OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 03, 2014, 03:43:07 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Protestants: Please Explain How Folks are Saved by the Blood of Jesus?  (Read 8179 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« on: October 26, 2012, 02:14:14 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Across Christianity, we hear of being saved by the Blood of Jesus.  I was flipping through the TV last night and heard a televangelist leading a prayer, calling the audience to believe in being saved through the Blood of Jesus.  It got me to thinking, what exactly to Protestants mean when they say this? If Protestant Christianity and theology rejects the Real Presence (Lutherans and Anglicans aside), then how and when are Christians saved by the Blood? In Orthodox Church, we are saved  by the Blood as attested by the Scriptures through the Holy Communion.  We are quite literally saved by His literal Blood.  How does Protestantism explain this process? Is it just symbolic? How and when are folks saved by this Blood? At Baptism? At the Second Coming or Judgment? I am a bit confused by the ambiguity of the statement, perhaps some of our resident Protestant folks could help me out and explain what the Blood of Jesus means to them? What do hymns like "Nothing but the Blood of Jesus" actually mean in day to day life?


By the way, this is not a Protestant bashing thread, I am sincerely interested Smiley

stay blessed,
habte selassie
« Last Edit: October 26, 2012, 02:17:34 PM by HabteSelassie » Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
Orthodox11
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,999


« Reply #1 on: October 26, 2012, 02:19:09 PM »

Blood sacrifice, blood atonement. He shed His blood on the Cross and died in order to satisfy the justice of the Father and impute onto fallen humanity the righteousness He earned through His sinlessness in order to save them from the eternal damnation that was their due following the fall of Adam.
Logged
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,450


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #2 on: October 26, 2012, 03:18:26 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Across Christianity, we hear of being saved by the Blood of Jesus.  I was flipping through the TV last night and heard a televangelist leading a prayer, calling the audience to believe in being saved through the Blood of Jesus.  It got me to thinking, what exactly to Protestants mean when they say this? If Protestant Christianity and theology rejects the Real Presence (Lutherans and Anglicans aside), then how and when are Christians saved by the Blood? In Orthodox Church, we are saved  by the Blood as attested by the Scriptures through the Holy Communion.  We are quite literally saved by His literal Blood.  How does Protestantism explain this process? Is it just symbolic? How and when are folks saved by this Blood? At Baptism? At the Second Coming or Judgment? I am a bit confused by the ambiguity of the statement, perhaps some of our resident Protestant folks could help me out and explain what the Blood of Jesus means to them?
It's a Mystery. angel
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Sinful Hypocrite
Everyday I am critical of others. Every day I make similar mistakes. Every day I am a hypocrite.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: "The Orthodox Church" by Bishop Kallistos Ware: "We know where the Church is but we cannot be sure where it is not; and so we must refrain from passing judgment on non-Orthodox Christians."
Posts: 1,663


Great googly moogly!


« Reply #3 on: October 26, 2012, 07:15:44 PM »

How was the man on the cross next to Jesus saved, since he was not baptised, had communion or even worshipped?

 Luke 23:42 Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."
Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."
Logged

The Lord gathers his sheep, I fear I am a goat. Lord have mercy.

"A Christian is someone who follows and worships a perfectly good God who revealed his true face through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.“
Ashman618
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukranian catholic
Jurisdiction: Philadelphia
Posts: 503



« Reply #4 on: October 26, 2012, 07:29:47 PM »

He was saved because the Logos said he was, unfortunately we don't have Him her to answer us when we ask Him so we go by what we know
Logged
Sinful Hypocrite
Everyday I am critical of others. Every day I make similar mistakes. Every day I am a hypocrite.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: "The Orthodox Church" by Bishop Kallistos Ware: "We know where the Church is but we cannot be sure where it is not; and so we must refrain from passing judgment on non-Orthodox Christians."
Posts: 1,663


Great googly moogly!


« Reply #5 on: October 26, 2012, 08:36:16 PM »

Really , I was just talking to him today.

And He answered a prayer of mine from last week today.

Matthew 28
 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”


« Last Edit: October 26, 2012, 08:47:13 PM by Sinful Hypocrite » Logged

The Lord gathers his sheep, I fear I am a goat. Lord have mercy.

"A Christian is someone who follows and worships a perfectly good God who revealed his true face through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.“
Ashman618
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukranian catholic
Jurisdiction: Philadelphia
Posts: 503



« Reply #6 on: October 26, 2012, 09:04:48 PM »

Well can you ask Him if I'll be with Him in paridise cuz I have no sure guarantee of that so far  Grin
Logged
Ashman618
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukranian catholic
Jurisdiction: Philadelphia
Posts: 503



« Reply #7 on: October 26, 2012, 09:11:10 PM »

In all honesty I understand what your saying and all joking I side I'm inclined to agree with you, we have a Savior who desires all to be with Him so it will be as He says and that enough for me.
Logged
neon_knights
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 513


My political hero.


« Reply #8 on: October 26, 2012, 09:42:13 PM »

Christ's blood was a propitiation(or expiation, if you will) for the sins of mankind. In ancient Hebrew religion, the blood of the sacrificed animal would be sprinkled on the mercy seat. The blood of the animal was shed(and likewise its flesh consumed) to atone for the sins of the Hebrews. This was all a foreshadowing of Christ's ultimate sacrifice, where his blood was shed for the forgiveness of mankind's sins.

This is the "penal" theory.

It can also be said that Christ's blood was the price of our ransom for sin.

It can also be said that we are saved, literally transformed, when we drink Christ's blood(blood is life, so drinking it imparts his life into us), as you have stated above.

All explanations are in my opinion perfectly Biblical and "valid"(I know you folks don't care for that term), but incomplete in and of themselves. The different models of atonement all complement each other to present a bigger, more complete picture.

« Last Edit: October 26, 2012, 09:42:40 PM by neon_knights » Logged
neon_knights
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 513


My political hero.


« Reply #9 on: October 26, 2012, 09:45:01 PM »

Blood sacrifice, blood atonement. He shed His blood on the Cross and died in order to satisfy the justice of the Father and impute onto fallen humanity the righteousness He earned through His sinlessness in order to save them from the eternal damnation that was their due following the fall of Adam.

This is perfectly Biblical and I don't see how anybody can object to it. Provided, it's an incomplete explanation in and of itself, as I've stated above.

Romans 5:6-11: "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement."

Hebrews 9:13-15: "For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance."

   
2 Corinthians 5:18-21:"And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."

« Last Edit: October 26, 2012, 09:50:10 PM by neon_knights » Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #10 on: October 26, 2012, 10:19:33 PM »

what exactly to Protestants mean when they say this?

Without going into the more specific theological differences they have with Orthodoxy, they mean that it we are saved from sin and death and reconciled to God through the death of His Son. Generally speaking without getting into the why/how theological differences between us, we believe this too. You do have one point with the sacraments, where we tie Christ's death (and resurrection) into the sacraments as a means of actual participation in the Paschal Mystery, they do not (generally speaking).
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Maximum Bob
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,493


Personal Text? We can have personal text?


« Reply #11 on: October 26, 2012, 10:28:17 PM »

This might shed some additional light on it.

What can wash away my sin?
 Nothing but the blood of Jesus;
 What can make me whole again?
 Nothing but the blood of Jesus.
 
Oh! precious is the flow
 That makes me white as snow;
 No other fount I know,
 Nothing but the blood of Jesus.
 
For my pardon, this I see,
 Nothing but the blood of Jesus;
 For my cleansing this my plea,
 Nothing but the blood of Jesus.
 
Nothing can for sin atone,
 Nothing but the blood of Jesus;
 Naught of good that I have done,
 Nothing but the blood of Jesus.
 
 
This is all my hope and peace,
 Nothing but the blood of Jesus;
 This is all my righteousness,
 Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

 
Now by this I’ll overcome—
 Nothing but the blood of Jesus,
 Now by this I’ll reach my home—
 Nothing but the blood of Jesus.
 
Glory! Glory! This I sing—
 Nothing but the blood of Jesus,
 All my praise for this I bring—
 Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

Words & Music: Ro­bert Low­ry, in Gos­pel Mu­sic, by Will­iam Doane and Ro­bert Low­ry (New York: Big­low & Main, 1876)
Logged

Countdown to Chrismations and Baptisms
Psalm 37:23 The Lord guides a man safely in the way he should go
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: On-n-Off
Jurisdiction: OCA (the only truly Canonical American Orthodox Church)
Posts: 5,562


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #12 on: October 26, 2012, 10:52:15 PM »

How was the man on the cross next to Jesus saved, since he was not baptised, had communion or even worshipped?

Since Jesus was about to defeat death and the man would be raised from Hades like everyone else who died before Christ's crucifixion and shattering of death.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: On-n-Off
Jurisdiction: OCA (the only truly Canonical American Orthodox Church)
Posts: 5,562


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #13 on: October 26, 2012, 10:58:59 PM »

Kind of odd that Protestants would say that Jesus died to satisfy God's wrath when in the Old Testament God actually condemned people for sacrificing their children to strange gods. Seems odd that He would go around and do the same.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,360


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #14 on: October 26, 2012, 11:48:32 PM »

Quote
How was the man on the cross next to Jesus saved, since he was not baptised, had communion or even worshipped?
Jesus used his executive privilege Smiley

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: On-n-Off
Jurisdiction: OCA (the only truly Canonical American Orthodox Church)
Posts: 5,562


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #15 on: October 27, 2012, 12:47:04 AM »

Quote
How was the man on the cross next to Jesus saved, since he was not baptised, had communion or even worshipped?
Jesus used his executive privilege Smiley

PP

Also fair to mention that the man next to Jesus on the Cross did not 'just have faith' as some Protestants claim, but also demonstrated works by defending Jesus against the slander spoken by the other man. To us it may not seem like a lot, but in his circumstances, it was the very most he could do.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #16 on: October 27, 2012, 12:51:46 AM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

How was the man on the cross next to Jesus saved, since he was not baptised, had communion or even worshipped?

The Thief was quite literally in the proximity of the Incarnate Word of God.  Before His Resurrection, Jesus Christ was on the earth precisely to save human souls as He told His Apostles many times.  When the Thief confessed His sins, repented there on the cross, and indeed asked for mercy to the Living Christ there on the Cross, God had the perogative to save this thief however He chooses.  To be sure, this is still the reality of how God works, He can still save folks in or outside of the Church by whichever means He Wills.  However, this does not negate the power of the Church, in that God established a Universal mechanism which is the Seven Divine Mysteries of Baptism, Chrismation, Holy Communion, Confession, Marriage, Ordination, and Unction of the Sick, all of which are exclusive to His Church.  Salvation is not exclusive to these Mysteries in a legal sense, but we should neither scoff them and push God on a technicality. We're Christians, not Moses  Wink

Quote
How was the man on the cross next to Jesus saved, since he was not baptised, had communion or even worshipped?
Jesus used his executive privilege Smiley

PP

Also fair to mention that the man next to Jesus on the Cross did not 'just have faith' as some Protestants claim, but also demonstrated works by defending Jesus against the slander spoken by the other man. To us it may not seem like a lot, but in his circumstances, it was the very most he could do.

Thank you for this, along side with your insights about moral relativism and peace from war, you've been on a roll of powerful reflections young brother, keep it up and speak the real.

Blood sacrifice, blood atonement. He shed His blood on the Cross and died in order to satisfy the justice of the Father and impute onto fallen humanity the righteousness He earned through His sinlessness in order to save them from the eternal damnation that was their due following the fall of Adam.

This is perfectly Biblical and I don't see how anybody can object to it. Provided, it's an incomplete explanation in and of itself, as I've stated above.

Romans 5:6-11: "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement."

How we are justified by His Blood is debatable. As has been asked about the Thief on the Right, or any of the Old Testament Saints, how are they saved? I would say they were saved by the Grace of God, but I'm not sure exactly it was the Blood.  They can be saved aside from His Blood, but by His very Grace.  He is not limited by His Blood or any other methods, if He chooses to save any soul that is entirely His business.  In the Orthodox approach, we can only be concerned with our own individual sins, not the potential or rhetorical sins of others.  So for us in our lives, we are Orthodox, and we are saved by His Blood in the Holy Commmunion, so then quite literally.  

Quote

Hebrews 9:13-15: "For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance."

Agreed, but we might suggest that this Blood is the Holy Communion.

Quote
   
2 Corinthians 5:18-21:"And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."

This is a reference to the Holy Confession, which is called Reconciliation, hence while Apostle Paul specifically mentioned it as "the ministry of reconciliation."  This is the crux of the entire difference between Orthodox and Protestant readings of the Scriptures, many Protestant thinkers read the Scriptures to discredit Sacramental Christianity, and yet all Sacramental Christians precisely find all of the Sacraments in the Bible! Undecided


Thank you for those folks who shared, this has been something I have been thinking about for a long time, and even if I may disagree with some of y'all, I can quite respect and appreciate your own views, and am happy that you feel comfortable sharing them with us.

stay blessed,
habte selassie
« Last Edit: October 27, 2012, 12:57:06 AM by HabteSelassie » Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
genesisone
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 2,482



« Reply #17 on: October 27, 2012, 07:42:30 AM »

Kind of odd that Protestants would say that Jesus died to satisfy God's wrath when in the Old Testament God actually condemned people for sacrificing their children to strange gods. Seems odd that He would go around and do the same.
Don't forget, JamesR, that there was a prohibition about drinking blood in the Old Testament. But Jesus commanded us to drink His blood - and we Orthodox take that very literally. (I'm not saying I agree with the concept that "God sacrificed His Son" concept - I don't - just pointing out that we have some "kind of odd" notions as well  Wink.)
Logged
Happy Lutheran
Servant of Christ
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Lutheran
Posts: 256



« Reply #18 on: October 27, 2012, 10:02:39 AM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus


By the way, this is not a Protestant bashing thread, I am sincerely interested Smiley

stay blessed,
habte selassie

I would hope not, isn't the OO one of the earliest Protestants to leave the church? You guys rejected the 4th ecumenical council correct? Western Protestants left over clear abuses by Rome.
Logged

1 Corinthians 1:27 - But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong
Orthodox11
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,999


« Reply #19 on: October 27, 2012, 10:06:14 AM »

I would hope not, isn't the OO one of the earliest Protestants to leave the church? You guys rejected the 4th ecumenical council correct? Western Protestants left over clear abuses by Rome.

Huge difference. The OO didn't leave the Church the way Protestants broke with Rome, they simply refused to accept the Fourth Ecumenical Council and this caused a schism between the two groups.
Logged
Happy Lutheran
Servant of Christ
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Lutheran
Posts: 256



« Reply #20 on: October 27, 2012, 10:10:26 AM »

I would hope not, isn't the OO one of the earliest Protestants to leave the church? You guys rejected the 4th ecumenical council correct? Western Protestants left over clear abuses by Rome.

Huge difference. The OO didn't leave the Church the way Protestants broke with Rome, they simply refused to accept the Fourth Ecumenical Council and this caused a schism between the two groups.

Right, OO left over Dogma, the west was kicked out for standing up to clear abuse, murder and torture.
Logged

1 Corinthians 1:27 - But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong
Orthodox11
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,999


« Reply #21 on: October 27, 2012, 10:15:49 AM »

Right, OO left over Dogma, the west was kicked out for standing up to clear abuse, murder and torture.

No, the point is that the Reformers left Rome. The OO were simply those who didn't accept a new Ecumenical Council - i.e. they stayed where they were. 
Logged
Happy Lutheran
Servant of Christ
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Lutheran
Posts: 256



« Reply #22 on: October 27, 2012, 10:27:20 AM »

Right, OO left over Dogma, the west was kicked out for standing up to clear abuse, murder and torture.

No, the point is that the Reformers left Rome. The OO were simply those who didn't accept a new Ecumenical Council - i.e. they stayed where they were.  

Luther was excommunicated for standing up against clear abuses.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2012, 10:28:47 AM by Happy Lutheran » Logged

1 Corinthians 1:27 - But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,039


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Christians

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #23 on: October 27, 2012, 11:21:30 AM »

I would hope not, isn't the OO one of the earliest Protestants to leave the church? You guys rejected the 4th ecumenical council correct? Western Protestants left over clear abuses by Rome.

Huge difference. The OO didn't leave the Church the way Protestants broke with Rome, they simply refused to accept the Fourth Ecumenical Council and this caused a schism between the two groups.

Right, OO left over Dogma, the west was kicked out for standing up to clear abuse, murder and torture.
We never left the Church, we *ARE* the Church. The Byzantines are the ones who left the Church. Likewise, we also had to deal with imperial abuse, murder, and torture (probably a lot more so than the Protestants).
« Last Edit: October 27, 2012, 11:24:02 AM by Severian » Logged

On hiatus from posting. Forgive me if my posts have lacked humility or tact. Note that some of my older posts -especially those prior to late 2012- may not reflect my current views. In the meantime, please pray for my sinful self as I am in a critical and unsure juncture in my life. Thank you.
Orthodox11
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,999


« Reply #24 on: October 27, 2012, 11:43:26 AM »

Luther was excommunicated for standing up against clear abuses.

Protestants were members of the Roman Catholic Church and consciously left that church because they disagreed with its teachings and practices.

While I believe the OO to have been on the wrong side of the Chalcedonian dispute and the resulting schism, they did not protest against what they regarded to be the established Church, nor did they consciously leave that Church, but rather saw themselves as the continuation of the Church who faithfully preserved its existing teachings and traditions. Their situation is not analogous to that of the Reformers.
Logged
Happy Lutheran
Servant of Christ
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Lutheran
Posts: 256



« Reply #25 on: October 27, 2012, 12:10:28 PM »

saw themselves as the continuation of the Church who faithfully preserved its existing teachings and traditions.

Isn't that the reason for every sepreration in the church?
Logged

1 Corinthians 1:27 - But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong
genesisone
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 2,482



« Reply #26 on: October 27, 2012, 12:34:09 PM »

saw themselves as the continuation of the Church who faithfully preserved its existing teachings and traditions.

Isn't that the reason for every sepreration in the church?
No. If I understand correctly, Luther and other Reformers were trying to remove and undo the existing teachings and traditions of Roman Catholicism and replace them with their version of what the original supposedly was. They were clearly not trying to preserve anything that was then existing.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,969


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #27 on: October 27, 2012, 02:58:08 PM »

I would hope not, isn't the OO one of the earliest Protestants to leave the church? You guys rejected the 4th ecumenical council correct? Western Protestants left over clear abuses by Rome.

Huge difference. The OO didn't leave the Church the way Protestants broke with Rome, they simply refused to accept the Fourth Ecumenical Council and this caused a schism between the two groups.

Right, OO left over Dogma, the west was kicked out for standing up to clear abuse, murder and torture.
No, Protestants were kicked out for standing up to clear abuse, murder and torture within the Western church. Or should I say Protestants were kicked out for the illegitimate ways they stood up to abuse, murder and torture within the Western church, often by perpetuating against Rome the very same abuse, murder and torture Rome initiated against them.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2012, 03:04:28 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,969


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #28 on: October 27, 2012, 03:00:32 PM »

I would hope not, isn't the OO one of the earliest Protestants to leave the church? You guys rejected the 4th ecumenical council correct? Western Protestants left over clear abuses by Rome.

Huge difference. The OO didn't leave the Church the way Protestants broke with Rome, they simply refused to accept the Fourth Ecumenical Council and this caused a schism between the two groups.

Right, OO left over Dogma, the west was kicked out for standing up to clear abuse, murder and torture.
We never left the Church, we *ARE* the Church. The Byzantines are the ones who left the Church. Likewise, we also had to deal with imperial abuse, murder, and torture (probably a lot more so than the Protestants).
Enough of this Chalcedonian/Anti-Chalcedonian polemic. That goes for all of you. If anyone wishes to continue this digression, please start a new thread or resurrect an existing thread on the EO/OO Private Board. Thank you.
Logged
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,039


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Christians

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #29 on: October 27, 2012, 06:42:47 PM »

I would hope not, isn't the OO one of the earliest Protestants to leave the church? You guys rejected the 4th ecumenical council correct? Western Protestants left over clear abuses by Rome.

Huge difference. The OO didn't leave the Church the way Protestants broke with Rome, they simply refused to accept the Fourth Ecumenical Council and this caused a schism between the two groups.

Right, OO left over Dogma, the west was kicked out for standing up to clear abuse, murder and torture.
We never left the Church, we *ARE* the Church. The Byzantines are the ones who left the Church. Likewise, we also had to deal with imperial abuse, murder, and torture (probably a lot more so than the Protestants).
Enough of this Chalcedonian/Anti-Chalcedonian polemic. That goes for all of you. If anyone wishes to continue this digression, please start a new thread or resurrect an existing thread on the EO/OO Private Board. Thank you.
Fine.
Logged

On hiatus from posting. Forgive me if my posts have lacked humility or tact. Note that some of my older posts -especially those prior to late 2012- may not reflect my current views. In the meantime, please pray for my sinful self as I am in a critical and unsure juncture in my life. Thank you.
neon_knights
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 513


My political hero.


« Reply #30 on: October 27, 2012, 08:50:10 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

How was the man on the cross next to Jesus saved, since he was not baptised, had communion or even worshipped?

The Thief was quite literally in the proximity of the Incarnate Word of God.  Before His Resurrection, Jesus Christ was on the earth precisely to save human souls as He told His Apostles many times.  When the Thief confessed His sins, repented there on the cross, and indeed asked for mercy to the Living Christ there on the Cross, God had the perogative to save this thief however He chooses.  To be sure, this is still the reality of how God works, He can still save folks in or outside of the Church by whichever means He Wills.  However, this does not negate the power of the Church, in that God established a Universal mechanism which is the Seven Divine Mysteries of Baptism, Chrismation, Holy Communion, Confession, Marriage, Ordination, and Unction of the Sick, all of which are exclusive to His Church.  Salvation is not exclusive to these Mysteries in a legal sense, but we should neither scoff them and push God on a technicality. We're Christians, not Moses  Wink

Quote
How was the man on the cross next to Jesus saved, since he was not baptised, had communion or even worshipped?
Jesus used his executive privilege Smiley

PP

Also fair to mention that the man next to Jesus on the Cross did not 'just have faith' as some Protestants claim, but also demonstrated works by defending Jesus against the slander spoken by the other man. To us it may not seem like a lot, but in his circumstances, it was the very most he could do.

Thank you for this, along side with your insights about moral relativism and peace from war, you've been on a roll of powerful reflections young brother, keep it up and speak the real.

Blood sacrifice, blood atonement. He shed His blood on the Cross and died in order to satisfy the justice of the Father and impute onto fallen humanity the righteousness He earned through His sinlessness in order to save them from the eternal damnation that was their due following the fall of Adam.

This is perfectly Biblical and I don't see how anybody can object to it. Provided, it's an incomplete explanation in and of itself, as I've stated above.

Romans 5:6-11: "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement."

How we are justified by His Blood is debatable. As has been asked about the Thief on the Right, or any of the Old Testament Saints, how are they saved? I would say they were saved by the Grace of God, but I'm not sure exactly it was the Blood.  They can be saved aside from His Blood, but by His very Grace.  He is not limited by His Blood or any other methods, if He chooses to save any soul that is entirely His business.  In the Orthodox approach, we can only be concerned with our own individual sins, not the potential or rhetorical sins of others.  So for us in our lives, we are Orthodox, and we are saved by His Blood in the Holy Commmunion, so then quite literally.  

Quote

Hebrews 9:13-15: "For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance."

Agreed, but we might suggest that this Blood is the Holy Communion.

Quote
   
2 Corinthians 5:18-21:"And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."

This is a reference to the Holy Confession, which is called Reconciliation, hence while Apostle Paul specifically mentioned it as "the ministry of reconciliation."  This is the crux of the entire difference between Orthodox and Protestant readings of the Scriptures, many Protestant thinkers read the Scriptures to discredit Sacramental Christianity, and yet all Sacramental Christians precisely find all of the Sacraments in the Bible! Undecided


Thank you for those folks who shared, this has been something I have been thinking about for a long time, and even if I may disagree with some of y'all, I can quite respect and appreciate your own views, and am happy that you feel comfortable sharing them with us.

stay blessed,
habte selassie

Habte, the act of Christ shedding his blood is a product of His Grace. Christ's blood is propitiation for our sins, that includes those under the Old Covenant.
Logged
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #31 on: October 28, 2012, 03:32:58 PM »

I would say that reference to Christ's blood is a shortened way of referring to the shedding of his blood, thus to his death. This was pre-figured in the Old Testament sacrifices, from Abel onwards. It has often struck me that even some pagans, despite getting it grossly and tragically distorted, retained a memory of the fact that "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin," and practised not only animal but also human sacrifice. If we trust Christ, and truly repent of our sins, we are saved because the shedding of his blood was the propitiation for our sins: it quenched God's wrath, satisfied his justice, was the death I as a sinner should have died.
Logged

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

Posts: 9,087


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #32 on: October 28, 2012, 03:36:55 PM »

it quenched God's wrath, satisfied his justice

 Shocked
Logged

"But slay her he did not, for between dream and deed laws and practicalities remain"
-Willem Elschot, 'The Marriage'.
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,039


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Christians

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #33 on: October 28, 2012, 03:40:52 PM »

it quenched God's wrath, satisfied his justice

 Shocked

I think that Orthodox need to realize that legal and banking terminology (e.g., "forgive us our debts...") is biblical terminology. At the same time, however, a strict understanding of penal substitution (that Christ dies to satisfy God's honor (Anselm) or wrath (Calvin/Luther) is unOrthodox. But, again, that's just my opinion.
Well, even Romans 5:9 says that Christ saves us from God's wrath. The key is understanding what "wrath" or "justice" means in this context. If by "wrath" or "justice" we mean that God has a petty human sense of honor that needs to be satisfied in a spirit of hateful vengeance, than this is unacceptable because God transcends such human pettiness. The justice of God is not a justice based upon human needs for revenge, rather it is a justice which ultimately leads to the goal; the salvation of man.

NicholasMyra told me that Saint Athanasius lays out his teaching concerning God's "Divine consistency" in his exhortation against the heathen, and it seems to be -from what I have been told- consistent with what I was taught growing up as an OO.

Am I on to something here, or do you think I am off base?

Thoughts?
« Last Edit: October 28, 2012, 03:43:15 PM by Severian » Logged

On hiatus from posting. Forgive me if my posts have lacked humility or tact. Note that some of my older posts -especially those prior to late 2012- may not reflect my current views. In the meantime, please pray for my sinful self as I am in a critical and unsure juncture in my life. Thank you.
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #34 on: October 28, 2012, 03:42:24 PM »

Shocked

Your emoticon is shocked. Can you tell me why? As far as I am aware, what I wrote has been taught, in the West at least, from at least as long ago as Anselm. The hymns are full of this teaching, from both the Arminian and the Calvinist wings of classic Protestantism.
Logged

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

Posts: 9,087


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #35 on: October 28, 2012, 03:52:55 PM »

it quenched God's wrath, satisfied his justice

 Shocked

I think that Orthodox need to realize that legal and banking terminology (e.g., "forgive us our debts...") is biblical terminology. At the same time, however, a strict understanding of penal substitution (that Christ dies to satisfy God's honor (Anselm) or wrath (Calvin/Luther) is unOrthodox. But, again, that's just my opinion.
Well, even Romans 5:9 says that Christ saves us from God's wrath. The key is understanding what "wrath" or "justice" means in this context. If by "wrath" or "justice" we mean that God has a petty human sense of honor that needs to be satisfied in a spirit of hateful vengeance, than this is unacceptable because God transcends such human pettiness. The justice of God is not a justice based upon human needs for revenge, rather it is a justice which ultimately leads to the goal; the salvation of man.

NicholasMyra told me that Saint Athanasius lays out his teaching concerning God's "Divine consistency" in his exhortation against the heathen, and it seems to be -from what I have been told- consistent with what I was taught growing up as an OO.

Am I on to something here, or do you think I am off base?

Thoughts?
"πολλῷ οὖν μᾶλλον δικαιωθέντες νῦν ἐν τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ σωθησόμεθα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῆς ὀργῆς. (Romans 5:9)"

Σωθησόμεθα is future tense, not past tense. If the wrath would have been appeased at the crucifixion St. Paul wouldn't have used the futurum.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2012, 03:54:05 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"But slay her he did not, for between dream and deed laws and practicalities remain"
-Willem Elschot, 'The Marriage'.
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,039


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Christians

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #36 on: October 28, 2012, 03:58:45 PM »

it quenched God's wrath, satisfied his justice

 Shocked

I think that Orthodox need to realize that legal and banking terminology (e.g., "forgive us our debts...") is biblical terminology. At the same time, however, a strict understanding of penal substitution (that Christ dies to satisfy God's honor (Anselm) or wrath (Calvin/Luther) is unOrthodox. But, again, that's just my opinion.
Well, even Romans 5:9 says that Christ saves us from God's wrath. The key is understanding what "wrath" or "justice" means in this context. If by "wrath" or "justice" we mean that God has a petty human sense of honor that needs to be satisfied in a spirit of hateful vengeance, than this is unacceptable because God transcends such human pettiness. The justice of God is not a justice based upon human needs for revenge, rather it is a justice which ultimately leads to the goal; the salvation of man.

NicholasMyra told me that Saint Athanasius lays out his teaching concerning God's "Divine consistency" in his exhortation against the heathen, and it seems to be -from what I have been told- consistent with what I was taught growing up as an OO.

Am I on to something here, or do you think I am off base?

Thoughts?
"πολλῷ οὖν μᾶλλον δικαιωθέντες νῦν ἐν τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ σωθησόμεθα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῆς ὀργῆς. (Romans 5:9)"

Σωθησόμεθα is future tense, not past tense. If the wrath would have been appeased at the crucifixion St. Paul wouldn't have used the futurum.
Ah, thank you for the clarification.
Logged

On hiatus from posting. Forgive me if my posts have lacked humility or tact. Note that some of my older posts -especially those prior to late 2012- may not reflect my current views. In the meantime, please pray for my sinful self as I am in a critical and unsure juncture in my life. Thank you.
Sinful Hypocrite
Everyday I am critical of others. Every day I make similar mistakes. Every day I am a hypocrite.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: "The Orthodox Church" by Bishop Kallistos Ware: "We know where the Church is but we cannot be sure where it is not; and so we must refrain from passing judgment on non-Orthodox Christians."
Posts: 1,663


Great googly moogly!


« Reply #37 on: October 28, 2012, 08:24:14 PM »

Quote from: Sinful Hypocrite on October 26, 2012, 07:15:44 PM
How was the man on the cross next to Jesus saved, since he was not baptised, had communion or even worshipped?


Insert Quote
Quote from: HabteSelassie on Yesterday at 12:51:46 AM

The Thief was quite literally in the proximity of the Incarnate Word of God.  Before His Resurrection, Jesus Christ was on the earth precisely to save human souls as He told His Apostles many times.  When the Thief confessed His sins, repented there on the cross, and indeed asked for mercy to the Living Christ there on the Cross, God had the perogative to save this thief however He chooses.  To be sure, this is still the reality of how God works, He can still save folks in or outside of the Church by whichever means He Wills.  However, this does not negate the power of the Church, in that God established a Universal mechanism which is the Seven Divine Mysteries of Baptism, Chrismation, Holy Communion, Confession, Marriage, Ordination, and Unction of the Sick, all of which are exclusive to His Church.  Salvation is not exclusive to these Mysteries in a legal sense, but we should neither scoff them and push God on a technicality. We're Christians, not Moses  


Yes but the issue here is more about us as Orthodox judging others worthiness of being saved, And as you just said , God will save who he will, but more importantly we will be judged as we judged them, so that is what I am saying is wrong, just as the workers were all paid thje same even the ones who only worked a few minutes like the thief, but the others complained that that was unfair, but the farmer who hired them said who aqre you to tellme what is fair for them when you agreed to work all day for the wage when I HIRED YOU.

But here we see Orthodox telling Protestants what the farmer wants , God will say who are you to tell him that.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2012, 08:25:32 PM by Sinful Hypocrite » Logged

The Lord gathers his sheep, I fear I am a goat. Lord have mercy.

"A Christian is someone who follows and worships a perfectly good God who revealed his true face through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.“
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #38 on: October 29, 2012, 12:47:54 AM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!


Quote from: Sinful Hypocrite on October 26, 2012, 07:15:44 PM
How was the man on the cross next to Jesus saved, since he was not baptised, had communion or even worshipped?



Yes but the issue here is more about us as Orthodox judging others worthiness of being saved, And as you just said , God will save who he will, but more importantly we will be judged as we judged them, so that is what I am saying is wrong, just as the workers were all paid thje same even the ones who only worked a few minutes like the thief, but the others complained that that was unfair, but the farmer who hired them said who aqre you to tellme what is fair for them when you agreed to work all day for the wage when I HIRED YOU.

But here we see Orthodox telling Protestants what the farmer wants , God will say who are you to tell him that.

Please forgive me, I am not trying to draw any lines in that sand about who can be saved and who can't, neither am I suggesting that folks can only be saved through the Holy Communion.  Rather, I am asking a specific question about what the Blood of Christ means and represents to Protestants considering that they consider the Holy Communion only symbolic.  I do not intend to judge anyone, I just am wondering what folks mean when they refer to the Blood of Christ, and so far the representation has suggested atonement/penal theory. 

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #39 on: October 29, 2012, 05:20:59 AM »

I am asking a specific question about what the Blood of Christ means and represents to Protestants ... what folks mean when they refer to the Blood of Christ, and so far the representation has suggested atonement/penal theory. 
(Romans 5:9)"

Quote
Σωθησόμεθα is future tense, not past tense. If the wrath would have been appeased at the crucifixion St. Paul wouldn't have used the futurum.

These two quotations seem to me to identify a bifurcation in the discussion: Hebte Selassie is asking what we Protestants mean in our day-to-day, somewhat elliptical parlance when we speak of having been saved by Christ's blood; the second quote is replying to a different question, perhaps along the lines of "What did Paul mean by being justified by the Blood but saved in the future?"

I think we need to unravel a number of strands here.

1) The New Testament writers had not yet developed a vocabulary of technical theological terms, nor had they developed an Evangelical argot such as I, my fellows, our hymns etc use, each knowing what the other means. I do not think we can assume that the phrases of today's Evangelical dialect were in some way anticipated in the first century, and translated back into Koine Greek. (We do of course hope that we hold the underlying theology which the NT writers inscripturated.)

2) The verse Romans 5.9 refers to a past justification and a future completed salvation. I shall not go deeply into this here, as we have debated it at length, repeatedly, and very recently on other threads. I simply place the reminder that we Evangelicals do tend to use the word "saved" to denote the past aspect of salvation, which Paul here calls being justified; we do not deny the ongoing and the final completed salvation, but we tend to use words like sanctification and glorification.

3) Habte Selassie has correctly discerned that when we speak of the Blood of Christ, we are thinking not of the holy housel, but of our Lord's death at Calvary.
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #40 on: October 29, 2012, 01:49:29 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

I am asking a specific question about what the Blood of Christ means and represents to Protestants ... what folks mean when they refer to the Blood of Christ, and so far the representation has suggested atonement/penal theory.  
(Romans 5:9)"

Quote
Σωθησόμεθα is future tense, not past tense. If the wrath would have been appeased at the crucifixion St. Paul wouldn't have used the futurum.

These two quotations seem to me to identify a bifurcation in the discussion: Hebte Selassie is asking what we Protestants mean in our day-to-day, somewhat elliptical parlance when we speak of having been saved by Christ's blood; the second quote is replying to a different question, perhaps along the lines of "What did Paul mean by being justified by the Blood but saved in the future?"

I think we need to unravel a number of strands here.

1) The New Testament writers had not yet developed a vocabulary of technical theological terms, nor had they developed an Evangelical argot such as I, my fellows, our hymns etc use, each knowing what the other means. I do not think we can assume that the phrases of today's Evangelical dialect were in some way anticipated in the first century, and translated back into Koine Greek. (We do of course hope that we hold the underlying theology which the NT writers inscripturated.)

2) The verse Romans 5.9 refers to a past justification and a future completed salvation. I shall not go deeply into this here, as we have debated it at length, repeatedly, and very recently on other threads. I simply place the reminder that we Evangelicals do tend to use the word "saved" to denote the past aspect of salvation, which Paul here calls being justified; we do not deny the ongoing and the final completed salvation, but we tend to use words like sanctification and glorification.

3) Habte Selassie has correctly discerned that when we speak of the Blood of Christ, we are thinking not of the holy housel, but of our Lord's death at Calvary.

We Orthodox and Protestants mutually agree about justification and interpretations of Romans 5, however we have an entirely different ontology about Salvation in the first place.  We in Orthodox can't accept Penal Substitution or Atonement theories because they are too legalistic for our tastes.  Further, we feel that they stem from an entirely different conception of what sin is.  In Orthodox death resulted from sin not inherently as a vindictive punishment, but a natural consequence, almost biologically speaking.  God warned us, "You shall die," however He didn't implicitly say, "I will vindictively kill you."  So in Orthodox, we do not perceive of our own individual or collective human deaths as being a personal punishment as a result of some vendetta by God, rather, it is the mechanical consequence of sinning. If A than B kind of reasoning.  In Protestant thinking that supports Penal Substitution, the idea is that God punishes people with death, with suffering, and that Christ was bearing our own personal and individual punishments.  We can't dig that in Orthodox, Christ suffered for human nature, not necessarily individual humans.  It is in the cosmic sense, a macro vs micro analysis.  Even in the Old Testament, animal sacrifice was atoning for covering sins, not having the animals bear our punishment instead of ourselves.

I like the way you put it, elliptical parlance, we can dig that, however, in our theology because of the Real Presence we are not just commemorating or remembering as in Protestant thought, but a metaphysical reality.  We join Christ's sacrifice on the Cross literally, dynamically, powerfully, and we relive this moment when we participate with His Holy Communion.

Are there any Protestants here who disagree with Atonement/Penal Substitution and feel differently about the Blood of Christ?

stay blessed,
habte selassie
« Last Edit: October 29, 2012, 01:49:49 PM by HabteSelassie » Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,491



« Reply #41 on: October 29, 2012, 02:27:08 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Across Christianity, we hear of being saved by the Blood of Jesus.  I was flipping through the TV last night and heard a televangelist leading a prayer, calling the audience to believe in being saved through the Blood of Jesus.  It got me to thinking, what exactly to Protestants mean when they say this? If Protestant Christianity and theology rejects the Real Presence (Lutherans and Anglicans aside), then how and when are Christians saved by the Blood? In Orthodox Church, we are saved  by the Blood as attested by the Scriptures through the Holy Communion.  We are quite literally saved by His literal Blood.  How does Protestantism explain this process? Is it just symbolic? How and when are folks saved by this Blood? At Baptism? At the Second Coming or Judgment? I am a bit confused by the ambiguity of the statement, perhaps some of our resident Protestant folks could help me out and explain what the Blood of Jesus means to them?
It's a Mystery. angel

Well done!
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,491



« Reply #42 on: October 29, 2012, 02:30:04 PM »

I am asking a specific question about what the Blood of Christ means and represents to Protestants ... what folks mean when they refer to the Blood of Christ, and so far the representation has suggested atonement/penal theory. 
(Romans 5:9)"

Quote
Σωθησόμεθα is future tense, not past tense. If the wrath would have been appeased at the crucifixion St. Paul wouldn't have used the futurum.

These two quotations seem to me to identify a bifurcation in the discussion: Hebte Selassie is asking what we Protestants mean in our day-to-day, somewhat elliptical parlance when we speak of having been saved by Christ's blood; the second quote is replying to a different question, perhaps along the lines of "What did Paul mean by being justified by the Blood but saved in the future?"

I think we need to unravel a number of strands here.

1) The New Testament writers had not yet developed a vocabulary of technical theological terms, nor had they developed an Evangelical argot such as I, my fellows, our hymns etc use, each knowing what the other means. I do not think we can assume that the phrases of today's Evangelical dialect were in some way anticipated in the first century, and translated back into Koine Greek. (We do of course hope that we hold the underlying theology which the NT writers inscripturated.)

2) The verse Romans 5.9 refers to a past justification and a future completed salvation. I shall not go deeply into this here, as we have debated it at length, repeatedly, and very recently on other threads. I simply place the reminder that we Evangelicals do tend to use the word "saved" to denote the past aspect of salvation, which Paul here calls being justified; we do not deny the ongoing and the final completed salvation, but we tend to use words like sanctification and glorification.

3) Habte Selassie has correctly discerned that when we speak of the Blood of Christ, we are thinking not of the holy housel, but of our Lord's death at Calvary.

Another thoughtful and lovely response.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,491



« Reply #43 on: October 29, 2012, 02:38:05 PM »

If people get time to waste and want to look at another possible manner in which sacrifice throughout the Bible acted over and against its structure in other literature, I would suggest:

Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World by Rene Girard.

http://www.amazon.com/Things-Hidden-Since-Foundation-World/dp/0804722153
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
freddief
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 66


« Reply #44 on: October 31, 2012, 07:02:22 PM »

Kind of odd that Protestants would say that Jesus died to satisfy God's wrath when in the Old Testament God actually condemned people for sacrificing their children to strange gods. Seems odd that He would go around and do the same.

God sacrificed his Son to a strange god?
Logged
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #45 on: November 01, 2012, 04:54:14 AM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

 We in Orthodox can't accept Penal Substitution or Atonement theories because they are too legalistic for our tastes.

I doubt that you really mean "for our tastes", for I am sure you agree that truth is not tailored to our tastes, but antedates and supersedes them. Anyway, be that as it may, I want to home in on your use of the word "theories". I prefer the word "teaching", but let us also leave that aside.

If our "theory" of penal substitutionary atonement is incorrect, or if your - dare I say it? - "theory" of the Blood, and thus the virtue of it, being received at the Lord's Table, is incorrect, does it not remain true that your theory and ours both move us to trust the benefits of Christ's death alone for our rdemption? I sometimes preach that it is not our understanding of how Calvary worked, but our trust in the fact that it did, that saves the soul.

I am sure that both 'theories' can lead to an empty religious practice without faith, and Evangelicals form an impression of Orthodox thinking they will be saved because they take Communion (sort of, ex opere operato). I believe you would strenuously deny that such is the true nature of your religion: are you not taking Communion because you believe that "the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin"? And have you not thus attached, to your trust in the power of the Blood, a theory about how it works?

Well, you may say that we do the same: that we trust the shedding of his blood, and we attach a theory about how it operates. Our "theory" has helped untold thousands to reach a point first of despair at ever being able to overturn the effects of their sin, and then to a point of placing all their trust in the Son of God, "who gave himself for me" as it is somewhere written. Consider the popular hymn Rock of Ages, cleft for me:

Nothing in my hand I bring,
Simply to thy Cross I cling


Finally, we are not unaware of the passages in John 6 and perhaps elsewhere, which lead you to your eucharistic beliefs; surely, you are also aware of the passages in scripture which lead to our belief in penal substitution as the means of the Atonement? But do we not all both love and trust the One who died for us?
« Last Edit: November 01, 2012, 04:55:45 AM by David Young » Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
Ashman618
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukranian catholic
Jurisdiction: Philadelphia
Posts: 503



« Reply #46 on: November 01, 2012, 06:55:57 AM »

How does a person know they love the true Christ and not some Christ fabricated in the mind?
Logged
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #47 on: November 01, 2012, 10:49:04 AM »

How does a person know they love the true Christ and not some Christ fabricated in the mind?

That is a very important question. It depends whom you mean by "a person". If you mean, How does one try to assess someone elses's state of grace, so as best to be able to help him find assurance, I suspect this would lead to a different, though related, set of answers from,  How does one try to assess whether or not one is, oneself, in a state of grace? Putting it a different way, if you were to ask me as a pastor how to help you "know you love the true Christ and not some Christ fabricated in the mind," I might find different answers from examining my own heart to see whether I myself am in the faith or am in fact deceived.
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #48 on: November 01, 2012, 12:10:58 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!



If our "theory" of penal substitutionary atonement is incorrect, or if your - dare I say it? - "theory" of the Blood, and thus the virtue of it, being received at the Lord's Table, is incorrect, does it not remain true that your theory and ours both move us to trust the benefits of Christ's death alone for our rdemption? I sometimes preach that it is not our understanding of how Calvary worked, but our trust in the fact that it did, that saves the soul.


Well, you may say that we do the same: that we trust the shedding of his blood, and we attach a theory about how it operates. Our "theory" has helped untold thousands to reach a point first of despair at ever being able to overturn the effects of their sin, and then to a point of placing all their trust in the Son of God, "who gave himself for me" as it is somewhere written. Consider the popular hymn Rock of Ages, cleft for me:


My question is ontological, how does the Blood do such? Is it through penal substitution? Did the sacrifice of Jesus Christ shedding His Blood at the moment of the Cross open some kind spiritual flood gate for future generations? In Orthodox, we continually cleansed by the literalness of the Blood in the Holy Communion, so I am just trying to figure out the ontology of the Protestant approach.  To be sure again, some folks can indeed be saved aside from the Holy Communion, however when we say Saved by the Blood in Orthodox we are referring specifically to such.

Quote

Nothing in my hand I bring,
Simply to thy Cross I cling


Finally, we are not unaware of the passages in John 6 and perhaps elsewhere, which lead you to your eucharistic beliefs; surely, you are also aware of the passages in scripture which lead to our belief in penal substitution as the means of the Atonement? But do we not all both love and trust the One who died for us?

The catch is Atonement/Penal Substitution portrays a radically different view of God and the nature of God than is found in Orthodox.  Penal Substitution teaches a vengeful God that was obligated to punish somebody, so He punished Himself through Christ.  In Orthodox, God loved humanity so much that He sacrificed Himself, not to Atone for humanity's punishment for sin, but to abrogate such punishment in the first place.  He shed His Blood to open the doors for Grace, as indeed you've alluded to as well, however it was not to bear mankind's punishment, but simply to demonstrate His effective love for us.

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #49 on: November 01, 2012, 12:48:47 PM »

a radically different view of God and the nature of God

This of course is a more worrying matter than speculation as to how the shedding of Christ's blood achieved our ransom. I shall ponder your words.
Logged

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

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


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #50 on: November 03, 2012, 06:54:47 PM »

a radically different view of God and the nature of God

 I shall ponder your words.

I think that to the Evangelical your statement seems to contain a whiff of the Gnostic, the Manichee, or the Cathar - of dualism: the notion that God as portrayed in the OT and God as portrayed in the NT are not the same person. Now I am sure this is not your intention; I say only how I think it comes across to us who are not familiar with your modus credendi. We believe that the Bible is a unity, and that the characteristics of God as he is portrayed in both Testaments are all true and must be held together in as complete a picture of his character as man has access to. Thus, the God whose wrath burns against sin, who is Judge of all, who created the fire of hell and declared that "the soul that sinneth, it shall die," and who sent his Son and "laid on him the iniquity of us all" as "the chastisement of our peace", must be the same God who is depicted as a loving Father in the parable of the Prodigal Son, and of whom it is written, "God is love."
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
Ashman618
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukranian catholic
Jurisdiction: Philadelphia
Posts: 503



« Reply #51 on: November 03, 2012, 08:55:52 PM »

I often wonder Is the fire of hell created? Where can I find that in the scriptures?
Logged
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #52 on: November 04, 2012, 04:34:41 PM »

I often wonder Is the fire of hell created? Where can I find that in the scriptures?

Our Lord (Matt. 25:41) spoke of "the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels." I cannot imagine who would have "prepared" it, except the Almighty.
Logged

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

Faith: Christian
Posts: 513


My political hero.


« Reply #53 on: November 04, 2012, 05:52:21 PM »

The catch is Atonement/Penal Substitution portrays a radically different view of God and the nature of God than is found in Orthodox.  Penal Substitution teaches a vengeful God that was obligated to punish somebody, so He punished Himself through Christ.  In Orthodox, God loved humanity so much that He sacrificed Himself, not to Atone for humanity's punishment for sin, but to abrogate such punishment in the first place.  He shed His Blood to open the doors for Grace, as indeed you've alluded to as well, however it was not to bear mankind's punishment, but simply to demonstrate His effective love for us.

This strawman is really getting old.
Logged
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #54 on: November 04, 2012, 07:00:39 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

The catch is Atonement/Penal Substitution portrays a radically different view of God and the nature of God than is found in Orthodox.  Penal Substitution teaches a vengeful God that was obligated to punish somebody, so He punished Himself through Christ.  In Orthodox, God loved humanity so much that He sacrificed Himself, not to Atone for humanity's punishment for sin, but to abrogate such punishment in the first place.  He shed His Blood to open the doors for Grace, as indeed you've alluded to as well, however it was not to bear mankind's punishment, but simply to demonstrate His effective love for us.

This strawman is really getting old.


I grew up Baptist so sorry, that is not a strawman. However, if you disagree with either Atonement theory in general, or with my interpretation you are free to chime in anytime with alternative explanations, but NBA fans like myself have word for calling a foul when there is no foul, quit flopping Wink

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
Ashman618
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukranian catholic
Jurisdiction: Philadelphia
Posts: 503



« Reply #55 on: November 04, 2012, 07:02:39 PM »

So then we understand hell as a place that one is sent to by Christ for punishment? And heaven vice versa?
Logged
Ashman618
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukranian catholic
Jurisdiction: Philadelphia
Posts: 503



« Reply #56 on: November 04, 2012, 07:05:19 PM »

The catch is Atonement/Penal Substitution portrays a radically different view of God and the nature of God than is found in Orthodox.  Penal Substitution teaches a vengeful God that was obligated to punish somebody, so He punished Himself through Christ.  In Orthodox, God loved humanity so much that He sacrificed Himself, not to Atone for humanity's punishment for sin, but to abrogate such punishment in the first place.  He shed His Blood to open the doors for Grace, as indeed you've alluded to as well, however it was not to bear mankind's punishment, but simply to demonstrate His effective love for us.

This strawman is really getting old.

What is the proper understanding of penal/atonement one should have?
Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #57 on: November 05, 2012, 12:23:56 AM »

What is the proper understanding of penal/atonement one should have?

A jailbreak. We don't get out of our sentence only because Christ took on our sentence, but because he took on our sentence and then was found innocent and released, negating the sentence.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Delphine
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 136



« Reply #58 on: November 05, 2012, 12:49:39 AM »

From the Canon of Preparation for Holy Communion:

Quote from: Ode Nine
The Lord is good: O taste and see! For of old He became like unto us for our sake, and offered Himself once as an offering to His Father, and is ever slain, sanctifying them that partake of Him.

In what way was Christ "an offering to His Father"?
Logged
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Chalcedonian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,261



« Reply #59 on: November 05, 2012, 12:54:58 AM »

From the Canon of Preparation for Holy Communion:

Quote from: Ode Nine
The Lord is good: O taste and see! For of old He became like unto us for our sake, and offered Himself once as an offering to His Father, and is ever slain, sanctifying them that partake of Him.

In what way was Christ "an offering to His Father"?

Someone else may be able to explain a bit more than I, but I'll note quickly that Christ being an offering to the Father simply refers to him being a sacrifice, and is irrelevant to him bearing the wrath of the Father or not. Too many people, perhaps unintentionally, associate the two as being different sides of a coin when they are not.
Logged
Maximum Bob
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,493


Personal Text? We can have personal text?


« Reply #60 on: November 05, 2012, 01:02:06 AM »

So then we understand hell as a place that one is sent to by Christ for punishment? And heaven vice versa?

I don't, and I know I'm not alone, I view Hell as the fiery presence of God as experienced by those who don't want to experience it and Heaven as that same fiery presence experienced as light and love by those who do want to be there.
Logged

Countdown to Chrismations and Baptisms
Psalm 37:23 The Lord guides a man safely in the way he should go
Ashman618
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukranian catholic
Jurisdiction: Philadelphia
Posts: 503



« Reply #61 on: November 05, 2012, 01:32:49 AM »

So then we understand hell as a place that one is sent to by Christ for punishment? And heaven vice versa?

I don't, and I know I'm not alone, I view Hell as the fiery presence of God as experienced by those who don't want to experience it and Heaven as that same fiery presence experienced as light and love by those who do want to be there.

Yes but that would make the fires of hell uncreated, and the eternal fire "prepared" for The devil would be God Himself, so then to you hell is not a place we are sent but our perception of God's uncreated light?
Logged
Ashman618
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukranian catholic
Jurisdiction: Philadelphia
Posts: 503



« Reply #62 on: November 05, 2012, 01:37:20 AM »

What is the proper understanding of penal/atonement one should have?

A jailbreak. We don't get out of our sentence only because Christ took on our sentence, but because he took on our sentence and then was found innocent and released, negating the sentence.

This sounds more like Christ conquering death by death and to those in the tombs bestowing life then a reparation or atonment for an offense.
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #63 on: November 05, 2012, 02:54:58 PM »

For most evangelical protestants, the way to receive the grace won for us on Calvary is to be "saved" (pray the sinners prayer). This is the way that evangelicals believe that we are saved by the Blood of Jesus. For the high-church, sacramental denominations like the Episcopalians and Lutherans, they would, for the most part, agree with Catholics and Orthodox that the Eucharist connects us to the redemptive power of the Blood of Jesus. I know this due to being a former protestant.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2012, 02:55:31 PM by Wyatt » Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #64 on: November 05, 2012, 09:05:27 PM »

A jailbreak. We don't get out of our sentence only because Christ took on our sentence, but because he took on our sentence and then was found innocent and released, negating the sentence.
This sounds more like Christ conquering death by death and to those in the tombs bestowing life then a reparation or atonment for an offense.

The bolded words don't mean "punishment" in a strict literal legal sense, not even in our human courts of law. Reparations are for repairing and undoing damage. Atonement is about reconciliation, that is healing broken relationships.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Ashman618
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukranian catholic
Jurisdiction: Philadelphia
Posts: 503



« Reply #65 on: November 05, 2012, 09:15:16 PM »

A jailbreak. We don't get out of our sentence only because Christ took on our sentence, but because he took on our sentence and then was found innocent and released, negating the sentence.
This sounds more like Christ conquering death by death and to those in the tombs bestowing life then a reparation or atonment for an offense.

The bolded words don't mean "punishment" in a strict literal legal sense, not even in our human courts of law. Reparations are for repairing and undoing damage. Atonement is about reconciliation, that is healing broken relationships.

Ok so then it's safe to say that any type of atonment that has to do with satisfying God need for justice or anything related to that line of thinking is just way off? I dare say even plain wrong?
Logged
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Chalcedonian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,261



« Reply #66 on: November 05, 2012, 10:51:11 PM »

Ok so then it's safe to say that any type of atonment that has to do with satisfying God need for justice or anything related to that line of thinking is just way off? I dare say even plain wrong?

One comment I've heard said that the entire event of the atonement and reconciliation is God's justice, and so justice is satisfied by creation being reconciled with its creator.
Logged
Maximum Bob
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,493


Personal Text? We can have personal text?


« Reply #67 on: November 05, 2012, 10:55:56 PM »

So then we understand hell as a place that one is sent to by Christ for punishment? And heaven vice versa?

I don't, and I know I'm not alone, I view Hell as the fiery presence of God as experienced by those who don't want to experience it and Heaven as that same fiery presence experienced as light and love by those who do want to be there.

Yes but that would make the fires of hell uncreated, and the eternal fire "prepared" for The devil would be God Himself, so then to you hell is not a place we are sent but our perception of God's uncreated light?

Yeah, that's a pretty good summary of what I'm saying and not just me I've seen threads on it here, read about it in other literature even got it from our Priest. Regarding the "prepared" it's been awhile since I've read the in depth stuff on it someone else may be able to address that better. Still it's not dogma, my main point is simply that not everyone would agree that Hell is about punishment.
Logged

Countdown to Chrismations and Baptisms
Psalm 37:23 The Lord guides a man safely in the way he should go
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #68 on: November 06, 2012, 12:22:05 AM »

Ok so then it's safe to say that any type of atonment that has to do with satisfying God need for justice or anything related to that line of thinking is just way off? I dare say even plain wrong?

It's more the absence of the resurrection than anything else that bothers me about the penal substitution that is commonly taught by Protestants. Christ's death and resurrection can be found together in the apostles preaching in Acts and in references in the epistles.

He was delivered for our offenses and raised for our justification.

Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #69 on: November 06, 2012, 06:08:32 AM »

It's more the absence of the resurrection than anything else that bothers me about the penal substitution that is commonly taught by Protestants.

You have (in my view) picked up on something important here. I have long said that we Evangelicals put far too little emphasis on the victory of Christ's Resurrection. I am not saying for a moment that we should emphasise the penal substitution less, but I believe our week-by-week preaching and hymn-singing have an imbalance between these two true themes. We need to read Aulen's Christus Victor.

I do attempt to rectify the balance in some measure in my own preaching and teaching.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2012, 06:09:12 AM by David Young » Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 247


« Reply #70 on: November 06, 2012, 09:50:44 AM »

I often wonder Is the fire of hell created? Where can I find that in the scriptures?

Our Lord (Matt. 25:41) spoke of "the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels." I cannot imagine who would have "prepared" it, except the Almighty.

It would seem that prepared is not speaking of as something being built or made, but something provided e.g. the eternal fire. 
Logged
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,108


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #71 on: November 06, 2012, 10:08:54 AM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

The catch is Atonement/Penal Substitution portrays a radically different view of God and the nature of God than is found in Orthodox.  Penal Substitution teaches a vengeful God that was obligated to punish somebody, so He punished Himself through Christ.  In Orthodox, God loved humanity so much that He sacrificed Himself, not to Atone for humanity's punishment for sin, but to abrogate such punishment in the first place.  He shed His Blood to open the doors for Grace, as indeed you've alluded to as well, however it was not to bear mankind's punishment, but simply to demonstrate His effective love for us.

This strawman is really getting old.


I grew up Baptist so sorry, that is not a strawman. However, if you disagree with either Atonement theory in general, or with my interpretation you are free to chime in anytime with alternative explanations, but NBA fans like myself have word for calling a foul when there is no foul, quit flopping Wink

stay blessed,
habte selassie

I can just as easily say the Orthodox God is a masochist because He sent His Only-Begotten Son into our world to be brutally tortured by the Romans, and then nailed to a cross, where He died under the most unpleasant of circumstances.  And before you start talking about how it was out of love for man, let me ask you, could God only have accomplished what He did through the death of Christ?  Is God so weak He was unable to accomplish salvation (in all the many meanings that word holds for the Orthodox) without His son dying?  Could He not have destroyed death by His very decree, just as He brought into existence, existence itself?  Yet, for some reason, the Father ordained that His son should die.  That is reality for any Christian theology.
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
Ashman618
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukranian catholic
Jurisdiction: Philadelphia
Posts: 503



« Reply #72 on: November 06, 2012, 12:53:27 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

The catch is Atonement/Penal Substitution portrays a radically different view of God and the nature of God than is found in Orthodox.  Penal Substitution teaches a vengeful God that was obligated to punish somebody, so He punished Himself through Christ.  In Orthodox, God loved humanity so much that He sacrificed Himself, not to Atone for humanity's punishment for sin, but to abrogate such punishment in the first place.  He shed His Blood to open the doors for Grace, as indeed you've alluded to as well, however it was not to bear mankind's punishment, but simply to demonstrate His effective love for us.

This strawman is really getting old.


I grew up Baptist so sorry, that is not a strawman. However, if you disagree with either Atonement theory in general, or with my interpretation you are free to chime in anytime with alternative explanations, but NBA fans like myself have word for calling a foul when there is no foul, quit flopping Wink

stay blessed,
habte selassie

I can just as easily say the Orthodox God is a masochist because He sent His Only-Begotten Son into our world to be brutally tortured by the Romans, and then nailed to a cross, where He died under the most unpleasant of circumstances.  And before you start talking about how it was out of love for man, let me ask you, could God only have accomplished what He did through the death of Christ?  Is God so weak He was unable to accomplish salvation (in all the many meanings that word holds for the Orthodox) without His son dying?  Could He not have destroyed death by His very decree, just as He brought into existence, existence itself?  Yet, for some reason, the Father ordained that His son should die.  That is reality for any Christian theology.

I'll put myself out there and say no there was no other way, God forgive me, but I don't think that makes Him week AT ALL
Logged
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #73 on: November 06, 2012, 06:48:39 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!


I can just as easily say the Orthodox God is a masochist because He sent His Only-Begotten Son into our world to be brutally tortured by the Romans, and then nailed to a cross, where He died under the most unpleasant of circumstances.  And before you start talking about how it was out of love for man, let me ask you, could God only have accomplished what He did through the death of Christ?  Is God so weak He was unable to accomplish salvation (in all the many meanings that word holds for the Orthodox) without His son dying?  Could He not have destroyed death by His very decree, just as He brought into existence, existence itself?  Yet, for some reason, the Father ordained that His son should die.  That is reality for any Christian theology.

However what you are saying is not representative of the Fathers.  The Church has favored a love instead of punishment approach. After all, Christ IS GOD, so when GOD dies on the Cross, its not like God is punishing Himself.  Rather, God is demonstrating effectively, dynamically, physically (i.e. created rather than uncreated/Divine) His Love for Mankind.  He is not bearing our punishment, He is God! Is it really painful for God to die? That is the catch, perhaps sometimes we get Passion of the Christ about it, and begin to propose in our minds' eye a vision of a purely Human Christ.  When Christ was on the Cross, His Body was Human, but He is God.  The pain He felt and endured in His Body was very real, and the place of Hades/Sheol/Death to which His Soul entered into the Resurrect the Old Testament Saints was also very real, however HE IS GOD! So is God truly pained in an existential sense by that experience? Or in fact, as the Fathers teach, rather then being victimized or pained by Death, rather did Christ SANCTIFY Death, making it Holy?

stay blessed,
habte selassie
« Last Edit: November 06, 2012, 06:50:09 PM by HabteSelassie » Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #74 on: November 06, 2012, 09:32:45 PM »

It's more the absence of the resurrection than anything else that bothers me about the penal substitution that is commonly taught by Protestants.
You have (in my view) picked up on something important here. I have long said that we Evangelicals put far too little emphasis on the victory of Christ's Resurrection. I am not saying for a moment that we should emphasise the penal substitution less, but I believe our week-by-week preaching and hymn-singing have an imbalance between these two true themes. We need to read Aulen's Christus Victor.

I do attempt to rectify the balance in some measure in my own preaching and teaching.

I know you have similar posts on here regarding the importance of the resurrection. Unforunately, it's not uncommon to hear a preacher preach a gospel of salvation and omit the resurrection becasue it's not necessary because everything is accomplished in Christ's death (that's just not true and it's not biblical). I have a hard time finding the right words to express what's wrong with that because Christ died and death is the punishment for sin, which can be found defined in scripture as the transgression of the law. When Christ is crucified, he represents the putting to death of the "old man" (to use another biblical term). So legal language can be applied, and it's hard to draw distinctions when the same words are used to describe two different things. But we're not released from our sentence simply because it was put on someone else. Christ's resurrection is His release from that sentence that nullifies it and allows us to be released from that same sentence. It is in Christ's death that the "old man" is put to death, but it is in Christ's resurrection that the "new man" receives life. Both are essential for our salvation, not just one or the other, and they both work together.

This isn't necessarily aimed at you, I know you've expressed your views on this here before. It's just an observation of what I've seen and heard in my experience in (as a Protestant) and encounters with (since becoming Orthodox) Protestantism. It's just been recently over the last few years that I've been able to begin to notice this after years of Orthodox church services, prayers, reading scripture, and reading On The Incarnation really helped to put things into perspective and then hearing a Protestant preacher preach salvation without mentioning the resurrection in the simplest terms he could that it just clicked.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #75 on: November 07, 2012, 05:09:29 AM »

reading On The Incarnation really helped to put things into perspective

As you know, before retirement I was Director of an Evangelical mission which works in Albania. I got Athanasius' On the Incarnation translated into Albanian and published in Tirana. It circulates not only among us Evangelicals, but was gratefully received also at the Orthodox seminary. A very good book indeed.
Logged

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

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,108


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #76 on: November 07, 2012, 10:41:56 AM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!


I can just as easily say the Orthodox God is a masochist because He sent His Only-Begotten Son into our world to be brutally tortured by the Romans, and then nailed to a cross, where He died under the most unpleasant of circumstances.  And before you start talking about how it was out of love for man, let me ask you, could God only have accomplished what He did through the death of Christ?  Is God so weak He was unable to accomplish salvation (in all the many meanings that word holds for the Orthodox) without His son dying?  Could He not have destroyed death by His very decree, just as He brought into existence, existence itself?  Yet, for some reason, the Father ordained that His son should die.  That is reality for any Christian theology.

However what you are saying is not representative of the Fathers.  The Church has favored a love instead of punishment approach. After all, Christ IS GOD, so when GOD dies on the Cross, its not like God is punishing Himself.  Rather, God is demonstrating effectively, dynamically, physically (i.e. created rather than uncreated/Divine) His Love for Mankind.  He is not bearing our punishment, He is God! Is it really painful for God to die? That is the catch, perhaps sometimes we get Passion of the Christ about it, and begin to propose in our minds' eye a vision of a purely Human Christ.  When Christ was on the Cross, His Body was Human, but He is God.  The pain He felt and endured in His Body was very real, and the place of Hades/Sheol/Death to which His Soul entered into the Resurrect the Old Testament Saints was also very real, however HE IS GOD! So is God truly pained in an existential sense by that experience? Or in fact, as the Fathers teach, rather then being victimized or pained by Death, rather did Christ SANCTIFY Death, making it Holy?

stay blessed,
habte selassie

You are avoiding the point: It matters not whether it was love or punishment (and by the way, suggesting that if Christ was suffering the punishment of our sins, His death was not one solely born of love, is rather outrageous), unless your propose that God is not all powerful, that He was not able to accomplish what He accomplished through the death of Christ, without His Son undergoing excruciating pain (I'm not entirely sure in what sense you're using the term 'existential' when you ask whether or not Christ's pain was existential, but I think you'd be hard pressed to really find support for the idea that Christ did not suffer exactly as any human being would have suffered going through the same, unless you look to the Nestorians, or the Apocalypse of Peter), then you must concede that the Father chose for His Son to suffer brutally and die.  Christ Himself asked that the Father "let this cup pass" from him.  Protestantism's understanding (save perhaps the Calvinists) of the death of Christ is no more bloody or savage than Orthodoxy's, unless you can show me legitimate support for the idea that God is not omnipotent and was powerless to accomplish what He did, without Christ's death.
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 913


« Reply #77 on: November 07, 2012, 12:51:23 PM »

What is the proper understanding of penal/atonement one should have?

A jailbreak. We don't get out of our sentence only because Christ took on our sentence, but because he took on our sentence and then was found innocent and released, negating the sentence.

Haha!! I am Protestant now, may be convert soon. This is exactly how Protestant Christians understand the salvation . They understand it in this way:
God sets and offers a number of harsh rules/laws which men cannot keep. Men cannot refuse His offer as well. If you reject God's offer, you deserve to be tortured by God forever.

Later,all men break the law of God and has to pay a divine payment to God. However, nobody is divine and able to repay this divine debt. Thus, God put all men in the jail and ready to torture all of them forever . Because God "love" all men, so He sent His only son to save them. Finally, God tortures and kills His only son on the cross. Thus, His justice and wrath is satisied. All the believers' debts are also repaid by Christ. So, God releases the believers from the jail and no longer want to torture them anymore!!

I often wonder Is the fire of hell created? Where can I find that in the scriptures?

Before I study the Orthodox,I have struggled with the teaching of hell in bible for a long time.Protestant Christians teaches that hell just like torture room in jail. They teaches that Hell is a place / torture room that God creates in order to show angry,take revenge, hate, abundon, burn, torture the unbelievers/ his enemies forever and forever. I cannot accept this notion of God(e.g. A God keeps asking us to love and even pray for our enemies, but He is the one who keep hating His enemies forover ).

Orthodoxy understanding of Hell really make me surprise. Its understanding of Hell does not distort God's love as well as denies the eternal torment.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2012, 01:05:14 PM by walter1234 » Logged
Ashman618
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukranian catholic
Jurisdiction: Philadelphia
Posts: 503



« Reply #78 on: November 07, 2012, 01:51:49 PM »

It seems to me Walter that God has blessed you with wisdom to recognize truth!!!!! May His mercy and blessings continue to be with you!
Logged
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 913


« Reply #79 on: November 07, 2012, 02:31:25 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!


I can just as easily say the Orthodox God is a masochist because He sent His Only-Begotten Son into our world to be brutally tortured by the Romans, and then nailed to a cross, where He died under the most unpleasant of circumstances.  And before you start talking about how it was out of love for man, let me ask you, could God only have accomplished what He did through the death of Christ?  Is God so weak He was unable to accomplish salvation (in all the many meanings that word holds for the Orthodox) without His son dying?  Could He not have destroyed death by His very decree, just as He brought into existence, existence itself?  Yet, for some reason, the Father ordained that His son should die.  That is reality for any Christian theology.

However what you are saying is not representative of the Fathers.  The Church has favored a love instead of punishment approach. After all, Christ IS GOD, so when GOD dies on the Cross, its not like God is punishing Himself.  Rather, God is demonstrating effectively, dynamically, physically (i.e. created rather than uncreated/Divine) His Love for Mankind.  He is not bearing our punishment, He is God! Is it really painful for God to die? That is the catch, perhaps sometimes we get Passion of the Christ about it, and begin to propose in our minds' eye a vision of a purely Human Christ.  When Christ was on the Cross, His Body was Human, but He is God.  The pain He felt and endured in His Body was very real, and the place of Hades/Sheol/Death to which His Soul entered into the Resurrect the Old Testament Saints was also very real, however HE IS GOD! So is God truly pained in an existential sense by that experience? Or in fact, as the Fathers teach, rather then being victimized or pained by Death, rather did Christ SANCTIFY Death, making it Holy?

stay blessed,
habte selassie

You are avoiding the point: It matters not whether it was love or punishment (and by the way, suggesting that if Christ was suffering the punishment of our sins, His death was not one solely born of love, is rather outrageous), unless your propose that God is not all powerful, that He was not able to accomplish what He accomplished through the death of Christ, without His Son undergoing excruciating pain (I'm not entirely sure in what sense you're using the term 'existential' when you ask whether or not Christ's pain was existential, but I think you'd be hard pressed to really find support for the idea that Christ did not suffer exactly as any human being would have suffered going through the same, unless you look to the Nestorians, or the Apocalypse of Peter), then you must concede that the Father chose for His Son to suffer brutally and die.  Christ Himself asked that the Father "let this cup pass" from him.  Protestantism's understanding (save perhaps the Calvinists) of the death of Christ is no more bloody or savage than Orthodoxy's, unless you can show me legitimate support for the idea that God is not omnipotent and was powerless to accomplish what He did, without Christ's death.

The wages of Sin is death. Sin itself cause the suffering and death.

I would understand that Jesus took upon himself our sin and the sufferings which come from SIN itself (e.g. the pain, sarrow , curse, death,etc) on cross , but not God's punishment. SO, the sufferings which come from Sin would be removed. We can get healed and deliverance from Sin and the sufferings.

Through his Resurrection, He did not only take upon himself our sin and become sin.HE even conquered the SIN and the sufferings which come from SIN itself. HE defeated and won over all of them.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2012, 02:57:32 PM by walter1234 » Logged
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Chalcedonian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,261



« Reply #80 on: November 07, 2012, 09:55:42 PM »

A God keeps asking us to love and even pray for our enemies, but He is the one who keep hating His enemies forover
This is a really interesting point that I haven't heard before. I like it.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2012, 09:55:52 PM by Nephi » Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #81 on: November 08, 2012, 03:17:36 AM »

God sets and offers a number of harsh rules/laws which men cannot keep. Men cannot refuse His offer as well. If you reject God's offer, you deserve to be tortured by God forever.

Later,all men break the law of God and has to pay a divine payment to God. However, nobody is divine and able to repay this divine debt. Thus, God put all men in the jail and ready to torture all of them forever . Because God "love" all men, so He sent His only son to save them. Finally, God tortures and kills His only son on the cross. Thus, His justice and wrath is satisied. All the believers' debts are also repaid by Christ. So, God releases the believers from the jail and no longer want to torture them anymore!!

What is the place of the resurrection in this?
« Last Edit: November 08, 2012, 03:18:18 AM by Melodist » Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 913


« Reply #82 on: November 10, 2012, 06:57:29 AM »

God sets and offers a number of harsh rules/laws which men cannot keep. Men cannot refuse His offer as well. If you reject God's offer, you deserve to be tortured by God forever.

Later,all men break the law of God and has to pay a divine payment to God. However, nobody is divine and able to repay this divine debt. Thus, God put all men in the jail and ready to torture all of them forever . Because God "love" all men, so He sent His only son to save them. Finally, God tortures and kills His only son on the cross. Thus, His justice and wrath is satisied. All the believers' debts are also repaid by Christ. So, God releases the believers from the jail and no longer want to torture them anymore!!

What is the place of the resurrection in this?

Protestant teaches that death is the punishment of GOd rather than a natural consequence after sin. To Protestant, Resurrection of Jesus did not only destroy death , but also imply defeating the punishment of GOd. On the other word. Jesus is more powerful than God/ God's punishment.

Jesus defeat God/God's punishment(e.g death). Indeed , it is totally nonsense. Thus, Protestant Christians do not mention  the resurrection when they peach the gospel

« Last Edit: November 10, 2012, 07:02:06 AM by walter1234 » Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #83 on: November 11, 2012, 01:02:31 AM »

God sets and offers a number of harsh rules/laws which men cannot keep. Men cannot refuse His offer as well. If you reject God's offer, you deserve to be tortured by God forever.

Later,all men break the law of God and has to pay a divine payment to God. However, nobody is divine and able to repay this divine debt. Thus, God put all men in the jail and ready to torture all of them forever . Because God "love" all men, so He sent His only son to save them. Finally, God tortures and kills His only son on the cross. Thus, His justice and wrath is satisied. All the believers' debts are also repaid by Christ. So, God releases the believers from the jail and no longer want to torture them anymore!!

What is the place of the resurrection in this?
Protestant teaches that death is the punishment of GOd rather than a natural consequence after sin. To Protestant, Resurrection of Jesus did not only destroy death , but also imply defeating the punishment of GOd. On the other word. Jesus is more powerful than God/ God's punishment.

Jesus defeat God/God's punishment(e.g death). Indeed , it is totally nonsense. Thus, Protestant Christians do not mention  the resurrection when they peach the gospel

In the above messsage, is Christ's resurrection necessary for our salvation or are we saved by virtue of the fact that Christ is punished on the cross instead of us so there is no longer a need to punish us regardless of whether or not Christ is raised from the dead?
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 913


« Reply #84 on: November 11, 2012, 02:38:42 PM »

God sets and offers a number of harsh rules/laws which men cannot keep. Men cannot refuse His offer as well. If you reject God's offer, you deserve to be tortured by God forever.

Later,all men break the law of God and has to pay a divine payment to God. However, nobody is divine and able to repay this divine debt. Thus, God put all men in the jail and ready to torture all of them forever . Because God "love" all men, so He sent His only son to save them. Finally, God tortures and kills His only son on the cross. Thus, His justice and wrath is satisied. All the believers' debts are also repaid by Christ. So, God releases the believers from the jail and no longer want to torture them anymore!!

What is the place of the resurrection in this?
Protestant teaches that death is the punishment of GOd rather than a natural consequence after sin. To Protestant, Resurrection of Jesus did not only destroy death , but also imply defeating the punishment of GOd. On the other word. Jesus is more powerful than God/ God's punishment.

Jesus defeat God/God's punishment(e.g death). Indeed , it is totally nonsense. Thus, Protestant Christians do not mention  the resurrection when they peach the gospel

In the above messsage, is Christ's resurrection necessary for our salvation or are we saved by virtue of the fact that Christ is punished on the cross instead of us so there is no longer a need to punish us regardless of whether or not Christ is raised from the dead?

Yes, to Protestant, "Resurrection of Jesus" only showed His  glory, nothing to do with our salvation.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2012, 02:40:00 PM by walter1234 » Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #85 on: November 11, 2012, 05:58:44 PM »

Yes, to Protestant, "Resurrection of Jesus" only showed His  glory, nothing to do with our salvation.

Are you or have you ever been a Protestant?
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 913


« Reply #86 on: November 11, 2012, 09:15:38 PM »

Yes, to Protestant, "Resurrection of Jesus" only showed His  glory, nothing to do with our salvation.

Are you or have you ever been a Protestant?

I am Protestant now, but consider to convert to Orthodox. Protestant's 'God' is a dictator, ganster, murder ( who even kills His innocent and only begotten son) ,torturer ( who hates,burns and tortures His enemies forever)!
« Last Edit: November 11, 2012, 09:40:04 PM by walter1234 » Logged
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 913


« Reply #87 on: November 17, 2012, 08:39:48 AM »

It's more the absence of the resurrection than anything else that bothers me about the penal substitution that is commonly taught by Protestants.

You have (in my view) picked up on something important here. I have long said that we Evangelicals put far too little emphasis on the victory of Christ's Resurrection. I am not saying for a moment that we should emphasise the penal substitution less, but I believe our week-by-week preaching and hymn-singing have an imbalance between these two true themes. We need to read Aulen's Christus Victor.

I do attempt to rectify the balance in some measure in my own preaching and teaching.
I don't know how Protestant can emphasis the victory of Christ's Resurrection with its false teaching of ' Sin and death'. As what I mentioned before, Protestant teaches that death is the punishment of God rathan than the natural consequence after men sin. Then, "Resurrection of Christ" did not only destroy death , but also imply that Jesus defeated God and God's punishment. On the other word. Jesus is more powerful than God.

Jesus defeated God/ the punishment of God through His Resurrection  . It is absolutely nonsense.  I wonder how you can emphasis ' Resurrection of Christ " with Protestant's false teaching of 'Sin and Death'.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2012, 09:05:45 AM by walter1234 » Logged
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #88 on: November 17, 2012, 09:47:26 AM »

...also imply that Jesus defeated God and God's punishment. .... It is absolutely nonsense.

It is indeed: except that that's not what we say. We say he took our punishment. "With his stripes we are healed."
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 913


« Reply #89 on: November 17, 2012, 10:07:25 AM »

It's more the absence of the resurrection than anything else that bothers me about the penal substitution that is commonly taught by Protestants.

You have (in my view) picked up on something important here. I have long said that we Evangelicals put far too little emphasis on the victory of Christ's Resurrection. I am not saying for a moment that we should emphasise the penal substitution less, but I believe our week-by-week preaching and hymn-singing have an imbalance between these two true themes. We need to read Aulen's Christus Victor.

I do attempt to rectify the balance in some measure in my own preaching and teaching.
Most Protestant Christians just avoid the victory of Christ's Resurrection because they cannot reconile that with their teaching of 'Sin and Death' and 'penal substituion '.

However, You also said and agreed that Protestant put far too little emphasis on the victory of Christ's Resurrection. Then, I am really very interested that how you can reconcile the victory of Christ 's Resurrection with Protestant's teaching of 'SIN and Death' and 'penal substitution'. Can you explain it to me?

You cannot just avoid it, like most Protestant Christians.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2012, 10:34:44 AM by walter1234 » Logged
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #90 on: November 17, 2012, 11:21:47 AM »

Can you explain it to me?

Yes. But please ask me again in a week's time, as I must whizz off to Winchester for several days and shall have no Internet access. I await a reminder from you then. Sorry.
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
Happy Lutheran
Servant of Christ
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Lutheran
Posts: 256



« Reply #91 on: November 17, 2012, 06:01:11 PM »

Honest question, since Jesus had to tell his Apostles and Disciples parables to relay simple messages does anyone really think they have the only possible correct answer to such a question? We know through his death and Reserection Christ defeated death and sin for us but it doesn't seem to discuss some deep theological reasons us humans like to present it as.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2012, 06:02:02 PM by Happy Lutheran » Logged

1 Corinthians 1:27 - But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,491



« Reply #92 on: November 17, 2012, 06:10:58 PM »

Honest question, since Jesus had to tell his Apostles and Disciples parables to relay simple messages does anyone really think they have the only possible correct answer to such a question? We know through his death and Reserection Christ defeated death and sin for us but it doesn't seem to discuss some deep theological reasons us humans like to present it as.

I think people think most parables are more simple than what they are.

And Jesus said He wasn't using parables to get some message across but quite the opposite.

If I remember the animated Bible series correctly I once watched on youtube.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Happy Lutheran
Servant of Christ
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Lutheran
Posts: 256



« Reply #93 on: November 17, 2012, 06:36:34 PM »

Honest question, since Jesus had to tell his Apostles and Disciples parables to relay simple messages does anyone really think they have the only possible correct answer to such a question? We know through his death and Reserection Christ defeated death and sin for us but it doesn't seem to discuss some deep theological reasons us humans like to present it as.

I think people think most parables are more simple than what they are.

And Jesus said He wasn't using parables to get some message across but quite the opposite.

If I remember the animated Bible series correctly I once watched on youtube.

I agree with the first point, I probably didn't state that right. To the second point I think he wanted people to think and its pretty clear there are messages in the parables he was trying to get across. He also wanted to seperate the true believers from those just interested in the crowds and not the message. Thanks
Logged

1 Corinthians 1:27 - But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #94 on: November 17, 2012, 06:44:08 PM »

How was the man on the cross next to Jesus saved, since he was not baptised, had communion or even worshipped?

 Luke 23:42 Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."
Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."

Baptized in blood, combined with a confession of faith and repentence. 
Logged
Ashman618
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukranian catholic
Jurisdiction: Philadelphia
Posts: 503



« Reply #95 on: November 17, 2012, 09:07:34 PM »

What does baptised in blood mean?
Logged
Sinful Hypocrite
Everyday I am critical of others. Every day I make similar mistakes. Every day I am a hypocrite.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: "The Orthodox Church" by Bishop Kallistos Ware: "We know where the Church is but we cannot be sure where it is not; and so we must refrain from passing judgment on non-Orthodox Christians."
Posts: 1,663


Great googly moogly!


« Reply #96 on: November 17, 2012, 09:46:11 PM »

Quote
How was the man on the cross next to Jesus saved, since he was not baptised, had communion or even worshipped?
Jesus used his executive privilege Smiley

PP

Also fair to mention that the man next to Jesus on the Cross did not 'just have faith' as some Protestants claim, but also demonstrated works by defending Jesus against the slander spoken by the other man. To us it may not seem like a lot, but in his circumstances, it was the very most he could do.
Yes, But
The point of this thread ,I think, Is about how protestants are to be saved without receiving his body and blood through communion.
I have always tried to respect others ways, especially those who pray to Jesus as their Savior Such as all Christians in general.

Jesus also said all thing are possible with God, and only one sin would not be forgiven, so I try not to judge other faiths as long as they do as the thief on the cross next to Jesus .

Who are we to tell the farmer what he should pay? Grin Grin
Logged

The Lord gathers his sheep, I fear I am a goat. Lord have mercy.

"A Christian is someone who follows and worships a perfectly good God who revealed his true face through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.“
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 913


« Reply #97 on: November 18, 2012, 04:15:43 AM »

Honest question, since Jesus had to tell his Apostles and Disciples parables to relay simple messages does anyone really think they have the only possible correct answer to such a question? We know through his death and Reserection Christ defeated death and sin for us but it doesn't seem to discuss some deep theological reasons us humans like to present it as.

Until now,no Protestant Christians can reconcile the victory of the Rescurrection of Christ with their false teaching of "Sin and Death" and "Penal substitution"

As we know, Jesus defeated the death through his death and His Resurrection. Happy Luther and David Young also agree with it .

However,according to Protestant 's teaching , death is the punisment of God  after men sin. Then, through the "Resurrection of Christ", Christ did not only defeat the death, but also implies that He defeated God and God's punishment.On the other word.Jesus is more powerful than God.Indeed,it is absolutely nonsense.

By comparing it with the Orthodoxy, Orthodox Church teach that  death is a natural consequence after men sin. God is life. Sin is the separation of God who is life .The more we sin ,the more we are far away from God who is life , the more we are close to death. Death is the natural consequence of men's sin. Sin is sickness to be healed , not a crime to be punished. And the Incarnation and Rescurration of Christ is  to heal the wound men make, to heal what is really broken, and to cast out the death. This is much more sensiable.

Protestant 's teaching just contradict with each other. They believe that Death is the punishment of God and Jesus defeated the death through His Rescurrection. However, they cannot mention anything about the Resurrection of Christ when they preach the gospel. Because the Rescurrection of Christ just implied that Jesus defeated God and God's punishment(e.g. death) , and also implied that He is more powerful than God.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2012, 04:41:11 AM by walter1234 » Logged
Happy Lutheran
Servant of Christ
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Lutheran
Posts: 256



« Reply #98 on: November 18, 2012, 09:06:26 AM »

Honest question, since Jesus had to tell his Apostles and Disciples parables to relay simple messages does anyone really think they have the only possible correct answer to such a question? We know through his death and Reserection Christ defeated death and sin for us but it doesn't seem to discuss some deep theological reasons us humans like to present it as.

Until now,no Protestant Christians can reconcile the victory of the Rescurrection of Christ with their false teaching of "Sin and Death" and "Penal substitution"

As we know, Jesus defeated the death through his death and His Resurrection. Happy Luther and David Young also agree with it .

However,according to Protestant 's teaching , death is the punisment of God  after men sin. Then, through the "Resurrection of Christ", Christ did not only defeat the death, but also implies that He defeated God and God's punishment.On the other word.Jesus is more powerful than God.Indeed,it is absolutely nonsense.

I think you're being too broad in your generalization. Saying that most Lutherans consider themselves Evangelical Catholics not Protestant.
Logged

1 Corinthians 1:27 - But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 913


« Reply #99 on: November 18, 2012, 09:22:48 AM »

Honest question, since Jesus had to tell his Apostles and Disciples parables to relay simple messages does anyone really think they have the only possible correct answer to such a question? We know through his death and Reserection Christ defeated death and sin for us but it doesn't seem to discuss some deep theological reasons us humans like to present it as.

Until now,no Protestant Christians can reconcile the victory of the Rescurrection of Christ with their false teaching of "Sin and Death" and "Penal substitution"

As we know, Jesus defeated the death through his death and His Resurrection. Happy Luther and David Young also agree with it .

However,according to Protestant 's teaching , death is the punisment of God  after men sin. Then, through the "Resurrection of Christ", Christ did not only defeat the death, but also implies that He defeated God and God's punishment.On the other word.Jesus is more powerful than God.Indeed,it is absolutely nonsense.

I think you're being too broad in your generalization. Saying that most Lutherans consider themselves Evangelical Catholics not Protestant.
'Rescurrection of Christ' is one of the most important parts in the Gospel. If you totally ignore the Rescurrection of Christ.It is not sensible.You are also preaching an imcomplete and fragmentary gospel.

If you include the "Rescurrection of Christ" in the gospel,you imply that Jesus defeat God and God's punishment (e.g. death). You also imply that God and Jesus conflict with each other, and Jesus is more powerful than God.It must be nonsense again. You cannot reconcile 'Rescurrection with Christ' with the false teaching of Protestant's teaching of "Sin and Death" and "Penal Substitution".  

No matter you include the Rescurrection of Christ in the Gospel that Protestant preaches or not, the Gospel is still nonsense.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2012, 09:44:34 AM by walter1234 » Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #100 on: November 18, 2012, 10:05:18 PM »

He defeated God and God's punishment.On the other word.Jesus is more powerful than God.

I'm going to be honest. You're the only person that I can recall ever putting it in these words. I used to be Protestant. I have a Protestant friend who runs a local foodbank that I attend his bible studies every once in a while, sometimes when he has pastors fom other Protestant churches speak. I asked one of the other pastors that was speaking there this question once, and his response that it was simply a sign of his divinity and that he was the Messiah and to show us what we will be like in the general resurrection. I have never heard anyone else put the resurrection in terms of Jesus defeating God.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 913


« Reply #101 on: November 19, 2012, 05:25:17 AM »

He defeated God and God's punishment.On the other word.Jesus is more powerful than God.

I'm going to be honest. You're the only person that I can recall ever putting it in these words. I used to be Protestant. I have a Protestant friend who runs a local foodbank that I attend his bible studies every once in a while, sometimes when he has pastors fom other Protestant churches speak. I asked one of the other pastors that was speaking there this question once, and his response that it was simply a sign of his divinity and that he was the Messiah and to show us what we will be like in the general resurrection. I have never heard anyone else put the resurrection in terms of Jesus defeating God.

This is one of the most common answer I heard from Protestant.Some Protestant Christians also say that The Rescurrction of Christ is just to show His glory. However,All these answers just imply that "Rescurrection of Christ" has nothing much to do with our salvation,as He can still save us and accomplish the salvation without His Rescurrection.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2012, 05:35:31 AM by walter1234 » Logged
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 913


« Reply #102 on: November 19, 2012, 09:05:38 AM »

Moreover, One side of God who is Father wanted to punish all men and torture them forever. The other side of God who is Jesus  tried to save them from Father's horrible punishment and torments. Jesus and Father just conflicted with each other.There is no unity within the Trinity as well.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2012, 09:07:44 AM by walter1234 » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,969


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #103 on: November 19, 2012, 11:21:06 AM »

Moreover, One side of God who is Father wanted to punish all men and torture them forever. The other side of God who is Jesus  tried to save them from Father's horrible punishment and torments. Jesus and Father just conflicted with each other.There is no unity within the Trinity as well.
I was a Protestant for 25 years and never heard anything quite like what you share with us.
Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,491



« Reply #104 on: November 19, 2012, 01:00:35 PM »

Moreover, One side of God who is Father wanted to punish all men and torture them forever. The other side of God who is Jesus  tried to save them from Father's horrible punishment and torments. Jesus and Father just conflicted with each other.There is no unity within the Trinity as well.
I was a Protestant for 25 years and never heard anything quite like what you share with us.

I could be wrong, but I think Walter here is suggesting what a sorta weird conclusions one might be able to draw from strands of Protestant theology.

This goes to the quote Melodist took issue with.

ESL could be getting in the way here.

At least this is how I understood his posts.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #105 on: November 19, 2012, 04:38:39 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

...also imply that Jesus defeated God and God's punishment. .... It is absolutely nonsense.

It is indeed: except that that's not what we say. We say he took our punishment. "With his stripes we are healed."


Could you elaborate on that please, I am very interested in your interpretation of 1 Peter 2 Smiley


stay blessed,
habte selassie
Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 913


« Reply #106 on: November 20, 2012, 07:12:23 AM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

...also imply that Jesus defeated God and God's punishment. .... It is absolutely nonsense.

It is indeed: except that that's not what we say. We say he took our punishment. "With his stripes we are healed."


Could you elaborate on that please, I am very interested in your interpretation of 1 Peter 2 Smiley


stay blessed,
habte selassie
You mean 1 Peter chapter 2  ?
Logged
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #107 on: November 23, 2012, 10:14:51 AM »

I am really very interested that how you can reconcile the victory of Christ 's Resurrection with Protestant's teaching of 'SIN and Death' and 'penal substitution'. Can you explain it to me?

I would explain it like this: that the overall event of Christ's death and resurrection achieved more than one thing: it dealt with the problem of our guilt (penal substitution), and it also conquered death ("Christus victor"). These two achievements are not contradictory, and by dying and rising again he did them both.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2012, 10:15:16 AM by David Young » Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 913


« Reply #108 on: November 23, 2012, 10:33:53 AM »

I am really very interested that how you can reconcile the victory of Christ 's Resurrection with Protestant's teaching of 'SIN and Death' and 'penal substitution'. Can you explain it to me?

I would explain it like this: that the overall event of Christ's death and resurrection achieved more than one thing: it dealt with the problem of our guilt (penal substitution), and it also conquered death ("Christus victor"). These two achievements are not contradictory, and by dying and rising again he did them both.

The main problem is that Protestant teaches that death is the punishment of God rather than natural consequence after men sin. Then, through the Rescurrection of Christ,Jesus did not only defeat the death, but also imply that Jesus defeated God and God's punishment(e.g.death) .On the other word,Jesus is more powerful than God.
Jesus defeated God/ the punishment of God through His Resurrection .Indeed, it is absolutely nonsense.

Moreover, in the penal substitution, one side of God who is Father wanted to punish all men and torture them forever.The other side of God who is Jesus  tried to stop the Father and save men from His horrible punishment and torments. Jesus and Father just conflicted with each other.There is no unity within the Trinity as well.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2012, 10:54:20 AM by walter1234 » Logged
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #109 on: November 23, 2012, 03:19:37 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!



The main problem is that Protestant teaches that death is the punishment of God rather than natural consequence after men sin.

Walter, are you really a cradle Orthodox trolling around as a recovering Protestant? Sometimes your analysis is so spot on, I think either (a) you have just been messing with us or (b) the Holy Spirit is truly more Mysterious than Rey Mysterio Jr Wink



I am really very interested that how you can reconcile the victory of Christ 's Resurrection with Protestant's teaching of 'SIN and Death' and 'penal substitution'. Can you explain it to me?

I would explain it like this: that the overall event of Christ's death and resurrection achieved more than one thing: it dealt with the problem of our guilt (penal substitution), and it also conquered death ("Christus victor"). These two achievements are not contradictory, and by dying and rising again he did them both.

So again, do you read Penal Substitution into the 1 Peter chapter 2 verses which you quoted?


Also could you elaborate a bit further on the ontology of Penal Substitution? So is it mechanical? Like, God has a specified amount of wrath determined metrically by the the Law and Sin, and so Christ exhausts God's wrath in this mechanical sense? Or is it deeper?  I am trying to wrap my head around this idea, but even from my Baptist background it feels foreign to me.

stay blessed,
habte selassie

« Last Edit: November 23, 2012, 03:23:10 PM by HabteSelassie » Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #110 on: November 23, 2012, 03:53:29 PM »

Also could you elaborate a bit further on the ontology of Penal Substitution? So is it mechanical?

Put it like this: justification is something God does for us; the new birth and sanctification are among what he does in us.
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #111 on: November 23, 2012, 04:08:46 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Also could you elaborate a bit further on the ontology of Penal Substitution? So is it mechanical?

Put it like this: justification is something God does for us;

Please forgive me but you're talking in circles.  What is this does in verb sense? What is God doing exactly in the context of Substitution? Again, is God exhausting His own wrath in a very  mechanical sense (i.e. God has a set amount of wrath determined by Law and He exercises this wrath against Jesus Christ in His Flesh)?

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #112 on: November 23, 2012, 04:15:23 PM »

What is this does in verb sense? What is God doing exactly

Remitting the sinner's guilt and punishment, as Christ took the sinner's sin upon himself and died in our place. I can understand someone disagreeing with the doctrine, but I do not think it is hard to understand.
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #113 on: November 23, 2012, 04:33:56 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

What is this does in verb sense? What is God doing exactly

Remitting the sinner's guilt and punishment, as Christ took the sinner's sin upon himself and died in our place. I can understand someone disagreeing with the doctrine, but I do not think it is hard to understand.

How does God remit guilt and punishment? Again, through exhausting in a mechanical sense His own wrath on Jesus' body on the Cross?  Is Jesus being literally punished on our behalf? See, let me explain our Orthodox approach so you can understand my confusion.  In Orthodox ontology, God's punishment for sin is not necessarily direct or personal, it is almost mechanical.  Sin distorts human nature, like a wound or injury to the spiritual body, and like all wounds, if left untreated can either bleed to death or get infected towards death.  When Christ became Incarnate, He began the process of restoring Human Nature by Grace (mechanically so to speak). 

Think of Sin as like a cancer, which has negatively impacts the spiritual DNA of human nature.  Like all cancers and DNA damage, inevitably this leads to damage and death.  By Grace, Jesus Christ like our cosmic immunoresponse, not only attacks the cancer growth (i.e. the actions of sin) but also the damage caused (i.e. restores the spiritual DNA to its original state of perfection).  If a person smokes tobacco, they expose themselves to dangerous chemicals which damage the body and lead to pain, injury, and even death.  When a person sins, they expose themselves to the same spiritual harm.  When we are exposed to Grace, we are healed of these wounds.  It isn't exactly an instant becoming, rather, like all matters of the body, a gradual process.

So on the Cross, Jesus Christ was not directly or personally bearing any one person's punishment for Sin (i.e. the wrath of God) rather was experiencing that same ontological reality which humans have experienced since sin and death marred our spiritual DNA (e.g. our human nature).  God's wrath is not personal, it is mechanical.  It is a natural consequence of what our sins accumulate as spiritual damage to our bodies (both physical and spiritual).  Jesus Christ restores the damage, not necessarily by bearing God's punishment in our place, rather, but experiencing the natural consequence of sin (i.e. the punishment) so that by His Grace He sanctified death and suffering, so that we can now be restored by Grace.  We are not dodging a rightfully due punishment, rather we are in a very real and eternal way healed.  So there is no call for wrath or judgement in the first place! It'd be like needing chemotherapy for cancer after the body has already been healed. 

So in our ontology, what God is doing in the mechanical sense is restoring human nature, not necessarily bearing our punishment so that we are not punished.  We would still inevitably need to be punished as a natural consequence of the wounds of sin.  Rather, God then restored and healed us of these wounds so that naturally speaking, there is no consequence because there is no longer any wounds to speak of.

In the ontology of Penal Substitution, it seems that God has a set and determined amount of wrath as a punishment in the vindictive or personal sense for sins committed by people.  Since we can't bear this punishment without being vindictively destroyed, God attacked Jesus Christ with this set amount of wrath and Jesus Christ being God Himself was able to bear the attack.  Sort of like God being angry at the world and punching Himself in the face instead to vent His anger.. Is that a correct interpretation? If not, could you please elaborate further for me? I hope by explaining my position you can better understand exactly what I am questioning.

stay blessed,
habte selassie

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #114 on: November 24, 2012, 05:57:23 AM »


How does God remit guilt and punishment?... in a mechanical sense His own wrath on Jesus' body on the Cross?

I find the word 'mechanical' impossible to fit together with God's love and compassion. A reading of the closing sections of the Book of Hosea reveals more of the heart of God than perhaps any other passage in scripture, and leaves us in no doubt of the warm cordial love he has towards us. "Mechanical" just doesn't fit there at all.

Quote
 Is Jesus being literally punished on our behalf?

I am happy to believe and preach that, but if you wish to withdraw the word "literally" and regard it as a way God uses to help us to grasp enough of what Christ wrought in order to redeem us, I shall not strive for a word. What matters most is to trust it, not to penetrate its divine workings between Father and Son.

Quote
God's punishment for sin is not necessarily direct or personal,... Think of Sin as like a cancer, which has negatively impacts the spiritual DNA of human nature.  

Be all that as it may, once the individual sinner believes and trusts what happened, it becomes personal for him, and he can speak of "the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me."

Quote
God's wrath is not personal,

It is hard to see how his love can be personal, but his wrath impersonal.

Quote
In the ontology of Penal Substitution, it seems that God has a set and determined amount of wrath as a punishment in the vindictive or personal sense for sins committed by people.  

He has: the determined amount is death.

Quote
Since we can't bear this punishment without being vindictively destroyed, God attacked Jesus Christ with this set amount of wrath and Jesus Christ being God Himself was able to bear the attack.

That must be the oddest way I've ever come across of having it explained, and I would certainly remove the word "vindictive" in reference to God.

Quote
Sort of like God being angry at the world and punching Himself in the face instead to vent His anger.. Is that a correct interpretation?

No. I think you are here peering too deeply into the mystery of the Holy Trinity.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2012, 05:59:12 AM by David Young » Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 913


« Reply #115 on: November 24, 2012, 08:33:34 AM »


Quote
In the ontology of Penal Substitution, it seems that God has a set and determined amount of wrath as a punishment in the vindictive or personal sense for sins committed by people.  

He has: the determined amount is death.


No,this is not the teaching of Protestant . According to Protestant's teaching, the determine amount  is     'Be hated, revenged,abandoned, insulted, rejected,tortured by God foreover'.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2012, 09:01:15 AM by walter1234 » Logged
neon_knights
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 513


My political hero.


« Reply #116 on: November 26, 2012, 04:31:15 PM »


Quote
In the ontology of Penal Substitution, it seems that God has a set and determined amount of wrath as a punishment in the vindictive or personal sense for sins committed by people.  

He has: the determined amount is death.


No,this is not the teaching of Protestant . According to Protestant's teaching, the determine amount  is     'Be hated, revenged,abandoned, insulted, rejected,tortured by God foreover'.

I think Rev. David knows a little bit more about what his religion teaches than you do.
« Last Edit: November 26, 2012, 04:31:35 PM by neon_knights » Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,703



« Reply #117 on: November 26, 2012, 05:50:17 PM »

If I may interject, Protestants are of different minds. Consequently, we should qualify our assertions and understandings by referring to a particular denomination. And, even in some denominations, there are differences; just look at the Anglican Communion.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,491



« Reply #118 on: November 26, 2012, 07:16:56 PM »

If I may interject, Protestants are of different minds. Consequently, we should qualify our assertions and understandings by referring to a particular denomination. And, even in some denominations, there are differences; just look at the Anglican Communion.

You can say that again.

Heck, David Young is a Baptist and he is a far cry from what I grew up with.

Although I don't find his explanations here very helpful or even carrying much meaning, I almost always find his posts quite illuminating and I wonder what life would've been like growing with a man like him as a Baptist minister.

And his brilliance is also part of the argument against Protestantism.

As much as we can argue here about Orthodoxy, it surely is quite more inline and less uneven than Protestantism, even if we confine ourselves to "Baptists".

Oh well.
« Last Edit: November 26, 2012, 07:17:27 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Chalcedonian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,261



« Reply #119 on: November 26, 2012, 11:17:03 PM »

If I may interject, Protestants are of different minds. Consequently, we should qualify our assertions and understandings by referring to a particular denomination. And, even in some denominations, there are differences; just look at the Anglican Communion.

Agreed, and a much needed reminder for many people, myself included at times.
Logged
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #120 on: November 27, 2012, 04:03:56 AM »

his brilliance is also part of the argument against Protestantism.

You flatter me! Keep it coming!

Can you enlarge upon this sentence? I am fascinated.
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 913


« Reply #121 on: November 27, 2012, 07:42:59 AM »


Quote
In the ontology of Penal Substitution, it seems that God has a set and determined amount of wrath as a punishment in the vindictive or personal sense for sins committed by people.  

He has: the determined amount is death.


No,this is not the teaching of Protestant . According to Protestant's teaching, the determine amount  is     'Be hated, revenged,abandoned, insulted, rejected,tortured by God foreover'.

I think Rev. David knows a little bit more about what his religion teaches than you do.

I don't think so. I come from Charismatic while David Young come from Baptism.

Do Baptism teach anything about 'speak in tongue'?Do Baptism teach its members how to listen the voice of Holy Spirit? Do Baptism teach 'slain in spirit' ? Do Baptism have the same understand of '' baptised in Spirit' with Charismatic? Do Baptism teachi 'faith healing'?Do Baptism teach anything about the miracles( I know some baptism Church teaches that miralces has been creased after first generation)? Do baptism teach anything about lay hands on one another....

Quote

David Young ,Do you believe all these hell and heaven visitation testimony from Charistmatic and Pentecostal? According to these testimonies,the determined amount of wrath as a punishment  is ' Be abandoned by God and to demons and tortured by demons'.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2012, 07:50:56 AM by walter1234 » Logged
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 913


« Reply #122 on: November 27, 2012, 08:24:23 AM »

Quote

Quite a lot of Charismatic and Pentecostal Church, including my church, International house of prayer believe these heaven and hell visitation testimonies .

TO  part of protestantism , the demetermine amount of God's wrath as a punishment is not ' Death' , but ' Be abandoned to the demons and tortured by the demons'.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2012, 08:42:16 AM by walter1234 » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,969


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #123 on: November 27, 2012, 11:10:07 AM »


Quote
In the ontology of Penal Substitution, it seems that God has a set and determined amount of wrath as a punishment in the vindictive or personal sense for sins committed by people.  

He has: the determined amount is death.


No,this is not the teaching of Protestant . According to Protestant's teaching, the determine amount  is     'Be hated, revenged,abandoned, insulted, rejected,tortured by God foreover'.

I think Rev. David knows a little bit more about what his religion teaches than you do.

I don't think so. I come from Charismatic while David Young come from Baptism.

Do Baptism teach anything about 'speak in tongue'?Do Baptism teach its members how to listen the voice of Holy Spirit? Do Baptism teach 'slain in spirit' ? Do Baptism have the same understand of '' baptised in Spirit' with Charismatic? Do Baptism teachi 'faith healing'?Do Baptism teach anything about the miracles( I know some baptism Church teaches that miralces has been creased after first generation)? Do baptism teach anything about lay hands on one another....

Quote

David Young ,Do you believe all these hell and heaven visitation testimony from Charistmatic and Pentecostal? According to these testimonies,the determined amount of wrath as a punishment  is ' Be abandoned by God and to demons and tortured by demons'.
But when you say, "That's not what Protestants teach," you assert that there's only one Protestant body of teaching, that ALL true Protestants teach as those in your charismatic, Pentecostal background teach. By saying, "That's not what Protestants teach," you say that what David teaches is not Protestant teaching because it's not Pentecostal. I know from my own experience that there's no one clear body of Protestant teaching, such that you can say, "That's not what Protestants teach."
Logged
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 913


« Reply #124 on: November 27, 2012, 11:17:08 AM »


Quote
In the ontology of Penal Substitution, it seems that God has a set and determined amount of wrath as a punishment in the vindictive or personal sense for sins committed by people.  

He has: the determined amount is death.


No,this is not the teaching of Protestant . According to Protestant's teaching, the determine amount  is     'Be hated, revenged,abandoned, insulted, rejected,tortured by God foreover'.

I think Rev. David knows a little bit more about what his religion teaches than you do.

I don't think so. I come from Charismatic while David Young come from Baptism.

Do Baptism teach anything about 'speak in tongue'?Do Baptism teach its members how to listen the voice of Holy Spirit? Do Baptism teach 'slain in spirit' ? Do Baptism have the same understand of '' baptised in Spirit' with Charismatic? Do Baptism teachi 'faith healing'?Do Baptism teach anything about the miracles( I know some baptism Church teaches that miralces has been creased after first generation)? Do baptism teach anything about lay hands on one another....

Quote

David Young ,Do you believe all these hell and heaven visitation testimony from Charistmatic and Pentecostal? According to these testimonies,the determined amount of wrath as a punishment  is ' Be abandoned by God and to demons and tortured by demons'.
But when you say, "That's not what Protestants teach," you assert that there's only one Protestant body of teaching, that ALL true Protestants teach as those in your charismatic, Pentecostal background teach. By saying, "That's not what Protestants teach," you say that what David teaches is not Protestant teaching because it's not Pentecostal. I know from my own experience that there's no one clear body of Protestant teaching, such that you can say, "That's not what Protestants teach."
You can say in this way. It is hardly to defind what Protestant really teaches. Because different denomination teach different things. Not just various denominations  teach different things. Different protestant scholars also teach different things.


Many scholars in Protestant , like John piper , even develop his own theology,e.g. Christian Hedonism and his private interpretation of ' justification', which cannot be found in any Protestant denomination  and Protestant History.

Not only John Jiper does this. I remember that one Famous scholar, who is called Joyce Meyer, forms a new Gospel and new 'penal substitution". She teaches that Jesus descended into hell and tortured by the fires in hell, so the believers do not need to suffer the hell punishment. In her book, She even said that  if men do not believe this fact,(e.g Jesus  descended into hell and tortured by the fires in hell), they cannot be saved.

Many Famous scholars in Protestant like to form his/ her new theologies and teaching which cannot be found in any Protestant denomination  and Protestant History. They just interpret the scriptures privately and according to the way, will and approach they like.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2012, 11:39:27 AM by walter1234 » Logged
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #125 on: November 27, 2012, 11:39:19 AM »

Do Baptism teach anything about 'speak in tongue'?... how to listen the voice of Holy Spirit?... 'slain in spirit' ? ... the same understand of '' baptised in Spirit' with Charismatic?... 'faith healing'?... the miracles...  lay hands on one another....
... hell and heaven visitation testimony

To begin at the end, I am not clear what you mean by heaven and hell visitations. Do you mean what are sometimes called "near death experiences"? Or do you mean supernatural visions and experiences?

In re the others, you forget the nature of our Faith: there are non-negotiable essentials (including of course the three major creeds: though we seldom recite them, we believe what they contain); and there are matters on which we differ, which are not essential to being a Christian. These include speaking in tongues, divine healing, present-day miracles, the laying-on of hands.

We do not practise the laying-on of hands for receiving the Holy Spirit, though doubtless some do, but would not, I think, imagine it to be the only way a person can receive Him; some practise it for commission to a particular service (such as the ministry), some for healing (perhaps with the anointing of oil as in James). Most Baptists would not accept the Pentecostal second-blessing teaching regarding the Holy Spirit, though I think most if not all would accept that God does sometimes choose to fill a believer instantaneously and wonderfully with the Spirit: He deals differently with each of his children. Speaking in tongues is not often spoken about, though some Baptist churches have 'gone charismatic' and there it is more openly practised. Mostly I have little if any idea whether my fellow believers speak in tongues or not, as it would probably be kept to private devotions; it is not practised openly in church except among those who have accepted Charismatic teaching on this. Likewise, the concept of being 'slain in the Spirit' is alien to us, but as it happened at least as far back as the 1730s, I doubt many would categorically say it is never of the Lord. Finally, you ask about listening to or for the voice of the Spirit. This has always been an important element of personal piety in our circles, but there have arisen some extremists who take 'sola scriptura' so far that they say God never speaks to his children except through the written Word. This is not, as far as I know, a widespread stance - and behold! I am told it came over in the second half of the 20th century from America Wink
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 913


« Reply #126 on: November 27, 2012, 11:44:30 AM »

Do Baptism teach anything about 'speak in tongue'?... how to listen the voice of Holy Spirit?... 'slain in spirit' ? ... the same understand of '' baptised in Spirit' with Charismatic?... 'faith healing'?... the miracles...  lay hands on one another....
... hell and heaven visitation testimony

To begin at the end, I am not clear what you mean by heaven and hell visitations. Do you mean what are sometimes called "near death experiences"? Or do you mean supernatural visions and experiences?

In re the others, you forget the nature of our Faith: there are non-negotiable essentials (including of course the three major creeds: though we seldom recite them, we believe what they contain); and there are matters on which we differ, which are not essential to being a Christian. These include speaking in tongues, divine healing, present-day miracles, the laying-on of hands.

We do not practise the laying-on of hands for receiving the Holy Spirit, though doubtless some do, but would not, I think, imagine it to be the only way a person can receive Him; some practise it for commission to a particular service (such as the ministry), some for healing (perhaps with the anointing of oil as in James). Most Baptists would not accept the Pentecostal second-blessing teaching regarding the Holy Spirit, though I think most if not all would accept that God does sometimes choose to fill a believer instantaneously and wonderfully with the Spirit: He deals differently with each of his children. Speaking in tongues is not often spoken about, though some Baptist churches have 'gone charismatic' and there it is more openly practised. Mostly I have little if any idea whether my fellow believers speak in tongues or not, as it would probably be kept to private devotions; it is not practised openly in church except among those who have accepted Charismatic teaching on this. Likewise, the concept of being 'slain in the Spirit' is alien to us, but as it happened at least as far back as the 1730s, I doubt many would categorically say it is never of the Lord. Finally, you ask about listening to or for the voice of the Spirit. This has always been an important element of personal piety in our circles, but there have arisen some extremists who take 'sola scriptura' so far that they say God never speaks to his children except through the written Word. This is not, as far as I know, a widespread stance - and behold! I am told it came over in the second half of the 20th century from America Wink
Hell and heaven visitation testimonies is that some people claim that Jesus led them to visit hell, and they saw that the unbelivers' are being tortured by the demons in hell, like Bill Wiese. These testimonies were accepted by many Charismatic and pentecostal Church. ( So, their understand of determined amount of wrath as a punishment is not "death" , but ' Be abandoned to the demons and tortured by the demons'.   laugh)

'Speak in tongue', listen the voice of Holy Spirit, Pray more specifically to Holy spirt, miracles,faith healing, prosperity gospel are not the trend of Baptism. Most of Baptism Church also against them and even claim these as heresy. I come from the Charismatic Church, so I know what is happening.Somebody from other denominations in Protestant also criticized me before several times
« Last Edit: November 27, 2012, 12:13:01 PM by walter1234 » Logged
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #127 on: November 27, 2012, 12:31:04 PM »

Hell and heaven visitation testimonies is that some people claim that Jesus led them to visit hell,...

prosperity gospel are not the trend of Baptism.

Most of Baptism Church also against them and even claim these as heresy.

I had never heard of such "visitation testimonies". I think most of us view view them with serious suspicion and caution.

The 'prosperity gospel' is definitely regarded as a twisted innovation to be rejected.

As regards the other matters, I think American (and Irish) Christians tend to be more hard-line concerning their own distinctives, but we English have also produced our own hard-liners.
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 913


« Reply #128 on: November 27, 2012, 12:33:12 PM »

Hell and heaven visitation testimonies is that some people claim that Jesus led them to visit hell,...

prosperity gospel are not the trend of Baptism.

Most of Baptism Church also against them and even claim these as heresy.

I had never heard of such "visitation testimonies". I think most of us view view them with serious suspicion and caution.

The 'prosperity gospel' is definitely regarded as a twisted innovation to be rejected.

As regards the other matters, I think American (and Irish) Christians tend to be more hard-line concerning their own distinctives, but we English have also produced our own hard-liners.

23 minutes in hell is one of the best example, a famous book which is written by bill wiese and promoted by I-Hop. Many Pentecostal and Charismatic Church accept his  testimonies. (So, their understand of determined amount of wrath as a punishment is not "death", but ' Be abandoned to the demons and tortured by the demons.  Grin   )
« Last Edit: November 27, 2012, 12:35:39 PM by walter1234 » Logged
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #129 on: November 27, 2012, 12:34:46 PM »

23 minutes in hell is one of the best example,

I have never heard of it, nor of Mr Wiese, but as people love sensational literature I dfare say it is on the shelves of shops which sell such books.
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 913


« Reply #130 on: November 27, 2012, 12:37:28 PM »

23 minutes in hell is one of the best example,

I have never heard of it, nor of Mr Wiese, but as people love sensational literature I dfare say it is on the shelves of shops which sell such books.

Quote
23 Minutes in Hell is a 2006 Christian book written by Bill Wiese and published by Charisma House.[1] The book is claimed to be non-fiction and recounts the author's alleged 23-minute-long experience in Hell in 1998.[1] The book and the underlying story within it are the topic of a series of speaking tours given by Wiese, predominantly to churches and other Christian organizations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/23_Minutes_in_Hell
It even can be found in Wikipedia, so famous.

Many Churches in Protestant do invite this guy to share his testimony. NOT Church in the Protestant view them with serious suspicion and caution. As the faith of Protestant denomination are not the same, so some accept and even highly promote these testimonies while some against it.
 
« Last Edit: November 27, 2012, 12:49:59 PM by walter1234 » Logged
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 913


« Reply #131 on: November 27, 2012, 12:57:48 PM »

Hell and heaven visitation testimonies is that some people claim that Jesus led them to visit hell,...

prosperity gospel are not the trend of Baptism.

Most of Baptism Church also against them and even claim these as heresy.

I had never heard of such "visitation testimonies". I think most of us view view them with serious suspicion and caution.

The 'prosperity gospel' is definitely regarded as a twisted innovation to be rejected.

As regards the other matters, I think American (and Irish) Christians tend to be more hard-line concerning their own distinctives, but we English have also produced our own hard-liners.

Many Charismatic and pentecostal do accept prosperity gospel, slain in spirit, hell visitation testimony.

Through the chatting with David Yong and me,We can see that  even in Baptism(e.g same denomination), the teachings are not the same. We can see that some Baptist Church do accept part of the Charistmatic and Pentecostal activites, but some oppose all activities in Charistmatic and Pentecostal. In Protestant, not only different denominations teach different things and have different faith. There are even various teachings and faith within the same denominations.

Moreover,different famous scholars often innovates different theologies , new 'truth', and new teachings,etc which is unknown to all Protestant denomination and Protestant history . Some Protestant Christians accept their newly innovated theologies , while some highly opposite.

All these can show clearly that what Protestant Christians speak here can only represent a very minor part of Protestantism. What protestant Christians speak here cannot even represent their own denominations.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2012, 01:22:45 PM by walter1234 » Logged
Happy Lutheran
Servant of Christ
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Lutheran
Posts: 256



« Reply #132 on: November 27, 2012, 03:11:52 PM »

I remember that one Famous scholar, who is called Joyce Meyer, forms a new Gospel and new 'penal substitution". She teaches that Jesus descended into hell and tortured by the fires in hell, so the believers do not need to suffer the hell punishment. In her book, She even said that  if men do not believe this fact,(e.g Jesus  descended into hell and tortured by the fires in hell), they cannot be saved.


I'm no expert on Joyce Meyer but that sems hard to believe. Do you have a source? I thought she was an alter call type of salvation preacher? Basically an accept Jesus in your heart and be saved messege is what I get out of her anytime I've seen or heard her.

If you are interested in the Lutheren view of the Charismatic movement here is a good youtube video by a young Lutheran Pastor:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcFFM2k9TYU
Logged

1 Corinthians 1:27 - But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong
Ashman618
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukranian catholic
Jurisdiction: Philadelphia
Posts: 503



« Reply #133 on: November 27, 2012, 03:44:59 PM »

I remember that one Famous scholar, who is called Joyce Meyer, forms a new Gospel and new 'penal substitution". She teaches that Jesus descended into hell and tortured by the fires in hell, so the believers do not need to suffer the hell punishment. In her book, She even said that  if men do not believe this fact,(e.g Jesus  descended into hell and tortured by the fires in hell), they cannot be saved.


I'm no expert on Joyce Meyer but that sems hard to believe. Do you have a source? I thought she was an alter call type of salvation preacher? Basically an accept Jesus in your heart and be saved messege is what I get out of her anytime I've seen or heard her.

If you are interested in the Lutheren view of the Charismatic movement here is a good youtube video by a young Lutheran Pastor:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcFFM2k9TYU

This video should come with one of those seizure warnings, I was truely intrested but I just could not finish it
Logged
neon_knights
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 513


My political hero.


« Reply #134 on: November 27, 2012, 04:11:51 PM »

I remember that one Famous scholar, who is called Joyce Meyer, forms a new Gospel and new 'penal substitution". She teaches that Jesus descended into hell and tortured by the fires in hell, so the believers do not need to suffer the hell punishment. In her book, She even said that  if men do not believe this fact,(e.g Jesus  descended into hell and tortured by the fires in hell), they cannot be saved.


I'm no expert on Joyce Meyer but that sems hard to believe. Do you have a source? I thought she was an alter call type of salvation preacher? Basically an accept Jesus in your heart and be saved messege is what I get out of her anytime I've seen or heard her.

If you are interested in the Lutheren view of the Charismatic movement here is a good youtube video by a young Lutheran Pastor:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcFFM2k9TYU

Read "Christianity in Crisis" by Hank Hanegraaf. Yes, these teachings are taught in the Word-of-Faith movement, of which Meyer is a part of.

Meyer is in no way a "scholar".
Logged
neon_knights
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 513


My political hero.


« Reply #135 on: November 27, 2012, 04:14:02 PM »

Hell and heaven visitation testimonies is that some people claim that Jesus led them to visit hell,...

prosperity gospel are not the trend of Baptism.

Most of Baptism Church also against them and even claim these as heresy.

I had never heard of such "visitation testimonies". I think most of us view view them with serious suspicion and caution.

The 'prosperity gospel' is definitely regarded as a twisted innovation to be rejected.

As regards the other matters, I think American (and Irish) Christians tend to be more hard-line concerning their own distinctives, but we English have also produced our own hard-liners.

Many Charismatic and pentecostal do accept prosperity gospel, slain in spirit, hell visitation testimony.

Through the chatting with David Yong and me,We can see that  even in Baptism(e.g same denomination), the teachings are not the same. We can see that some Baptist Church do accept part of the Charistmatic and Pentecostal activites, but some oppose all activities in Charistmatic and Pentecostal. In Protestant, not only different denominations teach different things and have different faith. There are even various teachings and faith within the same denominations.

Moreover,different famous scholars often innovates different theologies , new 'truth', and new teachings,etc which is unknown to all Protestant denomination and Protestant history . Some Protestant Christians accept their newly innovated theologies , while some highly opposite.

All these can show clearly that what Protestant Christians speak here can only represent a very minor part of Protestantism. What protestant Christians speak here cannot even represent their own denominations.

And you think that there are no differing opinions within the catholic communions? The Orthodox Church has this concept of "theologoumena", or pious opinions. Look it up.

Just to cite an example: Some Orthodox Christians believe in aerial toll houses. Others don't.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2012, 04:15:02 PM by neon_knights » Logged
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #136 on: November 27, 2012, 04:15:28 PM »

Hank Hanegraaf.

Yes; I have heard of him, read him (though I forget what  Sad), and am fairly sure he is deemed pukka.
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
Happy Lutheran
Servant of Christ
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Lutheran
Posts: 256



« Reply #137 on: November 27, 2012, 04:41:16 PM »



This video should come with one of those seizure warnings, I was truely intrested but I just could not finish it

Yeah, his style in his videos seems to be aimed at the younger crowd and can be too much at times but the information is good.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2012, 04:41:40 PM by Happy Lutheran » Logged

1 Corinthians 1:27 - But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 913


« Reply #138 on: November 27, 2012, 11:14:53 PM »

Hell and heaven visitation testimonies is that some people claim that Jesus led them to visit hell,...

prosperity gospel are not the trend of Baptism.

Most of Baptism Church also against them and even claim these as heresy.

I had never heard of such "visitation testimonies". I think most of us view view them with serious suspicion and caution.

The 'prosperity gospel' is definitely regarded as a twisted innovation to be rejected.

As regards the other matters, I think American (and Irish) Christians tend to be more hard-line concerning their own distinctives, but we English have also produced our own hard-liners.

Many Charismatic and pentecostal do accept prosperity gospel, slain in spirit, hell visitation testimony.

Through the chatting with David Yong and me,We can see that  even in Baptism(e.g same denomination), the teachings are not the same. We can see that some Baptist Church do accept part of the Charistmatic and Pentecostal activites, but some oppose all activities in Charistmatic and Pentecostal. In Protestant, not only different denominations teach different things and have different faith. There are even various teachings and faith within the same denominations.

Moreover,different famous scholars often innovates different theologies , new 'truth', and new teachings,etc which is unknown to all Protestant denomination and Protestant history . Some Protestant Christians accept their newly innovated theologies , while some highly opposite.

All these can show clearly that what Protestant Christians speak here can only represent a very minor part of Protestantism. What protestant Christians speak here cannot even represent their own denominations.

And you think that there are no differing opinions within the catholic communions? The Orthodox Church has this concept of "theologoumena", or pious opinions. Look it up.

Just to cite an example: Some Orthodox Christians believe in aerial toll houses. Others don't.
No.Most if the things I mentioned here about Pentecostal and Charismatic are not simply the opinion of Pentecostal and Charismatic.They are the FAITH of Pentecostal and Charismatic.They are also important or even main Doctrines  of Pentecostal and Charismatic.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2012, 11:23:04 PM by walter1234 » Logged
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 913


« Reply #139 on: November 28, 2012, 03:36:23 AM »

Correction:
Most if the things = Most of the things


Some Churches in Pentecostal believe in arminianism Some belie :police:ves in Calvinism.It is true that even  the Churches in the same Protestant denomination do not have the same faith.

It is also not good that the Protestant preachers and scholars keep innovating ' New truth' which cannot found in any Protestant history and Protestant denominations.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2012, 03:58:08 AM by walter1234 » Logged
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 913


« Reply #140 on: November 28, 2012, 03:43:40 AM »

I remember that one Famous scholar, who is called Joyce Meyer, forms a new Gospel and new 'penal substitution". She teaches that Jesus descended into hell and tortured by the fires in hell, so the believers do not need to suffer the hell punishment. In her book, She even said that  if men do not believe this fact,(e.g Jesus  descended into hell and tortured by the fires in hell), they cannot be saved.


I'm no expert on Joyce Meyer but that sems hard to believe. Do you have a source? I thought she was an alter call type of salvation preacher? Basically an accept Jesus in your heart and be saved messege is what I get out of her anytime I've seen or heard her.

If you are interested in the Lutheren view of the Charismatic movement here is a good youtube video by a young Lutheran Pastor:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcFFM2k9TYU
See these websites and videos. Protestant famous TV preacher, e.g.Joyce Meyer teaches that Jesus was tortured by demons in hell and finish the atonement in Hell. Besides this ,she innovates another New truth which is also unknown to any Protestant denominations and in Protestant History,(e.g. All believers are the little gods):
http://endtimesandcurrentevents.freesmfhosting.com/index.php?topic=3335.0
http://designofprovidence.blogspot.hk/2012/06/joyce-meyer-jesus-suffered-in-hell.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YvYVeNLHBU
« Last Edit: November 28, 2012, 03:59:10 AM by walter1234 » Logged
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #141 on: November 28, 2012, 04:44:49 AM »

I think, Walter, that you are missing the point. If I understand you aright, your argument is that the Orthodox Faith is uniform, and therefore true, and that Protestantism has a range of beliefs and cannot therefore be a true 'branch' Christianity. No-one would disagree with you that there is a range of beliefs within Protestantism. But I think you are missing (perhaps deliberately?) two matters:

1) Protestants are agreed on the essentials, and there is a lot of interdenominational co-operation among Evangelicals: it matters not a whit to me (to use your examples) whether a minister I work with speaks in tongues in his devotions or not, whether he was appointed to a pastorate with or without the laying on of hands, and many other varieties of belief, if his Evangelical faith is pukka.

2) There are a lot of people who retain a Protestant name of one sort or another, whilst abandoning even its core beliefs. They are, of course, dishonest and heretical, and ought to be driven out: nonetheless, to use these phoneys as your typical "Protestants" (or Baptists, Pentecostals, Evangelicals or whatever) in order to argue against the real thing is not a convincing line of reasoning.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2012, 04:45:30 AM by David Young » Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 913


« Reply #142 on: November 28, 2012, 06:38:24 AM »

Some Protestant scholars , like David Pawson, Paul washer ,etc openly criticize the doctrine of 'Sinner's prayer' and ' Once saved, always saved' ; Some Scholars like John piper and NT wright develop a new way of 'Justification'; Some peachers form 'new Gospel', like Joyce Meyer, NT Wright; Some Pentecostal and Charismatic Church teach that a man cannot save without speaking in tongue;Quite a lot Church in Protestant believe in Calvinsim, while some believe in Arminianism, and some believe in wesleyan ,etc.  The essential is not the same in Protestant

The main problem is that there is many denominations in Protestant.  Different Church in the same Protestant denomination also have various faith and doctrines .Moreover, different individual Protestant scholars, preachers, ministries keep innovating various 'New Truth', ' New Faith' and 'New Doctrines' according to their private interpretation of Scriptures .

So, which  (Individual) Church's faith and doctrines are correct and from God in Protestant ? Which  'New Truth', 'New Faith' and 'New Doctrines' are truely from God?



« Last Edit: November 28, 2012, 07:08:57 AM by walter1234 » Logged
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 913


« Reply #143 on: November 28, 2012, 07:14:56 AM »

-deleted-


« Last Edit: November 28, 2012, 07:21:56 AM by walter1234 » Logged
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 913


« Reply #144 on: November 28, 2012, 07:15:33 AM »

--deleted--
« Last Edit: November 28, 2012, 07:23:45 AM by walter1234 » Logged
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #145 on: November 28, 2012, 10:30:19 AM »

Some Protestant scholars... openly criticize the doctrine of 'Sinner's prayer'

Not because their soteriology is different, but because they observe that "the sinner's prayer" can be prayed without enough prior explanation for the sinner to understand and therefore mean what he is really saying.

Quote
and ' Once saved, always saved'

The difference between Arminius and Calvin is of long standing. Which side of the fence one comes down on (or whether one sits on it) does not define whether or not one is Protestant.

Quote
Some Scholars like John piper and NT wright develop a new way of 'Justification'

I have read John Piper and seen nothing in his doctrine of justification which gainsays anything in standard Reformed teaching. I doubt that N T Wright would view his ideas on justification as being Evangelical. He is superb in the resurrection.

Quote
Some Pentecostal and Charismatic Church teach that a man cannot save without speaking in tongue;

I have been hearing this for decades, but do not recall a single Pentecostal book or preacher teaching it. Can you point us to a Pentecostal source for this?

Quote
Quite a lot Church in Protestant believe in Calvinsim, while some believe in Arminianism, and some believe in wesleyan ,etc.  The essential is not the same i

Wesleyans are Arminian. One's view of predestination is not of the essence of the Faith.

Quote
different individual Protestant scholars, preachers, ministries keep innovating various 'New Truth', ' New Faith' and 'New Doctrines'

But in doing so they wander away from Protestant Evangelical teaching. You cannot use them to refute us. Some people have wandered away from Orthodoxy, but it neither proves nor disproves the Orthodox Faith itself.
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 913


« Reply #146 on: November 28, 2012, 11:08:45 AM »

Quote
Not because their soteriology is different, but because they observe that "the sinner's prayer" can be prayed without enough prior explanation for the sinner to understand and therefore mean what he is really saying.
Quote

No, Paul Washer directly DECLARE WAR and AGAINST the doctrine and practice of Sinner's prayer. He teaches that even you practices sinner's pray with heart once, it cannot guarantee you have life-long salvation. He directly condemn this practice as Heresy and put many people into hell.


Quote
The difference between Arminius and Calvin is of long standing. Which side of the fence one comes down on (or whether one sits on it) does not define whether or not one is Protestant.
But their teaching is contradict . Arminianism do not support justified by faith and once saved , always saved. SO,among these two different faith in Protestant. Which one is the truth?



Quote
I have been hearing this for decades, but do not recall a single Pentecostal book or preacher teaching it. Can you point us to a Pentecostal source for this?

They teach that speak in tongue is prayers which is driven by the holy spirit insides us. If you can pray with tongues, it is a sign that holy spirit insides you. If you cannot speak in tongue, it proves that Holy spirit is not inside you and so you are not saved.

Quote
Wesleyans are Arminian. One's view of predestination is not of the essence of the Faith.
Wesleyan teach "second work of grace" . With this grace,the believer would live in a holy life. Without this grace, a beliver in not justified. It is not mentioned in Arminianism. And it is totally contradict with Calvinsim.So , again, which Protestant teaching is the truth?

Quote
Quote
different individual Protestant scholars, preachers, ministries keep innovating various 'New Truth', ' New Faith' and 'New Doctrines'

But in doing so they wander away from Protestant Evangelical teaching. You cannot use them to refute us. Some people have wandered away from Orthodoxy, but it neither proves nor disproves the Orthodox Faith itself.
Under Sola Scriptural, how can you know the'New Truth', ' New Faith' and 'New Doctrines'  are wandering away and heresy but you are correct? THeir teaching also supported by the bible/ their (own)interpretation of bible.THey are also supported by MANY Protestant Christians and Protestant Church.

Most 'New Truth ' and 'New Doctrine' in Charismatic and Pentecostal considered as wandering away from Protestant Evangelical teaching. But now, more and more Christian convert to and support Charismatic and Pentecostal. How can you know  the'New Truth', ' New Faith' and 'New Doctrines' must wander away from Protestant Evangelical teaching?



Again, the same question.The main problem is that there is many denominations in Protestant.  Different Church in the same Protestant denomination also have various faith and doctrines .Moreover, different individual Protestant scholars, preachers, ministries keep innovating various 'New Truth', ' New Faith' and 'New Doctrines' according to their private interpretation of Scriptures .

So, which  (Individual) Church's faith and doctrines are correct and from God in Protestant ? Which  'New Truth', 'New Faith' and 'New Doctrines' are truely from God?

« Last Edit: November 28, 2012, 11:38:54 AM by walter1234 » Logged
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 913


« Reply #147 on: November 28, 2012, 11:45:06 AM »

Quote
For seven years I was a part of the United Pentecostal Church which holds that speaking in tongues is the initial evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit and that this experience is essential to salvation.

http://www.abortionessay.com/files/Spirit.html
Also , some Pentecostal teach that when one can speak in tongue, it means they are baptisted in Holy Spirit and filled by Holy Spirit. Thus, they are saved. IF one cannot speak in tongue,he/ she has not been baptisted by Holy spirit and filled by Holy spirit. SO, they cannot saved.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2012, 11:47:01 AM by walter1234 » Logged
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 913


« Reply #148 on: November 28, 2012, 12:34:28 PM »

Quote
Most 'New Truth ' and 'New Doctrine' in Charismatic and Pentecostal considered as wandering away from Protestant Evangelical teaching. But now, more and more Christian convert to and support Charismatic and Pentecostal. How can you know  the'New Truth', ' New Faith' and 'New Doctrines' must wander away from Protestant Evangelical teaching?

Correction:
Most 'New Truth ' and 'New Doctrine' in Charismatic and Pentecostal considered as wandering away from Protestant Evangelical teaching( at the beginning of movement.) . But now, more and more Christian convert to .....




« Last Edit: November 28, 2012, 12:54:30 PM by walter1234 » Logged
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,360


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #149 on: November 28, 2012, 01:24:46 PM »

Quote
I have been hearing this for decades, but do not recall a single Pentecostal book or preacher teaching it. Can you point us to a Pentecostal source for this?

The Baptism of the Holy Ghost - Promise and Command, by David Bernard speaks about this in some detail and how it is necessary for salvation. Of course being Oneness Pentecostals, the issue of them being really Christian comes into play. He's one of the leaders of the UPCI, with over 2,000,000 members.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
neon_knights
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 513


My political hero.


« Reply #150 on: November 28, 2012, 10:49:45 PM »

Some Protestant scholars , like David Pawson, Paul washer ,etc openly criticize the doctrine of 'Sinner's prayer' and ' Once saved, always saved' ; Some Scholars like John piper and NT wright develop a new way of 'Justification'; Some peachers form 'new Gospel', like Joyce Meyer, NT Wright; Some Pentecostal and Charismatic Church teach that a man cannot save without speaking in tongue;Quite a lot Church in Protestant believe in Calvinsim, while some believe in Arminianism, and some believe in wesleyan ,etc.  The essential is not the same in Protestant

The main problem is that there is many denominations in Protestant.  Different Church in the same Protestant denomination also have various faith and doctrines .Moreover, different individual Protestant scholars, preachers, ministries keep innovating various 'New Truth', ' New Faith' and 'New Doctrines' according to their private interpretation of Scriptures .

So, which  (Individual) Church's faith and doctrines are correct and from God in Protestant ? Which  'New Truth', 'New Faith' and 'New Doctrines' are truely from God?





Please don't group together NT Wright with Joyce Meyer and John Piper.
Logged
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 913


« Reply #151 on: November 28, 2012, 11:21:37 PM »

Some Protestant scholars , like David Pawson, Paul washer ,etc openly criticize the doctrine of 'Sinner's prayer' and ' Once saved, always saved' ; Some Scholars like John piper and NT wright develop a new way of 'Justification'; Some peachers form 'new Gospel', like Joyce Meyer, NT Wright; Some Pentecostal and Charismatic Church teach that a man cannot save without speaking in tongue;Quite a lot Church in Protestant believe in Calvinsim, while some believe in Arminianism, and some believe in wesleyan ,etc.  The essential is not the same in Protestant

The main problem is that there is many denominations in Protestant.  Different Church in the same Protestant denomination also have various faith and doctrines .Moreover, different individual Protestant scholars, preachers, ministries keep innovating various 'New Truth', ' New Faith' and 'New Doctrines' according to their private interpretation of Scriptures .

So, which  (Individual) Church's faith and doctrines are correct and from God in Protestant ? Which  'New Truth', 'New Faith' and 'New Doctrines' are truely from God?





Please don't group together NT Wright with Joyce Meyer and John Piper.
I did not group them together. And this is not my key and main point.

My key and main questoin/point is that there is many denominations in Protestant.  Different Church in the same Protestant denomination also have various faith and doctrines .Moreover, different individual Protestant scholars, preachers, ministries keep innovating various 'New Truth', ' New Faith' and 'New Doctrines' according to their private interpretation of Scriptures .

So, which  (Individual) Church's faith and doctrines are correct and from God in Protestant ? Which  'New Truth', 'New Faith' and 'New Doctrines' are truely from God?

Or they are just all WRONG? Nothing is from God in Protestant? Grin laugh
« Last Edit: November 28, 2012, 11:36:42 PM by walter1234 » Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,491



« Reply #152 on: November 29, 2012, 12:18:17 AM »

I have to inject this and please don't take this as condescending.

I really admire people who are ESL and pretty rough around the edges for diving in and trying to get across some difficult ideas.

I wish I had that sorta chutzpah when I was using other languages.

Walter, good for you.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
neon_knights
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 513


My political hero.


« Reply #153 on: November 29, 2012, 01:04:28 AM »

Some Protestant scholars , like David Pawson, Paul washer ,etc openly criticize the doctrine of 'Sinner's prayer' and ' Once saved, always saved' ; Some Scholars like John piper and NT wright develop a new way of 'Justification'; Some peachers form 'new Gospel', like Joyce Meyer, NT Wright; Some Pentecostal and Charismatic Church teach that a man cannot save without speaking in tongue;Quite a lot Church in Protestant believe in Calvinsim, while some believe in Arminianism, and some believe in wesleyan ,etc.  The essential is not the same in Protestant

The main problem is that there is many denominations in Protestant.  Different Church in the same Protestant denomination also have various faith and doctrines .Moreover, different individual Protestant scholars, preachers, ministries keep innovating various 'New Truth', ' New Faith' and 'New Doctrines' according to their private interpretation of Scriptures .

So, which  (Individual) Church's faith and doctrines are correct and from God in Protestant ? Which  'New Truth', 'New Faith' and 'New Doctrines' are truely from God?





Please don't group together NT Wright with Joyce Meyer and John Piper.
I did not group them together. And this is not my key and main point.

My key and main questoin/point is that there is many denominations in Protestant.  Different Church in the same Protestant denomination also have various faith and doctrines .Moreover, different individual Protestant scholars, preachers, ministries keep innovating various 'New Truth', ' New Faith' and 'New Doctrines' according to their private interpretation of Scriptures .

So, which  (Individual) Church's faith and doctrines are correct and from God in Protestant ? Which  'New Truth', 'New Faith' and 'New Doctrines' are truely from God?

Or they are just all WRONG? Nothing is from God in Protestant? Grin laugh

There are different movements within Protestantism with different ideas, but there are also different ideas within Orthodoxy.
Logged
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 913


« Reply #154 on: November 29, 2012, 05:34:49 AM »

Some Protestant scholars , like David Pawson, Paul washer ,etc openly criticize the doctrine of 'Sinner's prayer' and ' Once saved, always saved' ; Some Scholars like John piper and NT wright develop a new way of 'Justification'; Some peachers form 'new Gospel', like Joyce Meyer, NT Wright; Some Pentecostal and Charismatic Church teach that a man cannot save without speaking in tongue;Quite a lot Church in Protestant believe in Calvinsim, while some believe in Arminianism, and some believe in wesleyan ,etc.  The essential is not the same in Protestant

The main problem is that there is many denominations in Protestant.  Different Church in the same Protestant denomination also have various faith and doctrines .Moreover, different individual Protestant scholars, preachers, ministries keep innovating various 'New Truth', ' New Faith' and 'New Doctrines' according to their private interpretation of Scriptures .

So, which  (Individual) Church's faith and doctrines are correct and from God in Protestant ? Which  'New Truth', 'New Faith' and 'New Doctrines' are truely from God?





Please don't group together NT Wright with Joyce Meyer and John Piper.
I did not group them together. And this is not my key and main point.

My key and main questoin/point is that there is many denominations in Protestant.  Different Church in the same Protestant denomination also have various faith and doctrines .Moreover, different individual Protestant scholars, preachers, ministries keep innovating various 'New Truth', ' New Faith' and 'New Doctrines' according to their private interpretation of Scriptures .

So, which  (Individual) Church's faith and doctrines are correct and from God in Protestant ? Which  'New Truth', 'New Faith' and 'New Doctrines' are truely from God?
U
Or they are just all WRONG? Nothing is from God in Protestant? Grin laugh

There are different movements within Protestantism with different ideas, but there are also different ideas within Orthodoxy.

The main problem is that the Church in protestant do not have consistence on the essential/ Faith/ Ddoctrine.Just take "Justification' as example.Some Protestant Church teach that men can be justified simply by 'sinner's prayer', while some declare war and against 'sinner's prayer '; Some denominations teach that we have to speak in tongue in order to be justification, while some opposite this doctrine. Some teach that men have to believe Jesus was tortured by demons in hell and finish atonement  in hell, otherwise , men cannot saved. Some teach that men need to have 'second work of grace '  in order to have holiness life .Without this Second work of grace and a holiness life, men cannot save,etc

The Church in Protestant does not have consistence on their faith and doctrine,not  SIMPLY have different opinion or ideas.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2012, 05:43:59 AM by walter1234 » Logged
Malina
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Russian Patriarchate
Posts: 51


« Reply #155 on: November 29, 2012, 09:41:33 AM »

In my opinion Protestants believe that they are saved, but just that fact doesn`t make their “saints”. In other words, it doesn`t make them sinless. Kingdom of Heaven is one of the most important goals for every Christian, it`s a difficult labor on Christ`s field, which consist of: read and study Bible, prayers, fasting, obtaining virtues (meekness, humility, chastity, etc.), provide almsgiving, help to others in every. I this Protestants do above mentioned tasks also.
Logged
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 913


« Reply #156 on: December 01, 2012, 02:22:37 PM »

In my opinion Protestants believe that they are saved, but just that fact doesn`t make their “saints”. In other words, it doesn`t make them sinless. Kingdom of Heaven is one of the most important goals for every Christian, it`s a difficult labor on Christ`s field, which consist of: read and study Bible, prayers, fasting, obtaining virtues (meekness, humility, chastity, etc.), provide almsgiving, help to others in every. I this Protestants do above mentioned tasks also.


Yesteday, I have just told some of my Protestant friends that a Christian should not only believe in Jesus in our salvation. We should fast, pray, worship , love others,keep repenting and confessing, keep God's commendants, etc. We have to work out a holiness life, build a perfect relationship with God and have communion with God.

Then, my Protestant friends answer me that it is impossible for a man to work out a holiness life, build a perfect relationship with God and have communion with God in this life.

To protestant , Sinless and having communion with God in this life are impossible.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2012, 02:23:29 PM by walter1234 » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,969


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #157 on: December 01, 2012, 07:35:02 PM »

In my opinion Protestants believe that they are saved, but just that fact doesn`t make their “saints”. In other words, it doesn`t make them sinless. Kingdom of Heaven is one of the most important goals for every Christian, it`s a difficult labor on Christ`s field, which consist of: read and study Bible, prayers, fasting, obtaining virtues (meekness, humility, chastity, etc.), provide almsgiving, help to others in every. I this Protestants do above mentioned tasks also.


Yesteday, I have just told some of my Protestant friends that a Christian should not only believe in Jesus in our salvation. We should fast, pray, worship , love others,keep repenting and confessing, keep God's commendants, etc. We have to work out a holiness life, build a perfect relationship with God and have communion with God.

Then, my Protestant friends answer me that it is impossible for a man to work out a holiness life, build a perfect relationship with God and have communion with God in this life.

To protestant , Sinless and having communion with God in this life are impossible.
No, to your Protestant friends, living a sinless life in communion with God in this life is impossible. Please do not judge all Protestants by your experience of your particular friends. Many Protestants do believe that living a sinless life is possible by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #158 on: December 01, 2012, 08:30:09 PM »

Many Protestants do believe that living a sinless life is possible by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Some even believe it to be impossible for them to sin.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 913


« Reply #159 on: December 02, 2012, 02:12:09 AM »

In my opinion Protestants believe that they are saved, but just that fact doesn`t make their “saints”. In other words, it doesn`t make them sinless. Kingdom of Heaven is one of the most important goals for every Christian, it`s a difficult labor on Christ`s field, which consist of: read and study Bible, prayers, fasting, obtaining virtues (meekness, humility, chastity, etc.), provide almsgiving, help to others in every. I this Protestants do above mentioned tasks also.


Yesteday, I have just told some of my Protestant friends that a Christian should not only believe in Jesus in our salvation. We should fast, pray, worship , love others,keep repenting and confessing, keep God's commendants, etc. We have to work out a holiness life, build a perfect relationship with God and have communion with God.

Then, my Protestant friends answer me that it is impossible for a man to work out a holiness life, build a perfect relationship with God and have communion with God in this life.

To protestant , Sinless and having communion with God in this life are impossible.
No, to your Protestant friends, living a sinless life in communion with God in this life is impossible. Please do not judge all Protestants by your experience of your particular friends. Many Protestants do believe that living a sinless life is possible by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Many Protestants do believe that living a sinless life is possible by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Some even believe it to be impossible for them to sin.

As what I know ,the (Protestant) Church which believe in Wesylan have the teaching of 'entire sanctification' , 'Christian perfection' .And some Pentecostal and Charismatic church believe that after they are baptised in  Holy spirit, have the gift of 'speak in tongue' and keep practicing it, the power of Holy Spirit will then cover them and they would no longer be able to sin.

« Last Edit: December 02, 2012, 02:20:17 AM by walter1234 » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,969


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #160 on: December 02, 2012, 03:45:10 AM »

In my opinion Protestants believe that they are saved, but just that fact doesn`t make their “saints”. In other words, it doesn`t make them sinless. Kingdom of Heaven is one of the most important goals for every Christian, it`s a difficult labor on Christ`s field, which consist of: read and study Bible, prayers, fasting, obtaining virtues (meekness, humility, chastity, etc.), provide almsgiving, help to others in every. I this Protestants do above mentioned tasks also.


Yesteday, I have just told some of my Protestant friends that a Christian should not only believe in Jesus in our salvation. We should fast, pray, worship , love others,keep repenting and confessing, keep God's commendants, etc. We have to work out a holiness life, build a perfect relationship with God and have communion with God.

Then, my Protestant friends answer me that it is impossible for a man to work out a holiness life, build a perfect relationship with God and have communion with God in this life.

To protestant , Sinless and having communion with God in this life are impossible.
No, to your Protestant friends, living a sinless life in communion with God in this life is impossible. Please do not judge all Protestants by your experience of your particular friends. Many Protestants do believe that living a sinless life is possible by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Many Protestants do believe that living a sinless life is possible by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Some even believe it to be impossible for them to sin.

As what I know ,the (Protestant) Church which believe in Wesylan have the teaching of 'entire sanctification' , 'Christian perfection' .And some Pentecostal and Charismatic church believe that after they are baptised in  Holy spirit, have the gift of 'speak in tongue' and keep practicing it, the power of Holy Spirit will then cover them and they would no longer be able to sin.
Technically, the Wesleyan teaching on entire sanctification, as I understand it from the days of my youth in the Church of the Nazarene, is this: This "second work of grace" makes one capable of not sinning; it does not make one not capable of sinning.

(In fact, I don't believe that Wesley ever taught that entire sanctification is a work of grace that can be experienced in one moment as the Church of the Nazarene teaches. It seems to me that Wesley thought of entire sanctification as more of a lifelong process very much akin to the Orthodox doctrine of theosis.)
« Last Edit: December 02, 2012, 03:49:00 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 913


« Reply #161 on: January 04, 2013, 11:13:14 AM »

Quote
Sanctification he described in 1790 as the "grand depositum which God has lodged with the people called `Methodists'." Wesley taught that sanctification was obtainable after justification by faith, between justification and death. He did not contend for "sinless perfection"; rather, he contended that a Christian could be made "perfect in love". (Wesley studied Eastern Orthodoxy and particularly the doctrine of Theosis). This love would mean, first of all, that a believer's motives, rather than being self-centred, would be guided by the deep desire to please God. One would be able to keep from committing what Wesley called, "sin rightly so-called." By this he meant a conscious or intentional breach of God's will or laws. A person could still be able to sin, but intentional or wilful sin could be avoided.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wesley

John wesley did have some studies on the teachings of eastern Orthodoxy. He like the Orthodoxy doctrine of Theosis very much.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2013, 11:17:42 AM by walter1234 » Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 4 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.515 seconds with 190 queries.