as I had attended my first course in logic back in 1974). Now, let me ask you couple of questions:

1. Is it an act of faith or is it an act of logic to believe that the New Testament Church practices and beliefs are contained entirely in the New Testament, which is factually a library of books selected for inclusion in the canon some time after the New Testament Church?

2. If it is both an act of faith and an act of logic, would you agree that the logic part is in essence a conclusion that rests upon some necessary premises and what are those premises? Furthermore, would you agree that the faith part does not have to rest upon premises and thus may not be a logical conclusion and thus cannot be used as a premise?

3. Would you agree that circular reasoning is faulty reasoning? Example: I believe that the New Testament Church practices and beliefs are contained entirely in the New Testament because the New Testament describes practices and beliefs of the New Testament Church. I will give you a hint my young friend: the key words are "contained entirely."

I will continue after you have answered my three questions.

[czzham]

It seems to me that George Llamsa, a noted Scripture translator & native speaker of Aramaic Syrian, has said that "to be born again" is an Aramaic idiom that literally means "to change the way one thinks."
I take exception to the phrase, "make God's path straight." It seems inappropriate (to me, anyway) that a being who must have their mind Changed by the Holy Spirit to become pleasing to God can even begin to "straighten" the Path of the Eternal. Although it is beyond my theological expertise to appropriately correct such a statement, "to make straight the Way of the Lord" would seem to be yet another King James' mistranslation from the Prophet who was referring to preparing the Hebrew People to receive their Messiah. That a human (other than the God-Man Himself) could even be capable of "preparing a path" for one's own Creator seems absurd, to say the least!

[Alfred Persson]

If you are indeed adept at deductive logic as you claim to be, you do know the way to arrive to a conclusion from a set of premises. One can make an error of logic when the conclusion does not follow the premises. Or, one can show that the conclusion follows the premises but the argument falls flat because at least one of the premises is false. Therefore, for an argument to be valid, one must prove that (a) the premises are true and (b) the conclusion logically follows from the premises. Note that even if an argument is valid--done in "clear (or critical) thinking," the argument may not carry weight because you may have (a) omitted some premises, (b) misstated one or more premises, or (c) misrepresented a premise as factual, whereas it may be a leap of faith, unsupported by anything other than by itself. You follow so far? (I'll continue later after I receive your answer).  

Good, you are learning. Now revisit Paul's simple intent, to deny evil deceivers who claimed their traditions were necessary to be wise unto salvation...that without their traditions, Timothy was incomplete, lacking the full traditions necessary to be saved and serve God:

Paul rejected their claims, To paraphrase:

Contrary to what they say, you (Timothy) already know God's truth having learned it from God fearing men who practice what they preach, setting their seal they actually believe it, unlike those deceivers.

Also Scripture, which you have known since being a child, is able to make wise unto salvation WITHOUT THEM...In fact, this is why God inspired scripture, to completely equip men of God for every good work:


 13 But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.
 14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them,
 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

 (2Ti 3:13-1 NKJ)

I am glad that you approve. Frankly, I was afraid that I was not entirely correct in my run down of the basics of deductive logic (as I had attended my first course in logic back in 1974). Now, let me ask you couple of questions:

1. Is it an act of faith or is it an act of logic to believe that the New Testament Church practices and beliefs are contained entirely in the New Testament, which is factually a library of books selected for inclusion in the canon some time after the New Testament Church?

2. If it is both an act of faith and an act of logic, would you agree that the logic part is in essence a conclusion that rests upon some necessary premises and what are those premises? Furthermore, would you agree that the faith part does not have to rest upon premises and thus may not be a logical conclusion and thus cannot be used as a premise?

3. Would you agree that circular reasoning is faulty reasoning? Example: I believe that the New Testament Church practices and beliefs are contained entirely in the New Testament because the New Testament describes practices and beliefs of the New Testament Church. I will give you a hint my young friend: the key words are "contained entirely."

I will continue after you have answered my three questions.

I don't do interrogatories, I find such fishing expeditions tiring and inefficient. If you have an argument to make, state it.

So far, while you are still asking questions, my exegesis of Paul's words is left standing unaffected. So its AP 1, SC 0.

What you hope to gain by evading it is unknown, I will certainly cite your evasion as proof you cannot address it...and I won't travel down the interrogatory lane with you...unless compelled by court order.

[ialmisry]

If you are indeed adept at deductive logic as you claim to be, you do know the way to arrive to a conclusion from a set of premises. One can make an error of logic when the conclusion does not follow the premises. Or, one can show that the conclusion follows the premises but the argument falls flat because at least one of the premises is false. Therefore, for an argument to be valid, one must prove that (a) the premises are true and (b) the conclusion logically follows from the premises. Note that even if an argument is valid--done in "clear (or critical) thinking," the argument may not carry weight because you may have (a) omitted some premises, (b) misstated one or more premises, or (c) misrepresented a premise as factual, whereas it may be a leap of faith, unsupported by anything other than by itself. You follow so far? (I'll continue later after I receive your answer).  

Good, you are learning. Now revisit Paul's simple intent, to deny evil deceivers who claimed their traditions were necessary to be wise unto salvation...that without their traditions, Timothy was incomplete, lacking the full traditions necessary to be saved and serve God:

Paul rejected their claims, To paraphrase:

Contrary to what they say, you (Timothy) already know God's truth having learned it from God fearing men who practice what they preach, setting their seal they actually believe it, unlike those deceivers.

Also Scripture, which you have known since being a child, is able to make wise unto salvation WITHOUT THEM...In fact, this is why God inspired scripture, to completely equip men of God for every good work:


 13 But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.
 14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them,
 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

 (2Ti 3:13-1 NKJ)

I am glad that you approve. Frankly, I was afraid that I was not entirely correct in my run down of the basics of deductive logic (as I had attended my first course in logic back in 1974). Now, let me ask you couple of questions:

1. Is it an act of faith or is it an act of logic to believe that the New Testament Church practices and beliefs are contained entirely in the New Testament, which is factually a library of books selected for inclusion in the canon some time after the New Testament Church?

2. If it is both an act of faith and an act of logic, would you agree that the logic part is in essence a conclusion that rests upon some necessary premises and what are those premises? Furthermore, would you agree that the faith part does not have to rest upon premises and thus may not be a logical conclusion and thus cannot be used as a premise?

3. Would you agree that circular reasoning is faulty reasoning? Example: I believe that the New Testament Church practices and beliefs are contained entirely in the New Testament because the New Testament describes practices and beliefs of the New Testament Church. I will give you a hint my young friend: the key words are "contained entirely."

I will continue after you have answered my three questions.

I don't do interrogatories, I find such fishing expeditions tiring and inefficient. If you have an argument to make, state it.

So far, while you are still asking questions, my exegesis of Paul's words is left standing unaffected. So its AP 1, SC 0.

What you hope to gain by evading it is unknown, I will certainly cite your evasion as proof you cannot address it...and I won't travel down the interrogatory lane with you...unless compelled by court order.

So you refuse to answer SC because you fear being exposed.

you should continue your quote:
1 I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: 2 preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires,

As St. Paul tells (2) Timothy 1:5 For I am mindful of the sincere faith within you, which first dwelt in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice, and I am sure that it is in you as well. 6 For this reason I remind you to kindle afresh the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands.

No Apostle's hand has been near you.

[DennyB]

Alfred,

I've heard it said from a Baptist,none the less,"the Word of God became flesh and dwelt among us" NOTTTT! "the Word of God became a Book,and SHELVED among us". Take Note!!!

[PeterTheAleut]

So far, while you are still asking questions, my exegesis of Paul's words is left standing unaffected. So its AP 1, SC 0.

I didn't know we were keeping score.

[DennyB]

So far, while you are still asking questions, my exegesis of Paul's words is left standing unaffected. So its AP 1, SC 0.

I didn't know we were keeping score.

Any exegesis, using Scripture alone,is like putting together a puzzle without the border pieces!! Boy that would be a chore!!

[bogdan]

I will certainly cite your evasion as proof you cannot address it...

Oh good grief, Alfred. Of all people, you should not be accusing anyone of evading questions.

I still can't figure out if you believe Christ is the Word of God or not. Can you advise?

So far, while you are still asking questions, my exegesis of Paul's words is left standing unaffected. So its AP 1, SC 0.

I didn't know we were keeping score.

Any exegesis, using Scripture alone,is like putting together a puzzle without the border pieces!! Boy that would be a chore!!

I like that!

[FormerReformer]

So far, while you are still asking questions, my exegesis of Paul's words is left standing unaffected. So its AP 1, SC 0.

I didn't know we were keeping score.

If we are, we need an impartial referee.  Who's watching the watchman?   

[ialmisry]

I will certainly cite your evasion as proof you cannot address it...

Oh good grief, Alfred. Of all people, you should not be accusing anyone of evading questions.

I still can't figure out if you believe Christ is the Word of God or not. Can you advise?

So far, while you are still asking questions, my exegesis of Paul's words is left standing unaffected. So its AP 1, SC 0.

I didn't know we were keeping score.

Any exegesis, using Scripture alone,is like putting together a puzzle without the border pieces!! Boy that would be a chore!!

I like that!

Yes. Even if you manage to put the puzzle together, it's still missing the whole picture.

[Tzimis]

Yes I do, because Paul said scripture can thoroughly  equip me for the good work of teaching true religion to others, that is a good work, is it not?:

 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

 (2Ti 3:16-1 NKJ)

Cut and pasting only part of scripture will not help your case.  The verse right before that clearly states that the faith was taught and handed down. 14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them,

 I hope you are beginning to see how your case for a bible based church is slowly breaking down.

You spliced off the next verse, which contradicts what you say:

 14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them,
 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

You argue scripture cannot make wise into salvation, it requires "those Timothy learned from," but the very next verse refutes that premise, saying "scripture is able to make wise EIS (into) salvation".

STE  2 Timothy 3:15 καὶ ὅτι ἀπὸ βρέφους τὰ ἱερὰ γράμματα οἶδας τὰ δυνάμενά σε σοφίσαι εἰς σωτηρίαν διὰ πίστεως τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ
 (2Ti 3:15 STE)

 (2Ti 3:14-15 NKJ)

You missed the point again. By putting the cart before the horse you again fall into the trap of waring race horse blinders. Intentionally of course. Because you have an agenda. That agenda places you in the same league as the apostles   Why would there be a learning process indicated in those verses if it weren't needed friend? I think it's time for you to use a little humility and not use pride as an excuse.

[Alfred Persson]

It seems to me that George Llamsa, a noted Scripture translator & native speaker of Aramaic Syrian, has said that "to be born again" is an Aramaic idiom that literally means "to change the way one thinks."
I take exception to the phrase, "make God's path straight." It seems inappropriate (to me, anyway) that a being who must have their mind Changed by the Holy Spirit to become pleasing to God can even begin to "straighten" the Path of the Eternal. Although it is beyond my theological expertise to appropriately correct such a statement, "to make straight the Way of the Lord" would seem to be yet another King James' mistranslation from the Prophet who was referring to preparing the Hebrew People to receive their Messiah. That a human (other than the God-Man Himself) could even be capable of "preparing a path" for one's own Creator seems absurd, to say the least!

The process includes repentance, but it much more than that.

Christ became man that we might participate in divine nature, that is have our sin nature destroyed completely at the resurrection, but the process begins in this life by being partakers of God's Spirit who regenerates our soul transforming it into a "inner man" or "new creature:

that  through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
 (2Pe 1:4 NKJ)

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. (2Co 5:17 NKJ)

Joh 17:23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one

It would seem the Orthodox doctrine of theosis is another way of saying "born from above", but I haven't studied their doctrine on this.

I have been born again and can testify these scripture texts are describing the experience quite literally. God's Holy Spirit regenerates the human spirit so that it participates in divine nature, and is born from above. It is now a "new creature," no longer weak and unable to resist sin.

This born from above process begins when one believes, which for many is that point in time when they confess Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, publicly before the eyes of angels and men:

he said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"  (Act 19:2 NKJ)


As for making God's path to your heart straight, that is, repent, remove every obstacle to God to your heart:

 4 as it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet, saying: "The voice of one crying in the wilderness:`Prepare the way of the LORD; Make His paths straight.
 5 Every valley shall be filled And every mountain and hill brought low; The crooked places shall be made straight And the rough ways smooth;
 6 And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.'"
 (Luk 3:4-6 NKJ)


You can see the connection to repentance clearly here:

In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea,
 2 and saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!"
 3 For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, saying: "The voice of one crying in the wilderness:`Prepare the way of the LORD; Make His paths straight.'"
 (Mat 3:1-3 NKJ)


Hence this thread's title, repent and be made new by God's Spirit, that removes every obstacle to Him in your life, by God's Word, By His Spirit, the heavens are made.

[ialmisry]

This born from above process begins when one believes, which for many is that point in time when they confess Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, publicly before the eyes of angels and men:

he said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"  (Act 19:2 NKJ)

As usual, you wretch that out of context:

1 And it happened, while Apollos was at Corinth, that Paul, having passed through the upper regions, came to Ephesus. And finding some disciples 2 he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”
So they said to him, “We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.”
3 And he said to them, “Into what then were you baptized?”
So they said, “Into John’s baptism.”
4 Then Paul said, “John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.”
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. 7 Now the men were about twelve in all.
8 And he went into the synagogue and spoke boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading concerning the things of the kingdom of God. 9 But when some were hardened and did not believe, but spoke evil of the Way before the multitude, he departed from them and withdrew the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus. 10 And this continued for two years, so that all who dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks.
11 Now God worked unusual miracles by the hands of Paul, 12 so that even handkerchiefs or aprons were brought from his body to the sick, and the diseases left them and the evil spirits went out of them. 13 Then some of the itinerant Jewish exorcists took it upon themselves to call the name of the Lord Jesus over those who had evil spirits, saying, “We exorcise you by the Jesus whom Paul preaches.” 14 Also there were seven sons of Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, who did so.
15 And the evil spirit answered and said, “Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are you?”
16 Then the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, overpowered them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded. 17 This became known both to all Jews and Greeks dwelling in Ephesus; and fear fell on them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified.

I have been born again and can testify these scripture texts are describing the experience quite literally.

So you claim. But who are you?

Have you been baptized in the name of Jesus by someone He sent?

Has the hand of an Apostle anointed your head?

You deny God's workings in His saints, yet you claim Christ whom they preach.

[Alfred Persson]

This born from above process begins when one believes, which for many is that point in time when they confess Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, publicly before the eyes of angels and men:

he said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"  (Act 19:2 NKJ)

As usual, you wretch that out of context:

1 And it happened, while Apollos was at Corinth, that Paul, having passed through the upper regions, came to Ephesus. And finding some disciples 2 he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”
So they said to him, “We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.”
3 And he said to them, “Into what then were you baptized?”
So they said, “Into John’s baptism.”
4 Then Paul said, “John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.”
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. 7 Now the men were about twelve in all.
8 And he went into the synagogue and spoke boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading concerning the things of the kingdom of God. 9 But when some were hardened and did not believe, but spoke evil of the Way before the multitude, he departed from them and withdrew the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus. 10 And this continued for two years, so that all who dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks.
11 Now God worked unusual miracles by the hands of Paul, 12 so that even handkerchiefs or aprons were brought from his body to the sick, and the diseases left them and the evil spirits went out of them. 13 Then some of the itinerant Jewish exorcists took it upon themselves to call the name of the Lord Jesus over those who had evil spirits, saying, “We exorcise you by the Jesus whom Paul preaches.” 14 Also there were seven sons of Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, who did so.
15 And the evil spirit answered and said, “Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are you?”
16 Then the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, overpowered them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded. 17 This became known both to all Jews and Greeks dwelling in Ephesus; and fear fell on them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified.

I have been born again and can testify these scripture texts are describing the experience quite literally.

So you claim. But who are you?

Have you been baptized in the name of Jesus by someone He sent?

Has the hand of an Apostle anointed your head?

You deny God's workings in His saints, yet you claim Christ whom they preach.

Religionists have boxes they put God in, but He is infinite, much greater than your box. Your ideas about laying on of hands, baptisms ect are contradicted here:

 44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word.
 45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.
 46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered,
 47 "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"
 (Act 10:44-47 NKJ)

This  proves your rules are incorrect, God cannot be bound by your tiny ideas and limiting dogma.

All who confess Jesus is LORD publicly are apostolic believers, they are born by the word God put in their mouth and in their heart, and by God's Spirit:

 8 But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart " (that is, the word of faith which we preach):
 9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
 (Rom 10:8-10 NKJ)


When God the Holy Spirit fell upon me, upon my head like warm oil, my inner man was born by His Spirit, my soul became a "new creature", I was translated into His Kingdom and now sit in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

 4 But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us,
 5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),
 6 and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,
 (Eph 2:4-6 NKJ)

The Greek verbs are in the indicative, time is meant, I already am with Christ in heavenly places, the actualization of that in our finite sphere of time and space is, from our limited perspective, yet future:

 7 that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.
 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,
 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.
 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.
 (Eph 2:7-10 NKJ)

My new birth was an act of God's creation, not human works, not of myself, it was a gift from God, by grace I am saved, not human works, lest anyone boast:

By His Word and by His Spirit are the heavens made.

 6 By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth. (Psa 33:6 NKJ)

You want in to His Kingdom?

 7 "Do not marvel that I said to you,`You must be born again.' (Joh 3:7 NKJ)

[theistgal]

But, Alfred, don't you see that you are simply giving your *opinion* about what all these verses mean, while the Orthodox are doing the same?  How do we decide your version is correct and theirs is not?  And before you say "by experience", be aware there aee a LOT of people here who became Orthodox after that same "born-again" experience you had (i.e. converted from Protestantism), so they HAVE been "born again" and received the Holy Spirit - who, they claim, led them to Orthodoxy.  By what authority do you claim youLre right and they're wrong?

[Alfred Persson]

But, Alfred, don't you see that you are simply giving your *opinion* about what all these verses mean, while the Orthodox are doing the same?  How do we decide your version is correct and theirs is not?  And before you say "by experience", be aware there aee a LOT of people here who became Orthodox after that same "born-again" experience you had (i.e. converted from Protestantism), so they HAVE been "born again" and received the Holy Spirit - who, they claim, led them to Orthodoxy.  By what authority do you claim youLre right and they're wrong?

Don't believe me, believe the scripture.

Try it Paul the apostle's way, and find out for yourself, experientially.

 8 But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart " (that is, the word of faith which we preach):
 9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
 11 For the Scripture says, "Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame."
 (Rom 10:8-11 NKJ)


When you despise fear and/or shame or whatever prevents you, and confess Jesus is LORD, God the Son, publicly before angels and men, God responds with the new birth.

Its that simple.

When I confessed Jesus publicly, I was in the lobby of the Hotel where my fellow Merchant Mariner's sat and told each other sea stories...

I recall feeling an almost overpowering sense of being ashamed of Christ...but I persisted, thinking to myself, "I don't care about my pride, I want Christ as my LORD, I  don't care what  it costs---about life itself, I want Jesus to be my LORD above all."

Then in full view of these sailors, weeping, I begged Jesus Christ to save me, a sinner. To please by my LORD, that I believed He is the Christ, the Son of the Living God...

And He answered me, precisely as Paul said...and He will answer you, for God cannot lie:

10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
 11 For the Scripture says, "Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame."


"Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me.
 (Rev 3:20 NKJ)

[theistgal]

LOL ... why do I have the feeling you're not listening?

Alfred, I did all those things as a teenager.  Been there, done that.  But listening to the Holy Spirit as well as pouring over the Scriptures brought me back to the Catholic Churchm and continuing do so so is pushing me closer to Eaastern Orthodoxy.  NOTHING you have said in any of the threads you've started here have caused the Holy Spirit to sound an alarm within me (as He has done when I've fallen into the traps of atheism, New Age religion, despair, etc.). 

Also, FWIW, many Evangelical Protestants disagree strongly with your position on all these issues.  And they have as much claim to the "born again" experience as you.  Why should we believe you and not them?

But I think the main problem with all your posts since you started here, Alfred, is that you show absolutely NO interest in learning anything about the Eastern way of Christianity - only in telling us, over and over again, that you're right and we're Hellbound.

Not scoring any points with me, Alfred - I've heard it all before.  At least Jack Chick provides some amusing artwork with his stuff.

[Alfred Persson]

But, Alfred, don't you see that you are simply giving your *opinion* about what all these verses mean, while the Orthodox are doing the same?  How do we decide your version is correct and theirs is not?  And before you say "by experience", be aware there aee a LOT of people here who became Orthodox after that same "born-again" experience you had (i.e. converted from Protestantism), so they HAVE been "born again" and received the Holy Spirit - who, they claim, led them to Orthodoxy.  By what authority do you claim youLre right and they're wrong?

Don't believe me, believe the scripture.

Try it Paul the apostle's way, and find out for yourself, experientially.

 8 But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart " (that is, the word of faith which we preach):
 9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
 11 For the Scripture says, "Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame."
 (Rom 10:8-11 NKJ)


When you despise fear and/or shame or whatever prevents you, and confess Jesus is LORD, God the Son, publicly before angels and men, God responds with the new birth.

Its that simple.

When I confessed Jesus publicly, I was in the lobby of the Hotel where my fellow Merchant Mariner's sat and told each other sea stories...

I recall feeling an almost overpowering sense of being ashamed of Christ...but I persisted, thinking to myself, "I don't care about my pride, I want Christ as my LORD, I  don't care what  it costs---about life itself, I want Jesus to be my LORD above all."

Then in full view of these sailors, weeping, I begged Jesus Christ to save me, a sinner. To please by my LORD, that I believed He is the Christ, the Son of the Living God...

And He answered me, precisely as Paul said...and He will answer you, for God cannot lie:

10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
 11 For the Scripture says, "Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame."


"Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me.
 (Rev 3:20 NKJ)

I should clarify, not everyone will experience precisely what I did, but all doing as Paul said, will be born from above equal to me, no partial births with God.

ON 1 John 2:20 Barne's notes describes the effect of God's anointing, His regeneration...this is the "born again experience" for most, they may not "feel any different," but they certainly are having been born from above:


(1.) That the minds of Christians are so enlightened that they have a new perception of the truth. They see it in a light in which they did not before. They see it as truth. They see its beauty, its force, its adaptedness to their condition and wants. They understand the subject of religion better than they once did, and better than others do. What was once dark appears now plain; what once had no beauty to their minds now appears beautiful; what was once repellent is now attractive.

(2.) They see this to be true; that is, they see it in such a light that they cannot doubt that it is true. They have such views of the doctrines of religion, that they have no doubt that they are true, and are willing on the belief of their truth to lay down their lives, and stake their eternal interests.

(3.) Their knowledge of truth is enlarged. They become acquainted with more truths than they would have known if they had not been under the teaching of the Holy Spirit. Their range of thought is greater; their vision more extended, as well as more clear.

III. The evidence that this is so is found in the following things:

(1.) The express statements of Scripture. See 1Co 2:14-15, and the Notes on that passage. Cmt. on 1Co 2:14, Cmt. on 1Co 2:15, Compare Joh 16:13-14.

(2.) It is a matter of fact that it is so.-Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible

[bogdan]

Why is Albert Barnes (d. 1870) more authoritative than, say, St Justin Martyr (d. 165), St Ignatius of Antioch (d. 108) or Pope St Clement of Rome (d. 99)? Are you saying someone in the 19th century, or even you yourself, could understand the Apostles' teachings better than the people who worked alongside the Apostles and their disciples? Who talked to them, and heard them say things that were never put into the Bible? (For that matter Jesus—estimates say that only about 18 days of Jesus' life are accounted for in the Gospels. Yet he preached for 3 years. I guess the rest was just repeat performances not worth noting.)

You see, to us all of this is silly. It's like trying to figure out World War II by reading modern tertiary sources. Sure, you may get a gist of it, but it always risks being read through the wrong lens. Why not talk to the people who lived during that period instead?

If Protestants employed their exegetical standards in interpreting any other thing, they would be laughed right out of the field. You can't figure out what the Bible means by reading commentaries 1900 years removed from the events, written by people who reject all of the primary and secondary sources outside the Bible itself. There are witnesses to the New Testament Church apart from the New Testament, you know.

Of course, they accept Jewish sources as authoritative (note: I didn't say scripture) (such as Josephus, and many Protestants frequently run back to the Talmud for "context") and Roman government sources as well. But for some reason, the contemporary Christian sources are untrustworthy. It is a most bizarre way of looking at the world—that of all things, the Christians are untrustworthy—, and I think, fundamentally anti-Christian. It at least lacks faith in the living Holy Spirit.

[ialmisry]

Religionists have boxes they put God in, but He is infinite, much greater than your box.

No, God put Himself in this box:

and this one:

http://saintjameskids.blogspot.com/2008_07_01_archive.html
"In the tomb with the Body
 In Hell with the Soul
 In Paradise with the Thief
 Sitting on the Throne with the Father and Spirit
 Were You, O Christ!
 Yourself alone uncircumscribed."
He puts Himself into cubes every Sunday.



 

Your ideas about laying on of hands, baptisms ect are contradicted here:

 44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word.
 45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.
 46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered,
 47 "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"
 (Act 10:44-47 NKJ)

This  proves your rules are incorrect,

Yet again, you stop short:
48 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.

Your incorrect interpretation (and not infallible scripture) are contradicted here Acts 8:

12 But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized. 13 Then Simon himself also believed; and when he was baptized he continued with Philip, and was amazed, seeing the miracles and signs which were done.14 Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, 15 who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. 16 For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.
18 And when Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Spirit was given, he offered them money, 19 saying, “Give me this power also, that anyone on whom I lay hands may receive the Holy Spirit.”
20 But Peter said to him, “Your money perish with you, because you thought that the gift of God could be purchased with money! 21 You have neither part nor portion in this matter, for your heart is not right in the sight of God. 22 Repent therefore of this your wickedness, and pray God if perhaps the thought of your heart may be forgiven you. 23 For I see that you are poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity.”

From someone sent by Christ through His Apostles and the grace of the Episcopacy from St. Peter's see of Antioch, St. John Chrysostom:

Observe God’s providential management. He does not suffer the speech to be finished, nor the baptism to take place upon a command of Peter, but, when He has made it evident how admirable their state of mind is, and a beginning is made of the work of teaching, and they have believed that assuredly baptism is the remission of sins, then forthwith comes the Spirit upon them. Now this is done by God’s so disposing it as to provide for Peter a mighty ground of justification.
And it is not simply that the Spirit came upon them, but, they spoke with tongues: which was the thing that astonished those who had come together. They altogether disliked the matter, wherefore it is that the whole is of God; and as for Peter, it may almost be said, that he is present only to be taught (with them) the lesson, that they must take the Gentiles in hand, and that they themselves are the persons by whom this must be done. For whereas after all these great events, still both in Cæsarea and in Jerusalem a questioning is made about it, how would it have been if these (tokens) had not gone step by step with the progress of the affair? Therefore it is that this is carried to a sort of excess. Peter seizes his advantage, and see the plea he makes of it. Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? Acts 10:47 Mark the issue to which he brings it; how he has been travailing to bring this forth. So (entirely) was he of this mind! Can any one, he asks, forbid water? It is the language, we may almost say, of one triumphantly pressing his advantage (ἐ πεμβαίνοντος) against such as would forbid, such as should say that this ought not to be. The whole thing, he says, is complete, the most essential part of the business, the baptism with which we were baptized. And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Acts 10:48 After he has cleared himself, then, and not before, he commands them to be baptized: teaching them by the facts themselves. Such was the dislike the Jews had to it! Therefore it is that he first clears himself, although the very facts cry aloud, and then gives the command. Then prayed they him— well might they do so— to tarry certain days: and with a good courage thenceforth he does tarry.
And the Apostles and brethren that were in Judea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God. And when Peter had come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, saying, You went in to men uncircumcised, and ate with them. Acts 11:1-3 After such great things, they of the circumcision contended: not the Apostles; God forbid! It means, they took no small offense. And see what they allege. They do not say, Why did you preach? But, Why did you eat with them? But Peter, not stopping to notice this frigid objection— for frigid indeed it is— takes his stand (ἵ σταται) on that great argument, If they had the Spirit Itself given them, how could one refuse to give them the baptism? But how came it that in the case of the Samaritans this did not happen, but, on the contrary, neither before their baptism nor after it was there any controversy, and there they did not take it amiss, nay, as soon as they heard of it, sent the Apostles for this very purpose? Acts 8:14 True, but neither in the present case is this the thing they complain of; for they knew that it was of Divine Grace: what they say is, Why did you eat with them? Besides, the difference is not so great for Samaritans as it is for Gentiles. Moreover, it is so managed (as part of the Divine plan) that he is accused in this way: on purpose that they may learn: for Peter, without some cause given, would not have related the vision. But observe his freedom from all elation and vainglory. For it says, But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order unto them, saying, I was in the city of Joppa, praying: he does not say why, nor on what occasion: and in a trance I saw a vision, a certain vessel descend, as it had been a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came even to me (v. 4, 5): upon the which when I had fastened my eyes, I considered, and saw fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And I heard a voice saying unto me, Arise, Peter; slay and eat. (v. 6, 7.) As much as to say, This of itself was enough to have persuaded me— my having seen the linen sheet: but moreover a Voice was added. But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean has at any time entered into my mouth. Acts 11:8 Do you mark? I did my part, says he: I said, that I have never eaten anything common or unclean: with reference to this that they said, You went in, and ate with them. But this he does not say to Cornelius: for there was no need to mention it to him. But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God has cleansed, that call not thou common. And this was done three times: and all were drawn up again into heaven. (v. 9, 10.) The essential points were those (that ensued at Cæsarea); but by these he prepares the way for them. Observe how he justifies himself (by reasons), and forbears to use his authority as teacher. For the more mildly he expresses himself, the more tractable he makes them. At no time, says he, has anything common or unclean entered into my mouth.— And, behold— this too was part of his defence— three men stood at the house in which I was, sent to me from Cæsarea. And the Spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting. (v. 11, 12.) Do you mark that it is to the Spirit the enacting of laws belongs! And these also accompanied me— nothing can be more lowly, when he alleges the brethren for witnesses!— these six men, and we entered into the man's house: and he showed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; who shall tell you words, whereby thou and all your house shall be saved. (v. 13, 14.) And he does not mention the words spoken by the Angel to Cornelius, Your prayers and your alms have come up for a memorial before God, that he may not disgust them; but what says he? He shall tell you words, whereby thou and all your house shall be saved: with good reason this is added. Also he says nothing of the man's fitness (ἐ πιεικές). The Spirit, he might say, having sent (me), God having commanded, on the one part having summoned (me) through the Angel, on the other urging (me) on, and solving my doubt about the things, what was I to do? He says none of these things, however: but makes his strong point of what happened last, which even in itself was an incontrovertible argument. And as I began to speak, etc. Acts 11:15 Then why did not this happen alone? Of superabundance (ἐ κ περιουσίας) this is wrought by God, that it might be shown that the beginning too was not from the Apostle. But had he set out of his own motion, without any of these things having taken place, they would have been very much hurt: so that from the beginning he disposes their minds in his favor*: saying to them, Who have received the Holy Ghost even as we. And not content with this, he reminds them also of the words of the Lord: Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Acts 11:16 He means, that no new thing has happened, but just what the Lord foretold. But there was no need to baptize? (Comp. p. 158.) But the baptism was completed already. And he does not say, I ordered them to be baptized: but what says he? Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as He did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God? Acts 11:17 He shows that he had himself done nothing: for the very thing which we have obtained, he says, that same did those men receive. That he may more effectually stop their mouths, therefore he says, The like gift. Do you perceive how he does not allow them to have less: when they believed, says he, the same gift did God give unto them, as He did to us who believed on the Lord, and Himself cleanses them. And he does not say, To you, but to us. Why do you feel aggrieved, when we call them partakers (with us?) When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then has God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life. Acts 11:18 Do you mark that it all came of Peter's discourse, by his admirably skilful way of relating the facts? They glorified God that He had given repentance to themselves (καὶ αὐτοῖς) also: they were humbled by these words. Hence was the door of faith opened thenceforth to the Gentiles. But, if you please, let us look over again what has been said.

While Peter yet spoke, etc. (Recapitulation.) He does not say that Peter was astonished, but, They of the circumcision: since he knew what was in preparation. And yet they ought to have marvelled at this, how they themselves had believed. When they heard that they had believed, they were not astonished, but when God gave them the Spirit. Then answered Peter and said, etc. Acts 10:47 And therefore it is that he says, God has shown that I should not call common or unclean any human being. Acts 10:28 He knew this from the first, and plans his discourse beforehand (with a view to it). Gentiles? What Gentiles henceforth? They were no longer Gentiles, the Truth having come. It is nothing wonderful, he says, if before the act of baptism they received the Spirit: in our own case this same happened. Peter shows that not as the rest either were they baptized, but in a much better way. This is the reason why the thing takes place in this manner, that they may have nothing to say, but even in this way may account them equal with themselves. And they besought him, it says, to tarry certain days. Acts 10:48 And the Apostles and brethren, etc. And they of the circumcision contended with him. ch. 11:1, 2 Do you remark how they were not kindly disposed towards him? Saying You went in to men uncircumcised, and ate with them. Acts 11:3 Do you note what zeal they had for the Law? Not Peter's authority abashed them, not the signs which had taken place, not the success achieved, what a thing it was, the Gentiles having received the word: but they contended about those petty things. For if none of those (signs) had taken place, was not the success (itself) enough? But not so does Peter frame his defence: for he was wise, or rather it was not his wisdom, but the Spirit that spoke the words. And by the matter of his defence, he shows that in no one point was he the author, but in every point God, and upon Him he casts the whole. The trance, he says— it was He that caused me to fall into it, for I was in Joppa, etc.: the vessel— it was He that showed it; I objected: again, He spoke, and even then I did not hear: the Spirit commanded me to go, and even then though I went, I did not run: I told that God had sent me, and after these things, even then I did not baptize, but again God did the whole. God baptized them, not I. And he does not say, Was it not right then to add the water? But, implying that nothing was lacking, What was I, that I should withstand God? What a defence is here! For he does not say, Then knowing these things, hold your peace; but what? He stands their attack, and to their impeachment he pleads— What was I, to be able to hinder God? It was not possible for me to hinder— a forcible plea indeed, and such as might well put them to shame. Whence being at last afraid, they held their peace and glorified God.

Homily XXIV on Acts.

God cannot be bound by your tiny ideas and limiting dogma.

nor your idiosyncratic eisogesis and recent innovations.

All who confess Jesus is LORD publicly are apostolic believers, they are born by the word God put in their mouth and in their heart, and by God's Spirit:

 8 But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart " (that is, the word of faith which we preach):
 9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
 (Rom 10:8-10 NKJ)

Matthew 7: 21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from Me, you evildoers!
Luke 10: 16"He who listens to you listens to Me; he who rejects you rejects Me; but he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me."

When God the Holy Spirit fell upon me, upon my head like warm oil, my inner man was born by His Spirit, my soul became a "new creature", I was translated into His Kingdom and now sit in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

 4 But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us,
 5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),
 6 and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,
 (Eph 2:4-6 NKJ)

Don't confuse adrenalin with the Holy Spirt.

You want in to His Kingdom?

 7 "Do not marvel that I said to you,`You must be born again.' (Joh 3:7 NKJ)

[/quote]
Already there.

[Thankful]

Alfred, I know you think you're telling us the "clear" and obvious meaning of Scripture, but you refuse to even consider or address the fact that what you are espousing is an *interpretation* of the Scriptures.  There may be others that agree with you (or that you agree with), but that does NOT make this interpretation the right one.  

Orthodox = the interpretation of the apostles, their direct disciples, and the early church fathers (i.e., people who were there, or not very far removed)
Alfred =  the interpretation of himself and others ~2000 years removed from the new testament.  

Since God said Christ would be with us always, through the Holy Spirit in the Church, you have to understand why we'd choose the Orthodox interpretation over yours, right?  Its interpretation came directly from the NT and has a direct, unchanging line back.  Your interpretation comes out of, well, you.  I wouldn't expect anyone to buy MY interpretation of Scripture apart from the ones who wrote them -- why should we buy yours?  

Alfred, I was "born again" as you describe in 1986. I prayed a prayer, felt lovely feelings, was assured of God's personal love for me, and started getting in line with my understanding of the Christian faith.  I was water baptised in 1989.  I called myself born again and was a very evangelistic person -- my husband and I were in ministry to international students for many years, trying to lead them to a "saving" faith in Christ (by getting them, too, to pray a prayer of salvation).  

But then God started opening my eyes to the ancient church, and what He actually DID do through the Holy Spirit, not what I had always believed He did (based on the Protestant/Evangelical interpretation of the Scriptures).  He started showing me that I had him in a box, a small one, and that He was bigger than text on a page. Text on a page was one way He revealed himself, but not the only way.  The Church is His ark -- and it's always been there in the same shape and form.  The church that existed then still exists today, and after a looong journey Godward, I was received by a true baptism into this Church earlier this year. In other words, I was truly born again, literally with water according to the Scripture and the practice of the church from the earliest times.

We pray for you, too, Alfred -- that you will truly come to know the God of all the way HE wants to be known.  

[PeterTheAleut]

Religionists have boxes they put God in, but He is infinite, much greater than your box. Your ideas about laying on of hands, baptisms ect are contradicted here:

If the Holy Spirit wants to descend upon those who have not (yet) been baptized and give them the same gifts He gives to the baptized, that's certainly His Divine prerogative to do so.  We, however, are bound to obey Jesus Christ, who commanded His disciples to baptize, and we are bound to obey the Holy Spirit who spoke through St. Peter the commandment that we repent and be baptized for the remission of our sins.

This  proves your rules are incorrect, God cannot be bound by your tiny ideas and limiting dogma.

You're right.  God cannot be bound by our tiny ideas and limiting dogma, but we are.  We are bound to what God has revealed of Himself and to obey what He commands us to do.

Now answer this question:  How are you not placing God in a tiny little box by limiting his revelation to the Scriptures alone?

When God the Holy Spirit fell upon me, upon my head like warm oil, my inner man was born by His Spirit, my soul became a "new creature", I was translated into His Kingdom and now sit in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

How sure are you that it wasn't just this:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K16fG1sDagU ?