|
|
|
04-13-2014, 04:11 PM
|
#1 | ||
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
The Orthodox Church
InChristAlone, I felt I had to address this statement of yours:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
04-13-2014, 04:40 PM
|
#2 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Re: The Orthodox Churches
Sorry InChristAlone, I just want to explain why I put up that last post:
It's not to cast aspersion on Orthodox Christian believers - rather, what I posted was intended to highlight some of the, let's call them "controversial" opinions or ideas that come from that group, which still has, I believe, members who are a part of the Universal Body of Christ. What I really want to say is: The Orthodox church is just ANOTHER Christian group claiming to be the "One True Church". They "hide history" where they need to, to support that claim. We've seen this all before. That's why we're all here. On another note about Orthodox Eschatology: My Pastor is a Preterist. I am not, but I have heard the arguments and I respect the person so convicted (side note: a really thorough and excellent discourse on Preterism by R.C. Sproul can be found here: http://www.truthaccordingtoscripture...os.php#sermons - look under "Eschatology"). I don't consider Preterists heretics, but I do see some serious problems with Preterism that even Preterists have to admit: One main problem being, "if God was really finished with Israel in 70 AD, and the Church is the new Israel, then what the hell happened in 1948 and again in 1967?" Why is it that Satan has NEVER stopped persecuting the Jew (and the same is foretold in the book of Revelation) through Inquisitions, Pogroms, and Holocausts, and yet somehow GOD always preserves them a remnant? Remember that Israel simply didn't exist through almost ALL of church history. Who would have thought that God would give that land back to His people? There's a quote I want to share, by a very famous American. Quote:
If a Preterist can answer that question, I'd love to hear the answer. |
|
|
|
|
|
04-14-2014, 01:52 AM
|
#3 | ||
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 365
|
Re: The Orthodox Churches
Quote:
There are controversial teachings in every Christian church, denomination or sect. The Orthodox Church is not an exception. And I bet your church is not one as well. "To err is human". At the end of the day it's not about how you and I interpret the Holy Bible, or what you and I think about each other's teachings. It's about what the Lord thinks about us. As for Preterism, the Orthodox Christians are not Preterists in every sense of the word, rather – partial. There are two forms of preterism: The first is "full" preterism. This is the view that all Biblical prophecy, including the Second Coming and the resurrection of the dead, has been fulfilled. This view is rejected because it rejects the plain meaning of the word "resurrection" which refers not to passing into a disembodied immortality, but rather being raised from the dead in the likeness of Christ's resurrection, with one's very body being clothed in immortality. The other form of preterism is "partial" preterism. This is the view that many or most Biblical prophecies were fulfilled in the Jewish war when the Roman Empire destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple. This view is certainly acceptable. Several Fathers, including St. John Chrysostom (particularly in his commentary on Matthew 24) understand the year 70 to be a critical date in understanding Biblical prophecy. They would also see a double application in many eschatological passages to a future time as well which is the most reasonable reading of these texts. Furthermore, chiliasm (the idea of a future millennial reign on earth) has been rejected by Orthodoxy. One common view is that the millenium is the period of time where Satan is prevented from deceiving the nations (thus, the gospel spreads to all nations) and where the kingdom is 'inbroken,' but not fully consummated. This, in other words, is our present time. There are also spiritual interpretations of the 1000 years, indicating the spiritual state of Christians when they are ruled by the Spirit and when the power of the evil one is suppressed. http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/answer/943/ Why do infants receive holy communion in the Orthodox Church? This is actually the most ancient practice for all the apostolic of East and West. It seems well established that infant baptism was an apostolic ordinance (as indicated by Origen). The mystery or sacrament of initiated included not only baptism (by triple immersion) but also chrismation and the reception of the Eucharist. Hence, one is either in the Church and in Christ or not - there is no partial or fragmentary participation in the Church. Why do Orthodox children take Holy Communion from the time they are baptized? Actually, Orthodox children begin to receive Holy Communion only after baptism and chrismation. The Orthodox view is that baptism and chrismation not only free the person from the bondage of sin and evil, but grant the Holy Spirit to the new Christian and confer upon him or her lay status also. This means that the Christian is fully a member of the Body of Christ and therefore a full communicant in the sacramental life of the Church. Thus, infants who are baptized and chrismated are also expected to participate in the sacrament of Holy Communion and usually do so from the very day of their baptism. http://www.mosc.in/index.php?option=...322&Itemid=474 When children are baptized in the Orthodox Church as infants, and raised in the Church, their parents, grandparents and godparents have just as much responsibility to feed the children’s souls as they have to feed their bodies. One of the most vital sources of this spiritual nourishment is bringing the children to the Divine Liturgy and Holy Communion at least every Sunday. A person does not need to understand how Holy Communion provides nourishment for it to be effective, any more than it is necessary to understand the process of digestion for regular food to be effective. If people do not eat - whether a child or adult - they become weak, malnourished and may die. Likewise, our souls become weak, withered and may die without spiritual food. Children who attend Divine Liturgy every week since infancy learn at a very early age that receiving Holy Communion is something truly special, and they look forward to it with eager anticipation. http://www.greekorthodox.org.au/gene.../holycommunion More about Infant Baptism: The Orthodox Christians baptize infants and also give them the Holy Communion right then after baptism. The basic questions put to us are: 1)Doesn't the bible say “repent and be baptized”? 2)So how can a 4 month old baby “repent and be baptized”? 3)Can you show any proof of infant baptism in Bible. In the following posts we will address all of these questions and show a biblical perspective followed by the Orthodox Churches of the world. 1.”Repent and be baptized” St. Peter says in Acts 2:38 “Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized,….”. How is Infant Baptism possible for babies who are unable to repent is the question put to us by non-orthodox christians. The promise of salvation is for entire generations. Unlike new age faiths, Christianity doesn't offer individual salvation*, we believed in community. Let us read Acts 2 in completion to get the complete perspective: 38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off-for all whom the Lord our God will call.” –Acts 2: 38,39 The Promise of Salvation was given to “you and your CHILDREN” as well, says Apostle Peter. Salvation as a promise to generations. The Bible is full of promises to generations. Salvation is promised to an entire generations and not to individuals. *”For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. “– 1 Corinthians 7:14 *”May He also give you the blessing of Abraham, to you and to your descendants with you, that you may possess the land of your sojournings, which God gave to Abraham.”– Genesis 28:4. *”That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice”.–Genesis 22:17,18 The faith of the believing wife can save the unbelieving husband and the children born to them also inherit the blessing of Christ and are “holy”, says the Bible here. The blessing of Abraham was given to his entire generation, to his entire Descendants, not just to Abraham alone. The early Christian church believed in community salvation likewise. Not in individual salvation like modern day christian groups preach. 2. New born babies are not sinners. 2)So how can a 4 month old baby “repent and be baptised”? The babies of course didn’t need to repent as they were not sinners. The entire household, along with babies were baptised in early christian tradition. But Protestants and Roman Catholics believe that Infants are Born Sinners! This is their teaching regarding Original Sin. This is according to the teaching of the western father St. Augustine of Hippo. The Roman Catholics adopted this teaching, while the Orthodox Christians of the Eastern Christendom rejected this. Later, even after the Protestant Reformation, the Protestants continued to believe in this doctrine of St. Augustine. St. Augustine had also taught that “unbaptised infants go to hell” and this is also what the Roman Catholic Church teaches. This is complete heresy and an anti-scriptural, anti-traditional belief, followed by both roman catholics and protestants. The Orthodox Christian understanding of Original Sin is different from that of the West. “The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him” (Ezekiel 18:20)”. “Thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise thee: for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.” Psalm 139:13, 14 “Did not he that made me in the womb make him? and did not one fashion us in the womb?” Job 31:15 The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life. Job 33:4 He giveth to all life, and breath, and all things. Acts 17:25 We are the offspring of God. Acts 17:29 18:3-4, Jesus declared, “Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 19:14, “Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” God chooses us. We dont choose Him. It is not us who choose God, out of our righteousness and knowledge, so that we inherit salvation. This is unlike the “born again” concept born of spiritual arrogance. Babies who are not sinners neednt repent because of this precisely. And it is arrogance to suppose that its something that “we do” that makes us eligible for salvation. Its all Grace and Mercy, says the Bible. The Bible strikes at the roots of “holier than thou” arrogant spirituality. Instead lets emulate those who are “poor in spirit” as Jesus advises us. For who is righteous, and who can repent unless God wills it? “Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth”.-Romans 9:18 “He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration baptism) and renewing by the Holy Spirit.” (Titus 3:5) “According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love”–Ephesians 1:4 In John 15:16, Jesus says “You did not choose Me, but I chose you… “So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy”. –Romans 9:16 3. Infant Baptism in the Bible. We can find plenty of instances of Infant Baptism in the Bible:- I Cor. 1:16 Paul baptized the household of Stephanus. Acts 11:13ff Peter baptized the household of Cornelius. Acts 16:15 Paul baptizes the household of Lydia. Acts 16:31 Philippian jailer’s household is baptized. Here we can see that in the New Testament period, the entire household was baptised. Now the logical question is, how do we know that “households” included infants?? In the Hebrew Bible, the corresponding word used for “household” in these verses are “BAYIT”.. In the Greek Bible, it is “oikos” (Greek) in LXX. In the Old Testament, “Bayit” and “oikos” included all family members up to 4 generations, children (married and unmarried), slaves of both sexes, and sojourners (non-Jewish migrant workers). Genesis 46:6,27: Jacob’s household: all his sons, and their children and wives, all the persons of the house of Jacob were 70. I Samuel 22:15-19: All the household of Ahimelech and his father are killed: men, women, children, infants and all his livestock. 2 Samuel 2:3 David brought up all his men each with his household to Hebron. 2 Samuel 15:15-16 David flees Jerusalem with all his household, leaves 10 concubines to tend the house. I Samuel 25:6 David sends blessings to Nabal, peace be to your house and all that you have. Jeremiah 38:17 Jeremiah prophecies against Zedekiah that his household will be killed if he does not obey God. Noah’s whole ‘household’ was taken into the ark with him. (Genesis 7:1) Abraham had his whole household circumcised (Genesis 17:23), and specifically his son Isaac when he was eight days old. (Genesis 21:4) The whole household of every family was taken out of Egypt, and God’s institution of the Passover specifically included the children. (Exodus 12:24-28) It is clear from Scripture that Household baptisms in the early Church included infants. OT symbols of salvation included Infants. 1. Circumcision, the sign of God’s covenant between the people of Abraham and Himself, was performed on every male child who was eight days old (Genesis 17:12). Circumcision is compared with Baptism in NT. Colossians 2:11,12: “And in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism …” 2. Moses’ leading his people through the Red Sea is seen as an Old Testament foreshadowing of Christian baptism. “For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and all were BAPTIZED into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them, and that rock was Christ.” (1 Corinthians 10:1-4) 3. The saving of Noah’s entire family by the ark can also be seen as a prefigurement of a baptism which includes infants. Infant Baptism in early Christian tradition. We can find many instances of Infant baptism in early christianity:- *Polycarp (69-155 AD), a disciple of the Apostle John, was baptized as an infant. This enabled him to say at his martyrdom. “Eighty and six years have I served the Lord Christ” (Martyrdom of Polycarp 9: 3). *Justin Martyr (100 – 166 AD) of the next generation states about the year 150, “Many, both men and women, who have been Christ’s disciples since childhood, remain pure at the age of sixty or seventy years” (Apology 1: 15). *Irenaeus (130 – 200 AD), writes in Against Heresies II 22: 4 that Jesus “came to save all through means of Himself – all. I say, who through him are born again to God – infants and children, boys and youth, and old men.” *At the Council of Carthage in 254, the 66 bishops present said: “We ought not hinder any person from Baptism and the grace of God….. especially infants. . . those newly born.” *Preceding this council, Origen wrote in his (Commentary on Romans 5: 9: “For this also it was that the church had from the Apostles a tradition to give baptism even to infants. For they to whom the divine mysteries were committed knew that there is in all persons a natural pollution of sin which must be done away by water and the Spirit.” Do not hinder the little ones. Matthew 19:14, “Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus said to let the little children come to Him. Who are we to hinder them? If John the Baptizer could be filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb (Luke 1: 15), then certainly little children too can be filled with the Holy Spirit and be baptised. “See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that their angels in heaven continually see the face of My Father who is in heaven.”–Matthew 18:10 That is why in Orthodox Christian tradition we allow both Infant Baptism and Infant Communion, ie because we follow the Scripture and Early Christian Tradition wholly, without dilution for 2000 years.. The articles in the following websites were helpful in creating this thread. Please refer them for more detailed explanation and other left out points: http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7067 http://www.forthelife.org/a4.htm http://www.forthelife.org/infantbaptism.htm http://www.antiochian.org/node/16904 http://www.mtio.com/articles/aissar40.htm#7 http://www.ephesus.com/Orthodox/InfantBaptism.html http://theorthodoxchurch.info/blog/o...ral-tradition/ - the most full answer As for me, I was baptized when I was several months old. I am grateful to my parents for it and, of course, I give thanks to God for His grace, love and abundant mercy. PS Quote:
It ain't the parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand. (From "The Wit and Wisdom, of Mark Twain" edited by Alex Ayres / 1987) Faith is believing something you know ain't true. (Following the Equator / 1897) In God We Trust.' I don't believe it would sound any better if it were true. "There is no other life; life itself is only a vision and a dream for nothing exists but space and you. If there was an all-powerful God, he would have made all good, and no bad." Mark Twain in Eruption "[The Bible] has noble poetry in it... and some good morals and a wealth of obscenity, and upwards of a thousand lies." "[The Bible is] a mass of fables and traditions, mere mythology." Mark Twain and the Bible One of the proofs of the immortality of the soul is that myriads have believed in it. They have also believed the world was flat. (Notebook) I believe Mark Twain answered his own question. Like question... like answer.
__________________
1 Corinthians 13:4-8 |
||
|
|
|
|
04-14-2014, 11:47 AM
|
#4 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Re: The Orthodox Churches
Quote:
??? Sorry ICA, I don't understand how "Mark Twain answered his own question"? He may have asked a question as an atheist, but are you saying that atheists can't ask questions that require a theological response? Would that suggest that if an atheist asked you who Jesus Christ was, you could just blow him off because he's an atheist? |
|
|
|
|
|
04-15-2014, 02:43 AM
|
#5 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 365
|
Re: The Orthodox Churches
Quote:
I'd not blow off an atheist because he's an atheist. But I can blow off a certain question because there are no right answers to wrong questions. (Though, of course, my judgment may be wrong).
__________________
1 Corinthians 13:4-8 |
|
|
|
|
|
04-14-2014, 04:07 AM
|
#6 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 365
|
Re: The Orthodox Churches
Quote:
As for the Orthodox Church claims, I will try to explain where they come from. However, I don't know anything about "the hidden history of the Orthodox Church". So I suppose you are more well-informed. Anyway, no proof is going to satisfy everyone. Each argument will always have its counter-argument. But at least we will have some food for mind. “In the first place it must be made clear that it is the common teaching of the Orthodox Christian tradition that the Church has no monopoly on grace and truth and love. The Church teaches on the contrary that God is the Sovereign Lord who saves those whom He wills. The Church believes as well that salvation depends upon the actual life of the person, and God alone is capable of judging since He alone knows the secrets of each mind and heart. Only God is capable of judging how well a man lives according to the measure of grace, faith, understanding, and strength given to him. But once again, let it be clear that every man is judged by God alone according to the actual truth and love in his life. This goes for Orthodox and non-Orthodox alike. And although the Orthodox confess that the fullness of truth and love is found in the life of the church, nominal church membership or formal assent to some doctrines does not at all guarantee salvation.” http://oca.org/questions/otherconfes...her-christians The Eastern Orthodox Church, a branch of Christianity also known as Eastern Orthodoxy, Orthodox Christianity, or the Orthodox Church, identifies its roots in the early Church, particularly as it developed within the Greek-speaking eastern branch of the Roman Empire. The Eastern Orthodox Church accepts the first seven Ecumenical Councils (which were held between 325 and 787 C.E.), and regards itself as the True Church. The Eastern Orthodox Church is organized with an episcopal structure including the Four Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, and Jerusalem (the Patriarch of Constantinople is the first of equals) and consecrated bishops (whose lineage is believed to be traced back to Jesus' apostles). Their worship is highly liturgical and extremely iconographic, both of which are central to the Church's life, history, and practice. Their icons, which include depictions of Jesus, the Virgin Mary, biblical scenes, or saints, are believed to create a sense of the presence of God. Eastern Orthodoxy is strongly doctrinal and places great authority in the Bible, the Creeds (Apostles' and Nicene), and the seven ecumenical councils. Quick Fact Details: The doctrines of the Orthodox Church were created through a series of church councils. The most authoritative among them are being the Seven Ecumenical Councils held between the fourth and eight centuries. These councils were convened out of the necessity to resolve conflicts that had developed from the beliefs such as Aryanism, Nestorianism, and Monothelitism. Towards the end of its first thousand years of existence, differences developed between the Church in the Eastern and Western Roman Empire and this led to the Great Schism in 1054, dividing the Chalcedonian Christians into Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. (Chalcedonian describes churches and theologians which accept the definition given at the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) of how the divine and human relate in the person of Jesus Christ. While most modern Christian churches are Chalcedonian, in the 5th–8th centuries AD the ascendancy of Chalcedonian Christology was not always certain. The dogmatical disputes raised during this Synod led to the Chalcedonian schism and as a matter of course to the formation of the non-Chalcedonian body of churches known as Oriental Orthodoxy. The Chalcedonian churches were the ones that remained united with Rome, Constantinople and the three Greek Orthodox patriarchates of the East (Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem), that under Justinian II at the council in Trullo were organised under a form of rule known as the Pentarchy). Formed: The exact date of the beginning of the Eastern Orthodox Church is indeterminable. While the belief system recognized as Christianity is in place by the first century, institutional structures developed over time. Nor is it possible to distinguish Orthodoxy as a separate tradition until it can be differentiated from other Christian traditions (most notably, Roman Catholicism and Protestantism). Scholars recognize a variety of significant institutional, theological, and cultural markers in the development of Orthodoxy: · 33 Pentecost (A.D. 29 is thought to be more accurate). · 49 Council at Jerusalem (Acts 15) establishes precedent for addressing Church disputes in Council. James presides as bishop. · 69 Bishop Ignatius consecrated in Antioch in heart of New Testament era-St. Peter had been the first bishop there. Other early bishops include James, Polycarp, and Clement. · 95 Book of Revelation written, probably the last of the New Testament books. · 150 St. Justin Martyr describes the liturgical worship of the Church, centered in the Eucharist. Liturgical worship is rooted in both the Old and New Testaments. · 313 The Edict of Milan marks an end to the period of Roman persecution of Christianity. · 325 The Council of Nicea settles the major heretical challenge to the Christian Faith posed when the heretic Arius asserts Christ was created by the Father. St. Athanasius defends the eternality of the Son of God. Nicea is the first of Seven Ecumenical (Church-wide) Councils. (The first post-apostolic ecumenical council of the Christian community at which Church leaders formed a creedal statement of belief recognized universally). · 380—Edict of Thessalonica. The Emperor Theodosius I mandates "catholic" (universal, in contrast to the heresies of the time) Christianity to be the legal religion of the Empire. · 381—First Council of Constantinople. This council amended and ratified the Nicene Creed, resulting in the version used by Christian churches around the world. · 451 Council of Chalcedon affirms apostolic doctrine of two natures in Christ. (The first division within Christianity triggered by the split between those who adhered to the conclusions of the Council and those who did not (referred to as Oriental Orthodox)). · 589 A synod in Toledo, Spain, adds the filioque to the Nicene Creed (asserting that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son). This error is later adopted by Rome. · 787 The era of Ecumenical Councils ends at Nicea; the Seventh Council restores the centuries-old use of icons to the Church. (The Second Council of Nicea, often called "The Triumph of Orthodoxy." After many decades of iconoclasm (the rejection and destruction of icons), this council ratified the veneration and use of icons in worship and in private devotion—a uniquely Orthodox practice). · 988 Conversion of Rus' (Russia) begins. · 1054 The Great Schism occurs. Two major issues include Rome's claim to a universal papal supremacy and her addition of the filioque clause to the Nicene Creed. The Photian Schism (880) further complicates the debate. (Though the Eastern and Western branches of the Church had long been divided over theological, cultural, linguistic, and ecclesiological disputes, the separation was formalized in 1054, thus creating the first large-scale division within Christendom). historical dates: · 1066 Norman Conquest of Britain. Orthodox hierarchs are replaced with those loyal to Rome. · 1095 The Crusades begun by the Roman Church. The Sack of Constantinople (1204) adds to the estrangement between East and West. · 1333 St. Gregory Palamas defends the Orthodox practice of hesychast spirituality and the use of the Jesus prayer. · 1453 Turks overrun Constantinople; Byzantine Empire ends. · 1517 Martin Luther nails his 95 Theses to the door of the Roman Church in Wittenberg, starting the Protestant Reformation. · 1529 Church of England begins pulling away from Rome. · 1794 Missionaries arrive on Kodiak Island in Alaska; Orthodoxy introduced to North America. · 1870 Papal Infallibility becomes Roman dogma. · 1988 One thousand years of Orthodoxy in Russia, as Orthodox Church world-wide maintains fullness of the Apostolic Faith. · 2014 Sacred Texts: Eastern Orthodoxy uses the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, which includes the deuterocanonical books that Protestants rejected. Their New Testaments are identical to those of all Christians. Headquarters: The nature of the Eastern Orthodox Church is conciliar rather than monarchical. That is, the patriarchs all hold equal authority in the Church and there is no centralized headquarters from which jurisdiction is maintained. Because the Ecumenical Patriarch—believed to be the first in honor among Orthodox patriarchs—is the Patriarch of Constantinople, Istanbul may be considered the spiritual center of the Orthodox communities. http://www.patheos.com/Library/Eastern-Orthodoxy.html http://www.antiochian.org/orthodox-church-history In brief, the one, undivided Church is said to have begun on the day of Pentecost, 50 days after the Resurrection of Christ. Already by the 4th century the term “Orthodox Christian” was used to designate those Christians who remained faithful to the totality of the teaching of Jesus Christ and the apostles, as opposed to those who were known as “heretics” who promoted false doctrines and beliefs. [The term “orthodox” means “correct believing” or “correct, true glory.”] Due to a variety of complex circumstances, the Western church, known today as the “Roman Catholic Church,” split from the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchates of Constantinople, Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch in the 11th century. Roman Catholics, however, see it from the opposite perspective, namely that the Orthodox Church broke communion with the Roman Catholic Church. We Orthodox believe that we are the continuation of the ancient Orthodox Christian Church, that we trace our history back to Christ and the apostles, and that the Church was “formally” established on the day of Pentecost. The Roman Catholic Church placed itself outside of this fellowship when it broke off communion with us in the 11th century. This is a very brief outline; a thorough treatment of the issue would fill volumes, and there are many resources readily available should you wish to research the history of this further. For more information I would recommend that you check links on Church history. Or you may wish to read the book by Bishop Kallistos [Timothy] Ware called “The Orthodox Church,” which gives the historical background in detail. http://oca.org/questions/history/the...ristian-church “I would begin by saying that, at least in my own opinion, one of the major differences between the Orthodox Church and other Christian confessions—at least in their present-day expressions—is that Orthodoxy maintains its focus on God first and humanity second. It sometimes seems to me that many confessions today place more emphasis on humanity than on God. Above all, Orthodoxy sees the Church as the People of God—People who are called to worship, to praise, to render thanks in all things, and to set their sight on “the life of the world to come.” We, as Saint Paul writes, are “in the world,” but we are not “of the world.” We certainly are to be concerned with the condition of our society, the plight of the poor and homeless, the fallen world which surrounds us—and, as we see clearly in the words and actions of Jesus Christ, we in fact must be involved with such things, for “as often as [we] have done these things to these, the least of My brothers, [we] have done them to [Christ],” to paraphrase the words of Christ in his parable of the last judgment. However, if we as Orthodox Christians are to make an impact on humanity, it can only come as a result of allowing God to make an impact on us. In the Orthodox Liturgy we sing “now lay aside all earthly cares, that we may receive the King of All Who comes invisibly upborne by angelic hosts!” This hymn comes after a series of litanies in which we pray for “the peace of the whole world,” for “travelers… the sick and the suffering, captives and their salvation… seasonable weather, an abundance of the fruits of the earth, and peaceful times,” etc. In these petitions at the beginning of the Liturgy, we acknowledge that we cannot divorce ourselves from the world that surrounds us. However, as we sing “now lay aside all earthly cares,” we also acknowledge that the focus of our vision must be, above all and before all, on the Father, Son and Holy Spirit—God. We serve God in order to serve others; the Church cannot, however, be limited to the realm of a social agency solely involved in people’s lives apart from the context of humanity’s relationship with the Holy Trinity. Orthodoxy does not see a fracturing of the Body of Christ—Scripture teaches us that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church, and St. Paul is clear that there is but one body, stressing that the Body of Christ cannot be divided. Individuals—or whole groups of individuals—can separate themselves from the Body of Christ and even refer to themselves as a church, but the Orthodox Christian Church remains one, as the Body of Christ is one. Western Church history is replete with what you refer to as “the schism… a series of over-reactions to heresy.” Orthodoxy does not admit the notion, which you imply, of “the destruction of the church.” We could go as far as to say that there is no division in the church, for those who stand apart from the fullness of the truth have not divided the one Church but, rather, have placed themselves outside of it. Orthodox Christianity maintains the fullness of Scripture, relying on it heavily in worship, study, etc. However, we also hold to what we call “Holy Tradition,” which is the ongoing life of God’s People and those things which are essential to the salvation of souls. Ritual is not an end in itself; rather, ritual is a way, often non-verbal, to express truth, to celebrate it, to reveal it, and to share it. It is quite clear in countless places in the Old and New Testaments that ritual is a part of the life of God’s People. The problem is not ritual; the problem is ritual that is empty of any content, ritual that is “performed” for its own sake. Christ did not condemn the rituals of the synagogue and, in fact, He participated in them. What he did condemn are those who observe every point of ritual while ignoring those essential truths that the ritual is intended to express and proclaim. http://oca.org/questions/otherconfes...rthodox-church Question I am trying to understand the Orthodox understanding of Catholic claims for Papal authority. How do Orthodox Christians understand Matthew 16:18-19 in reference to Isaiah 22:19-24. Catholic teaching on this is that Christ came to re-establish the Davidic Kingdom and Isaiah 22:19 shows what Christ was talking about when giving Peter the keys. David's kingdom had a position similar to the papacy with same authority. Look forward to reading the Eastern view. God bless. ANSWER: The Orthodox Church understands the entirety of the Church to subsist in every Eucharistic Community or what is popularly known today as the diocese. Hence, while "the Catholic Church" for a Roman Catholic refers to the global society under the supreme authority of the Pope of Rome, "the Catholic Church" for an Orthodox Christian means the People of God who are present in the Eucharistic Community gathered aroung their bishop, presbyters and deacons, in a specific location ("the Church in Corinth, the Church in Ephesus"). This has important ramifications for how we understand the famous "Petrine texts." St. Gregory of Nyssa understands the Lord's words to St. Peter to refer to the bishop, writing that Christ “through Peter gave to the bishops the keys of the heavenly honors,” As the entirety of the Catholic Church subsists in the diocese, and the bishop is the head of the diocese, it may be said that the bishop is the Successor of Peter and and the "head" (in a relative sense) of the Catholic Church. Very few Fathers commented on the relationship of Isaiah 22 to Matthew 16 at all. None of those few that did connected these texts in any way to the bishop of Rome. From an Orthodox perspective, the bishop is Christ's prime minister. He is the one who manifests the High Priesthood of Christ when he presides over the Eucharistic Liturgy. While the presbyters are dependent on their bishop for the Eucharist, the bishop is not dependent on his primate. Hence, there is no Eucharist higher than that of the local Church. As Orthodox Christians understand the Church to be a Eucharistic Communion, it makes perfect sense to identify the bishop as the heir to St. Peter's prime ministry, rather than the Pope of Rome uniquely. http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/answer/1531/ More about the Orthodox Church History: http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/history.aspx http://www.antiochian.org/orthodox-church-history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...rthodox_Church
__________________
1 Corinthians 13:4-8 |
|
|
|
|
|
04-14-2014, 04:16 AM
|
#7 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 365
|
Re: Outer darkness: A thousand years? or for eternity?
It’s always made it hard for me to trust people and it certainly made my journey to Christianity — and then Orthodoxy — a much longer one than it might have otherwise been. But, once I reach a conclusion, I tend to have a firm conviction that I’ve arrived at the truth, if for no other reason than that I’ve exhausted every possible objection I could raise to it.
The Orthodox Church said it was the ancient Church, so I learned about the ancient Church, reading every bit of the source texts — even the Gnostics’ gibberish; the Orthodox Church said it had never changed the Faith in the last 2000 years, and everybody else has, so I read everything I could get my hands on about Church history — from every perspective possible; the Orthodox Church said it was the True Church — so I source-checked it. And, of course, you all know the conclusion I reached. I want to share with everyone the three “methods” I used when I was “source-checking” the Church’s claims, and I hope they’ll help someone who reads this to make an informed decision, even if it’s not the one I made: First, I started in AD 33 with Pentecost and followed the Church to today. This involved reading lots of histories and pretty much all of the early Fathers and quite a bit of the later Fathers (and even the various heretics). The question that I kept asking myself the whole way through is “who is changing? who is innovating?” The reason this is important is because any departure, however slight, from the Faith of the Apostles is a betrayal of that Faith; it’s basically saying that the Apostles had things wrong or didn’t have everything, that Christ left them incomplete. And this is obviously wrong. Scripture tells us to “cling to the Faith which was once for all handed down to the saints” (Jude 1:3) and so I knew that’s what I had to look for along the way: who is clinging, as Scripture commands us to do, and who is changing. And I followed that through to today. And I ended up in Moscow, Damascus, Alexandria, Bucharest, Sofia — in short, I ended up in the Orthodox Church. I then did the reverse; I started with today and worked my way back. I knew it was impossible to look at each and every individual Christian group and trace each individually back, as there are several thousand. So, what I decided to do was divide them into five umbrella groups: Orthodox Church Roman Catholic Church “Traditional” Protestantism (Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, etc.) “Low-church” Protestantism (Baptists, Pentecostals, “Evangelicals,” etc.) Restorationists (Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists, etc.) Starting with these five basic “movements” in Christianity, I traced each back to their roots from today. I found the roots of the Restorationists in the 1700′s and 1800′s, mostly in America. I found the roots of the “Low-church” Protestants in the 1600′s and 1700′s in the Anabaptist movement and, in the case of the Pentecostals, in the early 1900′s in America. I found the roots of the “Traditional” Protestants in Germany with Martin Luther, England with King Henry VIII, and Switzerland with John Calvin. The Roman Catholic Church was a little harder, as I certainly find its roots in the ancient Church, but I also saw a single Patriarch, the Pope of Rome, split from the four other Patriarchs (Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Antioch) in 1054 to go and form his own Church, the Roman Catholic Church of today. And so it was only the Orthodox I was able to trace all the way back, through time, to the first century in Palestine with the 12 holy men called Apostles. 3. And the third way I took was to take everything I had learned about what the ancient Christians believed and practiced, especially those of the first and second centuries, as they are the closest to the Apostles, and compared it with those five groups of Christians I gave above. I compared even the minutest details. I made columns in a notebook for each group and marked wherein they agreed or disagreed with the Christianity of the year 100 or so; early Christians fasted on Wednesdays and Fridays – check; early Christians believed in the Real Presence – check; early Christians Baptized via triple immersion – check; early Christians used incense in worship – check. And, when I had finished, I found only one “group” whose column was filled top to bottom with my little checks — the Orthodox Church. So that’s a little bit about how I reached my conclusions. It’s not the full story by any means — as I said, I’ll share that when I have the time to tell it. Of course, there was a lot more prayer and tears involved than the dry mathematical equations I give above — not enough, but there was quite a bit of it. I don’t know if I’d recommend my methods to others — many people would probably get tired after a while; it’s a long, often mind-boggling process, and I’m sure many would find it a little too calculated for religious matters. I understand the objections to my methods, but that’s how I did it — and I’m certain that anyone who does the same will reach the exact same conclusion as I did. http://preachersinstitute.com/2013/0...stolic-church/ and http://www.piousfabrications.com/200...how-i-can.html
__________________
1 Corinthians 13:4-8 |
|
|
|
|
04-14-2014, 04:32 AM
|
#8 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 365
|
Re: Outer darkness: A thousand years? or for eternity?
Quote:
Some straight answers about the Orthodox Church: Question: Why haven't I heard of the Orthodox Church before? Answer: Beats me! It's been around since the day of Pentecost. You probably haven't heard about it because we are a conservative Church that sounds no trumpets in our social programs but rather attempts to lead individuals, each in his or her own circumstances, into communion with God, the very purpose for which the Church exists. Believe it or not, there are perhaps three million of us in North America, and at least 150 million throughout the world. Question: Are you like the Catholics or the Protestants? Answer: Well, the Orthodox Church is "catholic" in the fullest meaning of the word: "whole and not confined." But some 500 years before the reformation split western Europe into Protestant and Roman Catholic, Orthodox Christians protested against the Pope of Rome and his attempts to become supreme over the Church in the 11th century, as well as some doctrinal innovations. The Orthodox Church remains unchanged in doctrine and faith since the early Church of the Apostles (yes, we've been around that long.) Question: That's a pretty bold claim, isn't it? Answer: It is a bold statement, but when you consider that Jesus Christ promised that he would found His Church and that it would endure unchanged in faith and practice, the gates of hell not prevailing until he came again, it's altogether refreshing (and confirms one's faith!) Question: Do you believe in the Bible? No. We believe in God! We do, however, believe the Bible to be God's inspired word a part of the Tradition of the Church. (II Thessalonians, 2:15) In fact, it was the Church which gave us the Bible as we know it today! (You didn't think it just fell from heaven as we have it, did you?) Question: I thought you had to be Greek or Russian to be Orthodox? Answer: Come on, did you really believe that? the Orthodox Church is not a country club! The Kingdom of Heaven is "equal opportunity". You are welcome regardless of where your ancestors came from. You are also welcome to bring with you your national customs and culture. Just keep the Gospel of Jesus Christ first and foremost. The Orthodox Church adopts the culture and language of the country she finds herself in. Question: All right, now on to your worship. I was told that the Orthodox worship pictures. Isn't that against the Commandments? Answer: Sorry, you were told wrong! The Holy Icons ("pictures") are honored as reminders of the Glory and Presence of God, and venerated as such. ONLY God, the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are due worship. (How can the Church practice that is so contrary to God's Law?) That is one reason you will find no statues in Orthodox temples - their inclusion in our tradition never developed as that too closely resembled the pagan piety of the early days of our Church, during the time of the Apostles. But icons, rather than attempting to depict reality, point to the Kingdom of God. They are often referred to as "picture windows to Heaven". In other words, you will not only hear the Gospel in an Orthodox Church, you will see it! The icons act as "tools" in our spiritual worship and witness to the sanctification of all creation and matter that occurred when Christ Jesus, the Son of God, took on human flesh. The Divine/Human Person of Jesus became the living icon of God (John 10:30; 14:6-11) in the flesh. Other questions and answers: http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/questions.html http://orthodoxdelmarva.org/faq.html http://www.holytrinityorthodox.org/a...iest/index.htm http://www.stkatherineorthodoxchurch...d-answers.html http://stgeorgepa.net/about/what-is-...s-and-answers/ Teachings of the Orthodox Church http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7062 Church History http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/history Why does Orthodox Christianity honor and bless the Virgin Mary? When turning to the Holy Scriptures to hear what God says about Mary, the key passage is from the first chapter of the Gospel of Luke. (1:26-49) The archangel Gabriel calls the Virgin Mary “highly favored” with God and the most “blessed” of all women (1:28). The Church can never do less. In Luke 1:42-43, Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, also calls Mary “blessed,” and “the mother of my Lord.” Should we not make the same confession? For centuries the Church with one voice has called Mary the mother of God. If God was not in her womb, then we are dead in our sins. By calling her the “mother of God” we do not mean, of course, that she is mother of the Holy Trinity. She is mother of the eternal Son of God in his humanity. Thus we call her “Theotokos” or God-bearer. Furthermore, not only does Elizabeth call her blessed, by Mary herself, inspired by the Holy Spirit, says, “All generations shall call me blessed” (Luke 1:48). This biblical prophecy explains the Orthodox hymn, “It is truly right to bless you, O Theotokos, the Mother of our God.” (called the megalynarion) One cannot believe one part of Scripture and reject other parts. One cannot believe the Bible and ignore Mary. Orthodox Christians bless her in obedience to God, fulfilling these holy words. We do not worship Mary. Worship is reserved for the Trinity alone. We honor and venerate her, as the Scriptures teach. It is important to secure Mary’s identity as Theotokos in order to protect the identity of her Son, “the Son of the Highest” (Luke 1:32), God in the flesh. Jesus assumed his human flesh from her! Mary’s role is essential in understanding that Jesus is both fully God and fully man. Do Orthodox icons border on idolatry? In Orthodox Christianity, icons are never worshipped, but they are honored and venerated. Worship is reserved for God alone. The second Commandment says, “you shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness or anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth” (Ex. 20:4-5). The warnings here are, first, that we are not to depict images of things which are limited to heaven and therefore unseen, and second, we never bow down to or worship created, earthly things. Does this condemn all imagery in worship? The Scriptures tell us emphatically no! Just five chapters after the giving of the Ten Commandments, God, as recorded in Exodus 25, gives his divine blueprint, if you will, for the tabernacle. Specifically in verses 19 and 20 he commands images of cherubim to be placed above the mercy seat. Also, God promises to meet and speak with us through this imagery! (Ex.25:22) In Exodus 26:1, Israel was commanded in no uncertain terms to weave “artistic designs of cherubim” into the tabernacle curtains. Are these images? Absolutely! In fact they could well be called Old Testament icons. And they are images which God commanded to be made. Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, Orthodox iconography never creates images of God the Father. If no one has seen God, then how can he be portrayed? To do so would border on idolatry. For, “no one has ever see God…” (Jn.1:18; cf Ex.33:20). Similarly, the Holy Spirit is never represented except as a dove, which we receive in the Baptismal accounts from Scripture. The question, however, remains of what to do with the second person of the Trinity, the Son of God. Can he be depicted in holy icons? Realizing that because no one has seen God the Father and does not know what he “looks like,” he cannot be portrayed. However, the Son of God became a human being and can therefore be depicted in holy images since we know what humanity looks like. To deny the embodiment of Christ in image is tantamount to the refutation of the Incarnation (the Son of God becoming human). Simply put, because God became man, we are able to portray images of him for veneration. One will notice that no icon of Christ is a portrait trying to capture the subtleties of what the Lord looked like, but rather a symbolic representation of the Lord to teach us that in truth, God did “empty himself and take on the form of a servant for our salvation” (Phil.2:7). Analogous to this is the representation in sacred icons of the saints. These men and women were faithful to the Gospel of Jesus Christ until their last breath and remain for us as examples of the Christian ideal. Their images offer us encouragement and renewed hope that to walk in the newness of life is possible! Again, no icons –or the saints themselves, for that matter—are ever worshipped. God alone is worthy to be praised. But we venerate their images and ask for their intercessory prayers that God might have mercy on our souls! http://stgeorgepa.net/about/what-is-...s-and-answers/ Thank you brothers for bearing with me. Blessings, InChristAlone
__________________
1 Corinthians 13:4-8 |
|
|
|
|
|
04-14-2014, 07:07 AM
|
#9 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Outer darkness: A thousand years? or for eternity?
ICA,
So should those leaving the local church join the Orthodox church?
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
|
|
|
|
04-14-2014, 09:39 AM
|
#10 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,384
|
Re: Outer darkness: A thousand years? or for eternity?
Take a couple of days off and you never know what will happen.
I read through (well, read and scanned) the bit on the Orthodox Church. This one comment was, to me, a little funny: Quote:
When you read it, it has meaning because you apply meaning to it. Certain things stand out more to you than to others.
At our best we read through a lens that is not pure, clear, unadulterated glass.
And even when we think we have gotten past those lenses, we discover that we have other lenses. Just because i talk about these lenses does not make me free of them. My only hope is to speak from my best effort at avoiding my own lenses and be open to hear from others as they do the same. We may all discover something that seems new to us, but not really new. Just blocked by our lens. But with rare exception can we claim to be avoiding the interpreted word. The real question is how narrow and confined is the interpreter that we are accepting. Are we relying on a single interpreter? Nee and Lee made claims about those on whose shoulders they stood. But several of those were questionable sources themselves. And are the others truly saying what Nee and Lee claim they are? Or are their words being reinterpreted and altered? If I am right, it might seem to paint a dire picture for us as Christians. But I believe that it is the rejection of simply accepting the lens of choice and instead being willing to collectively search through our altered views that provides the clarity we need.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
|
04-14-2014, 09:50 AM
|
#11 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Norman Oklaoma
Posts: 122
|
Re: Outer darkness: A thousand years? or for eternity?
Quote:
Please pass the eyesalve....Rev. 3:18
__________________
Christ is the answer to every question and the solution to every problem. Last edited by Elden1971; 04-14-2014 at 10:04 AM. Reason: add verse |
|
|
|
|
|
04-14-2014, 02:57 PM
|
#12 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,693
|
Re: Outer darkness: A thousand years? or for eternity?
Quote:
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
04-14-2014, 11:43 AM
|
#13 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Re: Outer darkness: A thousand years? or for eternity?
Quote:
If John MacArthur (just to pick a famous evangelical) were to come out and say "You people don't need Bibles. Throw them away. Buy my commentaries. You need the Word interpreted by me." You would (I should hope) recognize this as a damnable heresy. MacArthur (or any other teacher) might have some very good insight into what Scripture is saying, but anyone who claims to have all the answers to every mystery in Scripture is essentially claiming infallibility. Of course, anyone who calls themselves a "First amongst Equals" might indeed believe that is the case. |
|
|
|
|
|
04-14-2014, 03:37 PM
|
#14 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,384
|
Re: Outer darkness: A thousand years? or for eternity?
Quote:
And at some level, we always are accepting someone's interpretation, even when we try to avoid it. We are influenced by certain people more than others. We tend to flock with our own "birds." But when we completely relinquish the right to even question how they came to a particular conclusion, or to even question the validity of assumptions used in getting there, then we have a problem. And Houston, we have a problem. Some groups more than others. And on the other hand, you should hear some of the things my son told me he heard in seminary. These are all honorable men and women who diligently teach theology to the students. And all are proponents of people having and using the Bible. But they also will admit that one of the most troublesome problems today is the Bible being generally available to everybody. The number of ways we can go wrong reading it is exponentially multiplied since the printing press and broader literacy. So, at some level, ceding some of our autonomy to those who truly study and labor in the word is probably a good thing. And it is no small thing to try to discern what kinds of people is it reasonable to cede it to. But unless we are going to become full-time Bible scholars on our own, we need teachers that we can trust. But what I suggest is reasonable and even consistent with the notion of there being teachers of the Word, I agree that having a population that is completely relying on you for any knowledge is a scary thing. And there was t time when much of the population had no choice in the matter. But we do have a choice. And we should choose to be active participants in the process, not just dormant followers.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
|
04-14-2014, 03:49 PM
|
#15 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,693
|
Re: Outer darkness: A thousand years? or for eternity?
Quote:
I remember parochial school, where they put the fear of God in us little kids lest we mistakenly interpret God's word. 
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
04-15-2014, 02:59 AM
|
#16 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 365
|
Re: Outer darkness: A thousand years? or for eternity?
Quote:
If one wants to read footnotes, he or she can read a book or a special webpage where he or she can find a few different interpretations. But yes, they don't really contradict, but complement each other. It's not that the Church doesn't want you to interpret the Bible on your own. The Church doesn't want you to be deceived and follow false teachers like Nee and Lee, repeating their errors.
__________________
1 Corinthians 13:4-8 |
|
|
|
|
|
04-15-2014, 01:56 AM
|
#17 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 365
|
Re: Outer darkness: A thousand years? or for eternity?
Quote:
If you found Christ in your church, then you don't need to look for Him somewhere else.
__________________
1 Corinthians 13:4-8 |
|
|
|
|
|
04-14-2014, 02:45 PM
|
#18 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,693
|
Re: Outer darkness: A thousand years? or for eternity?
Quote:
(1) Mary is NOT the Mother of God. The Bible never says it, nor is it true, not even in the least. I don't care if "for centuries the Church with one voice has called Mary the mother of God," as you say. Actually the early church NEVER called Mary the Mother of God. It was the church of the dark ages that elevated Mary to this dreadful position. (2) There is little, if any, difference between Idols, Icons, and Images. The minute nuances have little bearing upon the members of their respective churches. Your repeated statement, "icons are never worshiped, but they are honored and venerated. Worship is reserved for God alone," has little meaning to all the children that grow up in that system. I also grew up in Romanism repeatedly hearing that all our statues, paintings, and pictures are NOT idols, but images. All the semantics in the world cannot undo the reality. InChristAlone, I also have pamphlets from the Catholic church which I could post which describe their official positions. Much of my extended family still abides there. Regardless of what "spin" they are told, the facts are the facts. Icons and images are both venerated idols, and are forbidden by the 2nd commandment, and Mary is NOT the Mother of God. The Only Begotten Eternal Son of the Father HAS NO MOTHER. Millions and millions of genuine Christians have actually believed the Bible and have totally ignored Mary.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
04-15-2014, 02:27 AM
|
#19 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 365
|
Re: Outer darkness: A thousand years? or for eternity?
Quote:
#1 I don't think you will buy it. But I will reply to you by an article from a Catholic website. Though personally, I don't see a strong logic in your argument. If Mary was not the Mother of Jesus, then how was He born? Who gave Him birth? We know that God is His Father. Then who is that woman who were the physical mother of Jesus? He had to have an earthly mother (not Divine), hadn't He? --- Though we don’t have the words “Mother of God” as such in Scripture, we do have something very close in Luke 1:43, when Mary’s cousin (or relative) Elizabeth greets Mary shortly after she has conceived our Lord: And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? Mother of the Lord means Mother of God, right? Isn’t Jesus our Lord and God? "Not so fast," so often says my Protestant interlocutor. "The Greek word kurios or 'lord' can indeed be used to denote divinity but not necessarily so. It can be used to denote an earthly potentate or even false 'lords' or gods" (see Matt. 20:8; 21:40; I Cor. 8:5-6, etc.). And this is true. The key to our discussion then is to ascertain how kurios is being used of Christ in Luke 1:43. Was it being used to describe Jesus with regard to his humanity alone, or with regard to his divinity? Old Testament Type First, when Elizabeth “exclaimed with a loud cry… why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me” (Luke 1:42-43), Mary was revealed to be the New Testament Ark of the Lord. Elizabeth’s words make this clear as they hearken back to a text from II Samuel 6:9 wherein David exclaims concerning the Old Covenant “ark of the Lord:” And David was afraid of the LORD that day; and he said, "How can the ark of the LORD come to me?" If this one parallel leaves you unconvinced, there are more that may tip the scale for you. St. John the Baptist “leaped for joy” at the salutation of Mary (Luke 1:44), just as King David “danced before the Lord” in the ark of the Lord in II Samuel 6:14. Moreover, Mary “remained with [Elizabeth] for three months (Luke 1:56),” just as “the ark of the Lord remained in the house of Obededom the Gittite for three months” in II Sam. 6:11. Good enough for me. The question is: Was the ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament the ark of an “earthly potentate,” or was it the ark of almighty God? The answer is obvious. If this is true, then the more glorious New Covenant Ark of the Covenant could never be said to be inferior to its antecedent. New Covenant fulfillments are always more glorious than their Old Covenant types (see Heb. 10:1; Col. 2:17; Heb. 8:6). Thus, the New Covenant “Ark of the Lord” could not be an ark of an earthly potentate, or a mere man. Given the revelation we have received from God, it—or she—is the Ark of Almighty God. To Whom Did Mary Give Birth? The second and most important reason we know Luke 1:43 is referring to Mary as the Mother of God is summed up nicely in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 495: Called in the Gospels “the mother of Jesus,” Mary is acclaimed by Elizabeth, at the prompting of the Spirit and even before the birth of her son, as “the mother of my Lord.” In fact, the One whom she conceived as man by the Holy Spirit, who truly became her Son according to the flesh, was none other than the Father’s eternal Son, the second person of the Holy Trinity. Hence the Church confesses that Mary is truly “Mother of God” (Theotokos). Mary is the Mother of God precisely because Jesus Christ, her Son, is God. And when Mary gave birth, she did not give birth to a nature, or even two natures; she gave birth to one, divine person. To deny this essential truth of the faith, as the Council of Ephesus (AD 431) declared in its first of many “anathemas” of St. Cyril which would be accepted by the Council, is heresy: If anyone does not confess that God is truly Emmanuel, and that on this account the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (for according to the flesh she gave birth to the Word of God become flesh by birth), let him be anathema. The real problem with denying Mary to be Mother of God and affirming her to be merely the mother of the man Christ Jesus is in doing so one invariably either denies the divinity of Christ (as the 4th century Arians did), or one creates two persons with regard to Jesus Christ (as the 5th century Nestorians did). Either error results in heresy. The Ecumenical Councils of Nicaea (AD 325) and Constantinople (AD 381) dealt decisively with the Arian heresy. The Council of Ephesus (AD 431), as mentioned above, dealt with this latter heresy as it was being taught by the followers of Patriarch Nestorius of Constantinople. Rather than teaching the truth that Christ is one divine person with two natures—one human, and one divine—hypostatically unified, or joined together without admixture in the one divine person of Christ, they were teaching Christ to be two persons with a mere moral union. The Council fathers understood this could never be affirmed by Christians. The Bible declares to us: “… in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” (Colossians 2:9). And, “… in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible…” (Colossians 1:16) No where do we read in them… A Catholic Quadrinity? Another common objection to Mary, Mother of God, goes something like this: “If God is Trinity, and Mary is the Mother of God, would that not mean Mary is the Mother of the Trinity?” Actually, it does not. Paragraph 495 of the Catechism, quoted above, was very clear that Mary is the mother of the second person of the Blessed Trinity because neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit were incarnate. Simple enough. But I am going to suggest the problem here to be deeper than just a confusion of persons within the Godhead. In my experience, this simple explanation almost invariably leads to another question that reveals the real problem in the mind of many Fundamentalists: “Even if Mary is only the Mother of the second person of the Blessed Trinity, he is just as eternal as the other two divine persons are. Thus, in order to be his mother, Mary would still have to be equally as eternal.” The root of the Quadrinity problem is really a false understanding of what is meant by Mary’s true motherhood and perhaps a false understanding of what is meant by motherhood in general. By saying Mary is the Mother of God, the Catholic Church is not saying that Mary is the source of the divine nature among the three persons of the Blessed Trinity, nor is she the source of the divine nature of the second person of the Blessed Trinity. She doesn’t have to be in order to be the mother of the second person of the Blessed Trinity incarnate. Perhaps an analogy using normal human reproduction will help clarify the Catholic and biblical position. My wife is the mother of my son, Timmy (and four other little human tornadoes). But this in no way implies that she is the source of Timmy’s immortal soul. God directly and immediately created his soul as he does with every human being (see Eccl. 12:7). However, we do not conclude from this that my wife, Valerie, is merely “the mother of Timmy’s body.” She is Timmy’s mother… period. This is so because she did not give birth to a body. She gave birth to a human person who is a body/soul composite… Timmy. Analogously, though Mary did not provide Jesus with either his divine nature or his immortal human soul, she is still his mother because she did not give birth to a body, a soul, a nature, or even two natures—she gave birth to a person. And that one person is God. The conclusion to the whole matter is inescapable: If Jesus Christ is one, eternal and unchangeable divine person—God—and Mary is his mother—then Mary is the Mother of that one, eternal and unchangeable person—God. http://www.catholic.com/blog/tim-sta...-mother-of-god
__________________
1 Corinthians 13:4-8 |
|
|
|
|
|
04-15-2014, 03:34 AM
|
#20 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,693
|
Re: Outer darkness: A thousand years? or for eternity?
Quote:
We should limit our theology here to what the bible says, because often what the bible does not say is equally important. To infer from the virgin birth that God now has a mother is a heresy which has gripped the Catholic Church since shortly after Constantine. The early church had no special place for Mary, rather legends and superstitions grew out of this heresy, which were perhaps the single most destructive force to drive mankind into the dark ages. Untold stories of faithful martyrs can be reduced to this papal demand, "do you worship Mary, the Mother of God?" Life and death hinged on this question. These faithful believers were willing to die for the truth, and the truth only, and for them there was no mother of God. Let's look at the errant logic which surrounds your final argument concerning Timmy and his dear mother Valerie. The hypothical question is implied, "is Valerie the mother of Timothy, or is she the mother of Timothy's body? The real answer is both, she is his mother, AND she is the mother of his body. Likewise Jesus had a real mother on earth, and the Virgin Mary was the mother of His human body. Today, the glorified Christ has no mother, much to the dismay of many in church history. The blessed virgin and her husband Joe went on to have four more sons, and at least two daughters. Mary was never sinless as was supposed. The Assumption of Mary is a major farce, as is her throne in the heavens. Neither is Mary our mediator as if we should pray to the one "sitting next to God" in heaven.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
11-09-2014, 06:05 PM
|
#21 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: The Orthodox Church
Quote:
2. we are the people of the book. the orthodox have the writings of the ancients. that is what i respect: the testimony, not the robes. 3. the idea is to receive one another. we don't join, we don't judge. we receive. the orthodox should be received as brothers. they are our peers, our equals, our bretheren, fellow heirs of faith. one organization is not superior or inferior to others.
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
|
|
|
|
|
11-09-2014, 09:39 PM
|
#22 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,693
|
Re: The Orthodox Church
Quote:
The early church had no time, no money, no interest in robes and formalities. The EO are all about icons and symbolism. Except for baptism and the Lords Supper, the NT had no interest in these things. Whatsoever.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
11-12-2014, 02:22 AM
|
#23 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 365
|
Re: The Orthodox Church
Quote:
The early believers in Christ continued in the traditions of their Jewish forefathers, worshiping as they had in both the Temple and the Synagogue . To this worship practice they added the distinctly Christian components which were, in fact, transformed Jewish worship practices. These included Baptism, the Eucharist, the Agape meal, and others. Baptism was also present in Jewish religious practice as a personal repentance for sin. Baptism, like the Lord's Supper, was transformed in both meaning and content by our Lord Jesus Christ. Baptism became not only a repentance for one's sins, but being baptized in the name of the Trinity now also assured forgiveness and incorporation into the Body of Christ, the Church. Baptism was the once and for all initiatory rite whereby one received the Holy Spirit and came into the Church. The early Christians with their transformed understanding of the central elements of Judaism had a practical problem: how to conduct worship? They wanted to carry on their old Jewish worship practices while at the same time incorporating this new meaning and content. They accepted the necessity for continuity with the old, and for the celebration of the new, but could not do both together. The result was doing both in parallel. The Temple hours of prayer and the Synagogue worship were kept, but were not centered in Christ. Each day of the week, those Christian believers in Jerusalem would attend the Temple for prayers during the daily cycle, and on Saturday — the Jewish Sabbath — they would attend either Temple or Synagogue. http://www.liturgica.com/html/litEChLitWEC.jsp
__________________
1 Corinthians 13:4-8 |
|
|
|
|
|
05-03-2016, 11:29 AM
|
#24 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,384
|
Orthodoxy
ICA,
I must say that it is clear that the EO belief, though stated in terms sounding much like those of he LCM, is nothing like it. And it is probably easiest to see that, as intended, it is essentially true. But, like the LCM, it is the unique way of stating it that is the problem. The scripture really does not provide as statement that we obtain divinity, but rather that we become like him (Christ). Like. Not of similar essence or stature. In other words, I am not sure but what the way the EO speaks of it may be obscuring the true intent and turning the focus. But this one statement I do really like: Quote:
While God is present in the world, and it is possible to realize him from the created world, the real presence of God is in the people who claim to be his followers. The followers of Christ. But we to often do not follow Christ. We learn the best doctrines and can debate them with learned theologians. But how are we living before man? What is the God that is seen in the world? We were not created to bear the image of God back to Himself. Rather we were created to bear the image of God to the world. To borrow from a TV psychologist, "How's that workin'?" And for the EO, it would seem that there is not much to say. They seem so consumed with being separate from the world around them. Hard to see any kind of image there. Lots of talk about being incarnated. But for what?
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
|
05-03-2016, 12:58 PM
|
#25 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 365
|
Re: LSM’s Deification Doctrine—Biblical or Blasphemous? Nigel Tomes
Quote:
The essence of Orthodox faith is not doctrines but spiritual life. Spirituality in the Orthodox Church means the everyday activity of life in communion with God -- through the Sacraments of the Church, reading the Bible, keeping the Gospel commandments (and not just the 10 commandments of Old Testament), through fasting, prayer (with attention, humility, repentance and reverence), and through spiritual warfare against our sins, passions, and sinful thoughts. This activity has always borne great fruits in the Eastern Orthodox Church. Orthodox monastics, ascetics and laymen of holy life became great saints, whose life was a vivid example of spiritual transformation, becoming Christ-like. Some of the saints could work miracles, instantly heal people through prayer or tell the past and future life of a man whom they for the first time. One of the greatest saints of the 20-th century was St. John (Maximovich) Archbishop of Shanghai and San Francisco: http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/54575.htm Anyway, working miracles is not that important to reveal a saint. Most of Orthodox saints tried to hide their supernatural abilities. Because in Orthodoxy, miracles don't speak for man's holiness. Unconditional love and humility are the signs of a true saint who lives in communion with God: "God descends to the humble as waters flow down from the hills into the valleys". -- St. John of Kronstadt If, according to the example of Abraham and Job, we think that we are earth and ashes, then we shall never be robbed, but we will always have something to give to others: not gold and silver, but an example of humility, patience, and love toward God. May there be glory to Him forever. Amen. -- Saints Barsanuphius & John, Guidance Toward Spiritual Life Extirpate two thoughts within thyself: do not consider yourself worthy of anything great, and do not think that any other man is much lower than you in worthiness. Learn humility beforehand, which the Lord commanded in word and showed forth in deed. Hence, do not expect obedience from others, but be ready for obedience yourself. -- Saint Basil the Great This is the mark of Christianity--however much a man toils, and however many righteousnesses he performs, to feel that he has done nothing, and in fasting to say, "This is not fasting," and in praying, "This is not prayer," and in perseverance at prayer, "I have shown no perseverance; I am only just beginning to practice and to take pains"; and even if he is righteous before God, he should say, "I am not righteous, not I; I do not take pains, but only make a beginning every day. -- St. Macarius the Great Even if an angel should indeed appear to you, do not receive him but humble yourself, saying, 'I am not worthy to see an angel, for I am a sinner.' -- St. Clement of Rome (d. 101 AD) Repentance and humility are those virtues which allow the Lord to enter in our hearts. PS BTW, Orthodox Spirituality is different from Roman Catholic spirituality. Reveal Your Saints and You Reveal Your Church https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/onbeh...l-your-church/ Why Orthodoxy is the True Faith http://stjohndc.work/Russian/homilie...E/e_Osipov.htm
__________________
1 Corinthians 13:4-8 |
|
|
|
|
|
05-05-2016, 01:15 PM
|
#26 | |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Orthodoxy
Quote:
Ephesians 3:19 says, and I quote, "and to know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God" ...and...Ephesians 4:13 says, "till we all come in the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ" Fr. Scott |
|
|
|
|
05-05-2016, 04:06 PM
|
#27 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,384
|
Orthodoxy
Quote:
Being filled with the fullness of God does not make you God any more than being filled with Mexican food makes you into a taco. And the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ is a yardstick for spiritual growth, not a declaration of gaining divinity as being part of your being (as opposed to being God empowering you). In both you are falling onto premises that Lee (and probably others) have declared to be true simply because they say so. Those verses do not say what you are declaring comes from them. Not saying that they can't mean that. But there is nothing in them that makes it so. Only a possible understanding. And given so many other places where the descriptions are more clearly not about becoming deified in that manner, to insist upon it is to clearly go beyond what is written. It would have been too easy to be more direct if something that unexpected was intended. To make it so soft that you have to push only marginally plausible renderings together in one verse to create something the plain meaning just can't give is just not enough to say that "it is written."
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
|
05-06-2016, 12:35 AM
|
#28 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 365
|
Orthodoxy
Quote:
Philippians 3:20-21 But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, who, by the power that enables Him to bring everything under His control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like His glorious body. 1 Corinthians 15:52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 2 Peter 1:3 (KJV) According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. 1 John 3:2 Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. Man can't be of the same essence with God. We will always be the creature, and never the Creator. God will remain God, and we will remain His people. But I believe the fullness of Christ is much more than just spiritual growth. Becoming a partaker of our humanity, Christ opened the way for us to become partakers in His divinity. “For as He is, so are we in this world” (1 John 4:17). Romans 6:3-6 Do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death? 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 if we have been planted together in the likeness of His death, we shall also be raised together in the likeness of His resurrection. Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that we should no longer be the slaves of sin. The verses above say that we will one day inherit a new resurrection body, just like the body of the risen Christ. It will be spiritual, glorious, holy, imperishable, immortal, and not inclined to sin. Isn't it deification? This is still a mystery for us but the Scriptures say: But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. (1 Corinthians 2:9)
__________________
1 Corinthians 13:4-8 |
|
|
|
|
|
05-06-2016, 06:39 AM
|
#29 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 365
|
Re: The Orthodox Church
Just want to share two of my favorite Orthodox blogs:
1 Fr Stephen Freeman's Glory to God for All Things. Why did the Lord have to die on the Cross? https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/glory...rist-life-man/ Good News – Your Debt is Being Cancelled https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/glory...ebt-cancelled/ 2 Orthodox Road. Rediscovering the beauty of ancient Christianity. What Orthodoxy Is: http://www.orthodoxroad.com/what-orthodoxy-is/ What Orthodoxy Isn’t: http://www.orthodoxroad.com/what-orthodoxy-isnt/ My Journey into The Ancient Church, Part 1 http://www.orthodoxroad.com/my-journ...cient-faith-1/ My Journey into The Ancient Church, Part 2 http://www.orthodoxroad.com/my-journ...church-part-2/ Scripture vs. Tradition http://www.orthodoxroad.com/scripture-vs-tradition/ Things I Wish I’d Known Before Attending. A guide for your first venture to an Eastern Orthodox Church http://www.orthodoxroad.com/things-i...ore-attending/
__________________
1 Corinthians 13:4-8 |
|
|
|
|
05-06-2016, 09:22 AM
|
#30 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,384
|
Orthodoxy
Quote:
First, it is Paul who made such a valiant attempt to describe the nature of the resurrected body of man by reference to what was observable about the resurrected body of Christ. The one verse you provide in 1 Cor 15 is part of that discussion. By taking it in isolation, you might imply something that is not there. But in the context of the whole, it is clear that the discussion is about a resurrected human body. Nothing about the nature of God or being deity or deified. Same for the verses in Philippians. Same comments with a little more brevity. Nothing specifically saying that we gain status as deity. (And what is deification except to become deity?) As for 1 Peter, to partake is much like the example of the taco. Not exactly. But in no way clearly like gaining deity as an aspect of one's self. To be like is not the same a being. You have to understand that the word "like," without qualifier, only refers to reasonable similarity in appearance. If our creation was to bear God's image (not to bear his essence), then becoming truly "like" Him means that we have achieved the full image. It does not confer anything else. If we instead say that we are "exactly like Him in every possible way," then we have said something different that simply "like" Him. And it does not say that. And based on usage, it should not be presumed to include everything in all ways when it only says "like." It is a misrepresentation of the words actually written. It is "beyond what is written."
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
|
05-06-2016, 09:00 AM
|
#31 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Quote:
But where I have looked around, I see other readings that make it not so. Thus the idea, for example, of "shared glory" leading to special god-like status. Jesus said that eventually the Son is coming with the Father and the angels in glory, but the angels are not deified (although Origen, the early proponent of the idea, thought they were). See readings in Luke 9:26, "the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels."; also Mark 8:38, Matthew 16:27. Oh, but the angels' glory is reflected glory - It's not intrinsic glory! Or some such... then the qualifications and parsings come out to support your reading, and to dismiss any other. Nah. I don't buy it. Like OBW says, if something so important was there, it would be clearly spelled out where we don't have to remonstrate over our ideas. Did Jesus rise on the third day? Yep. Clearly spelled out by the written testimonies. Okay. Fine. But exegetical readings that need whipsawing through scripture don't have the same standing. And certainly not centrality or 'high peak' standing. But I don't dismiss EO writings out of hand. They are part of the conversation. I hold them as equally important as Calvin and Luther. I spent years of my formative youth in California, where "Hey, man" was the universal greeting and anything goes was the universal ethos. Today I live in rigorous, cold and logical Germany and I love it. But I always remember my California Dreamin' days. Everyone was exactly who they were supposed to be at that moment in time. Everyone got received as they were. That's how Witness Lee got a following. Eventually he mesmerized his followers to listen to no one but him. Today I try to listen to everyone, especially those who can shed light. The Orthodox Church is one. The Jews are another. Calvinists with their "I am always right" attitude not so much. But I respect them because that's where I was born. Paul taught, "Wherever you were when God called you, in this situation remain. Don't try to flee. Accept God's sovereign arrangement." Peace out, Man. (and woman).
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
|
|
|
|
|
05-03-2016, 11:48 AM
|
#32 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,693
|
Re: LSM’s Deification Doctrine—Biblical or Blasphemous? Nigel Tomes
Quote:
My friend told me that St. John Chrys?? wrote the EO liturgy back in the 4th? Century. I can't agree with that. An established liturgy, no matter how good, is foreign to the New Covenant. Also, whether it is called an icon, an idol, a graven image, or a God-emoji, it is all the same, and forbidden by the 10 commandments. In these two regards, the EOC and the RCC, which I grew up in, are both the same, and contrary to His word.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
05-03-2016, 01:04 PM
|
#33 | ||
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 365
|
Re: LSM’s Deification Doctrine—Biblical or Blasphemous? Nigel Tomes
Quote:
Christianity did not spring from a vacuum. Jesus was a Jew, the apostles were Jewish. They all worshipped according to the tradition of the Jewish nation as handed down by Moses and the Prophets. No one doubts or denies that Judaism is a liturgical religion. Within the New Testament there is evidence that the Apostles continued to observe Jewish liturgical practices. When we approach the New Testament we must read it in the framework in which it was written: the early Church meeting in the Temple and Synagogue and putting Christ in the center of what they did as Jews. Christ FULFILLED the Law, He did not destroy it (Matt. 5:17). The OT was a type and shadow of the New as Hebrews teaches. Thus the first Christians worshipped according to the pattern of the Law, but saw the worship as directed to and fulfilled in Christ. NOTE: Liturgical prayer does NOT supplant or replace "personal prayer". Liturgical prayer is usually "corporate", private prayer is usually a combination of "set prayers" and personal expression. Liturgy in the New Testament Scriptural references: Acts 2:42 - continued in THE prayers (in the GreeK), were day by day IN THE TEMPLE… Acts 5:42, The apostles were continually in the Temple praying and teaching, 6:4 they appoint deacons so they can devote themselves to THE prayers (Greek) and ministry of the word Acts 10:2-3 Cornelius prayed continually, 9th hour., 10:9 Peter at the 6th hour went to the roof to pray. These were "liturgical hours of prayer". Acts 13:2 While they were "ministering" to the Lord, literally in liturgy, the Holy Spirit spoke to them. The Spirit works in liturgy Acts 15:22, 18:8, 17: "leaders" of synagogue, ie., liturgical worship leaders. Acts 18:7 "Worshipper of God" house next to the synagogue. Acts 16:25 midnight praying and singing hymns of praise to God. Acts 20:6, 16 After the Days of Unleavened Bread, Pentecost are mentioned. Paul says in I Cor. 16:8 that he will stay in Ephesus until Pentecost. The early Church kept a liturgical "church calendar". Hebrews 8:2 High Priest Jesus a "minister" (lit. "liturgist") in the heavenly sanctuary. Read more: http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts..._new_testament Early Christian Liturgics. Early Christian worship had an origin: Jewish worship form and practice. The early disciples did not create new worship practices any more than did Jesus Christ. They all prayed as Jews and worshiped as Jews. The earliest Christians were Jews who recognized and accepted Jesus Christ as the promised Messiah, and the worship that they practiced was liturgical because Jewish worship was liturgical. For this reason we see in the New Testament that the early Christians continued their Jewish worship practices, even while they added some uniquely Christian components. The most central new content was the sacrament of the Eucharist (or Communion) as instituted by Christ at the Last Supper. However, in the early Church this was celebrated as a separate service for many years. This living continuity of worship from Temple to Synagogue and into the early Christian Church is why there is a highly developed Christian liturgical order in use by the end of the first century, within sixty years of Christ’s resurrection. Read more: http://www.holytrinitymission.org/bo..._liturgics.htm Quote:
http://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthod...sis-for-icons/ No Graven Image: Icons and Their Proper Use by Fr. Jack N. Sparks, Ph.D. http://www.antiochian.org/content/no...eir-proper-use God bless.
__________________
1 Corinthians 13:4-8 |
||
|
|
|
|
05-03-2016, 01:25 PM
|
#34 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,693
|
Orthodoxy
Quote:
I say assuredly that prescribed liturgy is one of the biggest frustrations to real worship of the New Covenant. Structured liturgy, in fact, just as in the days of Isaiah, causes most people to honor God with their lips, and not their hearts. The fact that the EOC liturgy was not established until the 3rd or 4th century proves it is not "original."
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
05-04-2016, 12:14 AM
|
#35 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 365
|
Orthodoxy
Quote:
The most ancient description of the order and time of the Holy Eucharist (Divine Liturgy) is preserved in the 1st Apology by Justin the Martyr, Ch. 67, written in 138 A.D. In brief, he refers to the day, which he calls the day of the sun (the Lord's Day, the day of Kyrios, that is Kyriake, Sunday, the first day of the week, in memory of the Resurrection of the Lord.) On this day the Christians gathered together to participate in the Divine Liturgy. As to the order of the diagram of the Liturgy, Justin refers to: the reading of the Scriptures, the exhortation by the Notable, Proestos, the offering of prayers, the offering of bread, wine and water, the long thanksgiving, eucharistic, prayer of sanctification by the Notable, the partaking of Holy Communion, and the collection for charity. Justin the Martyr gives us only a diagram and not the actual prayers and words. But it is the same order that St. Chrysostom follows in his Liturgy used today. http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7117 Orthodox worship follows the pattern of Old Testament worship and is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. The Evangelical approach to worship seems to be based on the assumption that Jesus abolished the Old Testament. Because of this Evangelicals ignore the Old Testament teaching on Tabernacle worship and focus on the New Testament for instruction on how to worship God. The paucity of New Testament passages on worship has been taken as grounds for an anything goes approach to worship. But, this assumption is wrong. Jesus made it clear he did not come to abolish the old covenant but rather to fulfill it: Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them (Matthew 5:17). Orthodox worship is more than an imitation of Old Testament worship. It is also a fulfilment of the Old Testament prophecies. The Old Testament prophets besides describing the coming Messiah also described worship in the Messianic Age. Within the book of Malachi is a very interesting prophecy: My name will be great among the nations, from the rising to the setting of the sun. In every place incense and pure offerings will be brought to my name, because my name will be great among the nations, says the Lord. (Malachi 1:11) The phrase “from the rising to the setting of the sun” is a poetic way of saying from east to west — everywhere. Here we have a prophecy that the worship of God which was formerly confined to Jerusalem would in the future become universal. This was confirmed by Jesus in his conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well. In response to her question whether Jerusalem or Mt. Gerizim was the proper place for worship (John 4:19), Jesus answered that in the Messianic Age true worship would not depend on location (Jerusalem or Mt. Gerizim) but on worship of the Trinity. His statement about worshiping the Father in spirit (Holy Spirit) and truth (Jesus Christ) (John 4:23-24) is a teaching that true worship is worship of the Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God wants neither Jewish animal sacrifices in Jerusalem nor Samaritan animal sacrifices on Mt. Gerizim. He wants a spiritual worship, in spirit and in truth, which is not linked to a certain locality. BTW, this doesn't mean that it can't be the liturgical worship. Eastern Orthodox liturgical worship is almost non-stop prayer where most of the service is chanted or sung. In the last chapter of Hebrews is a strange verse that many Evangelicals and Protestants skip over: We have an altar from which those who minister at the tabernacle have no right to eat (Hebrews 13:10). What the author is asserting here is that the priests and Levites working at the Jerusalem Temple have no access to the Christian Eucharist. The Eucharist is only for those who confess Jesus as the promised Messiah and his death on the cross as the ultimate Passover sacrifice. The reference to the altar tells us the early Christians celebrated the Eucharist on real altars and that they had priests. Protestants today have the habit of calling the platform area altars and spiritual songs as sacrifice. This involves a significant spiritualizing of the meaning of Hebrews 13:10. Furthermore, if we take this spiritualizing approach the phrase “have no right to eat” would not make sense. In the early Church if one did not confess Jesus as Christ, one could not receive the Eucharist. Contemporary Protestant worship on the other hand welcomes everybody and makes no distinction between believers and nonbelievers in its worship. The early Church’s worship style was radically different from Protestant churches that have dispensed with the altar and the idea of the Eucharist as a spiritual sacrifice. https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/ortho...orary-worship/ Brother Ohio, I am not sure if you have ever been to an Orthodox church during the Divine Liturgy. Just for experience, could you, together with your neighbor friend, attend the nearest Ukrainian Orthodox church? I am almost sure that you won't like it. Orthodox worship can be a foreign land for you. But I would be grateful to you if you could share your experience. Even your negative review is welcomed. Since it's a different topic, you could post your message to my blog. Thank you! PS Here is what Protestants (Lutherans) say about liturgical worship: Top Ten Reasons Why We Use the Liturgy. (As an Orthodox Christian, I absolutely agree with this Protestant author): http://higherthings.org/myht/article...easons-liturgy Ohio, if you really decide to attend the Divine Liturgy with your friend and then post your review, here is a guide for your first venture to an Eastern Orthodox Church: "Things I Wish I’d Known Before Attending" http://www.orthodoxroad.com/things-i...ore-attending/ You can also check this transcript of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom: http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/liturgy/liturgy.html http://www.orthodox.net/services/slu...chrysostom.pdf God bless.
__________________
1 Corinthians 13:4-8 |
|
|
|
|
|
05-04-2016, 01:28 PM
|
#36 |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,384
|
Orthodoxy
ICA,
In response to yours to me and to Ohio, I note the following: Liturgy. This is, unfortunately, something that most of evangelical Christianity has eliminated outside of the occasional recitation of the Apostle's Creed (or other similar creed), regular inclusion of reading of scripture, and sometimes a responsive reading (in some groups). The more formal liturgies have been abandoned by definition as somehow without purpose or viewed as tying back to the source of the errors that they "protested" against just a few centuries past. And many will refer to it as to regimented and therefore declare that it cannot be of the Spirit. They consider that winging it is more spiritual, even if more bereft of content. While I do not want a full EO or RCC liturgy, a more regimented service that is designed to do more than get everyone stirred-up and pointed toward the content of the coming sermon would be welcome. And sermons that are longer than the typical homily, but less theologically jam-packed than the typical sermon would be welcome. A shorter sermon that takes the scripture as it is found and brings it alive for us to consider in terms of our living in the week(s) ahead. The idea of always covering all of the items of the gospel in the way that, say, an RCC liturgy does may be a bit much, but it still is not an overall bad way to go. I appreciate that our preacher does a "pastoral prayer" each week that, while not read, is pre-arranged, from its beginning with a segment of scripture (usually Psalms), through specific items of immediate concern, and including times for our own prayer and reflection, and prayer for the church, locally and universal (the EO and RCC included, though none by actual reference), the nation, and city. It is not written, but is well noted and not just "winged." As for the reading of written prayers, I have a fair bit of appreciation for them, whether old ones from the Book of Common Prayer (BCP) or others, new or old. Too often the "I'm going to just let the Spirit move me" prayers are convoluted with lots of fillers and by-products — religious/spiritual phrases, typically from scripture, that are always heard and too often mean that they are either trying to force God's hand by quoting Starfleet regulations back to him, or just making not much sound really spiritual. Yes, the written prayer may not have just rolled out of nowhere as you spoke, but that does not mean that there was not a lot of the Spirit in drafting it. The Spirit is not only instrumental when called on to ad lib. He is also instrumental in preparing for real worship. Just like a song. I can write words for songs. They just typically do not fit well, rhyme, or have much merit. Want to sing those songs? Want to sing what they make up on the spot? I thought not. Not Abolishing the Law and Prophets. While I fully understand your reference and agree with it, you should consider that the law as mentioned in the particular passage cannot be understood to include simply everything in the Torah or any of the prophetic writings. First, the law is essentially of three parts: God and righteousness Rituals of living (dietary laws, circumcision, etc.) Sacrifices for sins The writings of the prophets also cover these things, although mostly concerning God and righteousness. The reference to not abolishing the Law and Prophets does not refer to all of the above. It cannot be presumed to apply to the rituals, dietary laws, circumcision, etc. These are somewhat summarily dismissed in a couple of accounts in Acts. First, Peter's vision of the sheet full of "unclean" animals with the command to kill and eat, followed by the salvation of the Gentiles. Second, the counsel in Jerusalem in which they declared that even the rules of circumcision would not be placed onto the Gentile believers (no mention of Jews at this time). Then we are specifically told (if we hadn't already figured it out) that the last sacrifice for sin has occurred. It was Jesus on the cross. The blood of bulls, goats, lambs, pigeons, etc., will do nothing. Besides, all the way back to the OT, and on through the NT, the "obedience is better than sacrifice" should complete that for us in the Christian era. That really leaves "only" God and righteousness. (really a lot. . . not very "only") And that is summed up in the great commandment. Love God and lover your neighbor as yourself. Therefore the laws concerning God and righteousness remain. As for the forms of worship, to think that the Jewish ways were simply the way and therefore preferred above any others, and think that not abolishing the law and prophets means it still is the way and others are deficient to abandon them is a grand case of eisegesis (sp?) — reading into the Bible. The record of the NT would provide a fair bit of variety in ways of worship. Getting special meaning out of inserting or omitting "the" or most other articles is generally an effort in trying to wag the dog. Assuming that not abolished means the old rituals are still required is a real stretch. Someone took an idea and went shopping for a verse or two to brow-beat into the service of supporting it.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
05-06-2016, 03:27 AM
|
#37 | |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: LSM’s Deification Doctrine—Biblical or Blasphemous? Nigel Tomes
Quote:
I provided Scriptural evidence, and showed that actually "it IS written" that God's intention is that His children arrive at the very same stature as Him. So, it is YOU who not only has gone beyond what is written, but in attempting to sound clever and academic, you have, in reality, gone "AGAINST what is written". This is clear. Your response, on the surface, appears to have a semblance of intelligence, but a closer interrogation of your words (educated though they seem) reveal only that your whole argument is not thoroughly thought-out or well-reasoned at all. And "to put the cherry on the pie," instead of ably and aptly refuting me, you elected to start lobbing tacos and tomatoes, tortillas, and burritos into your readers' faces! Is that not the infantile reaction of one who has been put on the spot and called out? (Your unfortunate choice of metaphor to dispute such weighty matters of deep spiritual truth is very sad, and also very telling -in that you sadlyfound it fit for use. The metaphor itself is intended merely as a joke whose comical effect lies in purposefully ignoring it's essential truth. A bar full of drunkards who'd been told the same joke would've got that). I leave you with some favorite words of Scripture of mine: Paul's word to the Romans. "For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to Him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools..." Fr. Scott. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
The word “old” doesn't only mean "old-fashioned" but also "original."
Hybrid Mode
