How do you feel about Tradition?

[thessalonian]

I believe the moment that one believes on Jesus unto salvation, that His righteousness is imputed to the individual (Col.1:13-14) not infused over time.

Beza,

Please address these questions.

? That is sinner is declared righteous, though not truly righteous at the point of his salvation. That the rigtheousness is gained through a process of sanctification? Do you belive God chastises us for our sins AFTER we become Christians?\

Does one ever become righteous to the point of not sinning? How? If not how can one enter heaven? What is rigtheousnes? You seem to deny sanctification above "not infused over time". Do we ever overcome sin or do we go to heaven as sinners?

 

[Bubba]

Thess,
Just out of curiosity are you a Roman Catholic Priest? Now don’t have apoplexy, but our old buddy Luther on commenting on Romans 6, said that the saint (believer) was simultaneously a sinner as well as a saint. So, though we are positionally right with God through our advocate Jesus Christ who is our covering and whose righteousness the Father sees in us, we are also sinners growing in grace (sanctification). Yes, according to Hebrews Chapter 12, we are chastised for our infractions, because the Father loves us and wants the best for His children.
No, one does not become righteous to the point of not sinning, the Apostle Paul in Romans chapter 7, spoke of the sinner that he still was, and also said he was the least of all the Apostles and was wretched except for the grace of our Saviour, which each and everyone of us are (a wretch)without the covering of grace our Lord provides. Do we sin less as we grow in the Lord, yes thanks be to God, as He works in and through us for His purposes. We overcome sin completely, when we are in glory and there only. The “infusion†I was referring to is in regards to “justificationâ€Â, where I find my greatest beef with the RCC and not with sanctification, though I believe all three doctrines are of grace (justification, sanctification and glorification).
In Christ our only hope, George (Beza)

 

[thessalonian]

Thess,
Just out of curiosity are you a Roman Catholic Priest? Now don’t have apoplexy, but our old buddy Luther on commenting on Romans 6, said that the saint (believer) was simultaneously a sinner as well as a saint. So, though we are positionally right with God through our advocate Jesus Christ who is our covering and whose righteousness the Father sees in us, we are also sinners growing in grace (sanctification).

Great. I agree. No I am not a priest.

Yes, according to Hebrews Chapter 12, we are chastised for our infractions, because the Father loves us and wants the best for His children.

The very verse I had in mind. I of course agree we sin less as we grow in Christ. Now here is my real question behind the question. Billy Graham has had alot of sanctification time I think you and I would agree. Been a Christian all his life and done the Lord's bidding. At least it would appear. He's ridding a bus to his next crusade (I know he's retired but hang in there). Just outside a bus stop in New York a young man is getting hit over the head with the law and the Gospel. He thinks about it for a while and repents of his sins after the guy who clubbed him with the Bible leaves. Praise God. Imputed righteousness is what he has according to your theology. Correct? He's not righteous down in deep. Just on the surface, kind of like the outside of the cup that is clean with the pharasees. But he did drugs and is living with a woman and is very week. Heb 12 is going to be a verse about him for a long time to come because there's still pot in the house and it's going to be very hard to break off that relationship with this woman. He has alot of sanctification coming. We of course know that God needs to create a clean heart in us. We are told, nothing unclean shall enter heaven in Rev 19. So he gets on the bus. Sits next to Billy and the bus takes off. They're going down the freeway and a semi jacknife's and slides in to the path before the bus driver can turn away. Billy and the new convert are killed. Tell me, how does the young man get sanctified. Or is sanctification an unneccessary thing? Thanks.

By the way, when we get to heaven I would hope you would agree that we have to be righteous to the point of not sinning. Not one slightest bit of anger or lust or gluttony. Not one unkind word. Nothing, nada, no sin. I'm not there bud and neither are you.

I'll comment on your beef later. Part of the problem is that our definitions are different.

Blessings

 

[Imagican]

And thank God for His Son, Jesus Christ, in who we ALL receive forgiveness for our sins, who believe on Him. And thank God, that when we were yet His enemies, He saw fit to send His Son as an eternal sacrifice for us. What a loving God we have to adore. Accept the Sacrifice that freed us from our sin.

Love God, Love Christ, and love your neighbor as yourself and you have done all that you can do. God knows that we are weak. He knows that we desire self above all else and is willing to offer us redemption regardless.

I don't know about the rest of you, but it took me over forty years to become the sinner that I am. I will not let satan deceive me into believing that I MUST BE PERFECT. If that's true, then NONE of us are Saved. If it took me over forty years to get to be the worm that I am, how long do you think that it will take to 'be perfect'? Impossible through my efforts. But, where God is concerned, that which is impossible for me, is distinctly possible with Him. I am NOTHING other than a work in progress. Thank you God, thank you Jesus, for you are certainly worthy of my praise and love.

God loves you folks. He really does. And anyone that tells you that you must follow 'their' traditions is trying to deceive you into 'their' world, man-made, and therefore of NONE affect as far as God is concerned. No amount of gold, brick, glass or man-made ritual can impress Him in the least. He doesn't want shrines, he wants LOVE. One on one. He wants you. Each and every one of us. NO, not those that follow men, He wants those that follow the teachings of HIS SON and the apostles.

So, step up folks. take the reigns in YOUR OWN HANDS and toss out that which DOES NOT CONFORM to the Word. Follow NO MAN. TRUST in CHRIST. LOVE GOD. LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR. GIVE of YOURSELF instead of taking from others. If God could use a sinner like Paul, just imagine what He could do with someone like you.

 

[Bubba]

Thess,
Mind you, I am not the theologian par excellence that another might be, but you are missing the mark in respect to justification (at least in my understanding). Justification is your sin debt paid in full by Jesus in your stead. You still are sinful, but you are nonetheless a new creation (Gal.6:15), you were in slave to Satan, now you are not and your world view has now changed. So, like the thief on the cross and this young man in your story, if he got hit by a bus and died just moments after conversion, because of justifying grace, he is seen as perfect, though in actuality he was not. This is because the Father sees Jesus’ righteousness in him. Another aspect of justification, is that when a person has been given revelation of Jesus as his Saviour, the image of God that once was lost in the Fall, is now back in the individual (John Calvin saw this as the result of the 1st Adam’s sin and regained in the 2nd Adam’s perfect life).
If God so pleases to give this young man a long life like Billy Graham, Hebrews 12:3-11 comes into play, but more importantly Phil.2:13 and Eph. 2:10, which is God working out His purposes in his life for His glory. This is sanctification, man becoming more Christ like as he grows in grace. All those Scriptures that address the need to “overcome, be perfect, be holy, obey, seek and etcâ€Â, have in the heavenly realm been accomplish by Christ already, thus 1John 5:5 says; “Who is it who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of Godâ€Â. Yet, on a earthly realm, we are to strive to be holy nonetheless, knowing that this is pleasing to our Father who loves us and because He loves us chastises and corrects us on our pilgrimage to the celestial city built without human hands (Heb.11:8-10).

In Christ Alone, George

ps, when we are in heaven, we will be without sin once and for all time, this is glorification.

 

[Bubba]

And thank God for His Son, Jesus Christ, in who we ALL receive forgiveness for our sins, who believe on Him. And thank God, that when we were yet His enemies, He saw fit to send His Son as an eternal sacrifice for us. What a loving God we have to adore. Accept the Sacrifice that freed us from our sin.

Amen Imagican, and may God Bless. George (Beza)

 

[thessalonian]

And thank God for His Son, Jesus Christ, in who we ALL receive forgiveness for our sins, who believe on Him. And thank God, that when we were yet His enemies, He saw fit to send His Son as an eternal sacrifice for us. What a loving God we have to adore. Accept the Sacrifice that freed us from our sin.

Amen Imagican, and may God Bless. George (Beza)

Yes, Amen Imagican. Wonderfully spoken.


Beza I should expound a bit on your question. I am a Catholic who has opened the secret books and read the secret doctrines of Catholicism. The ones that say that Christ died for our sins so that he might send his Holy Spirit among us and work in power and majesty in us, producing thirty, sixty, or 100 fold by his grace. The wicked lies hidden deep in the Vatican archives that we are saved by his grace working daily in our lives keeping us on his path toward righteousness, forgiving and cleansing us of our sin. Oh, it is good that these wicked doctrines were hidden for so long. Oh and by the way while I was in those vatican archives, I saw it there. A pre-1515 Bible without the seven books in it. Sarcasm out. Oh, I suppose now some Protestant will see this post. Take the cut and past before the "Oh and by the way and "sarcasm out", and it will be all over the web that some Catholic was in the Vatican archives and exposed the truth about the Bible. It will be in books in Protestant book stores all over and will live on as an urban legend that will not be put down as long as there are haters of the Catholic faith out there. By the way did you know that the Bible was put on the list of forbidden books in 1256. What's amazing is that it was three hundred years before such lists existed. And I see that some Prots (see other thread) are still passing around that same old loaf of fruitcake about "call no man father". Oh those wicked Catholics. Oh and did you know that the Catholic Church teaches us to murder, rape, and torture people. I really want to but the laws won't allow it. Of course bearing false witness doesn't seem to violate the Bible. :roll:

Just having a bit of fun this AM. :

 

[thessalonian]

Thess,
Mind you, I am not the theologian par excellence that another might be, but you are missing the mark in respect to justification (at least in my understanding). Justification is your sin debt paid in full by Jesus in your stead. You still are sinful, but you are nonetheless a new creation (Gal.6:15), you were in slave to Satan, now you are not and your world view has now changed. So, like the thief on the cross and this young man in your story, if he got hit by a bus and died just moments after conversion, because of justifying grace, he is seen as perfect, though in actuality he was not. This is because the Father sees Jesus’ righteousness in him. Another aspect of justification, is that when a person has been given revelation of Jesus as his Saviour, the image of God that once was lost in the Fall, is now back in the individual (John Calvin saw this as the result of the 1st Adam’s sin and regained in the 2nd Adam’s perfect life).

The answer I expected from you. So your telling me that sanctification is not really neccessary. Actually your denying it. Saying Billy Graham needed it but it serves no real purpose. Or at least that's how I read it. This whole senario is no problem for the Catholic teaching. Both he and the theif would go staight to heaven if he truly was repentant. Catholicism teaches infused righteousness. But we are not talking about Catholicism and you are not dealing with the issue. There is absolutely nothing imperfect in heaven. By your doctrine of infused righteousness, you admit yourself he is still imperfect. Therefore he CANNOT be in heaven, wether his sins are forgiven or not. Further if he goes home and sins and then gets on that bus, he needs the chastisement that you say he gets. Doesn't the Lord chastise those whom he loves? You need to deal with the issue. Imperfection cannot enter heaven. These questions are not a problem in Catholicism.

If God so pleases to give this young man a long life like Billy Graham, Hebrews 12:3-11 comes into play, but more importantly Phil.2:13 and Eph. 2:10, which is God working out His purposes in his life for His glory. This is sanctification, man becoming more Christ like as he grows in grace. All those Scriptures that address the need to “overcome, be perfect, be holy, obey, seek and etcâ€Â, have in the heavenly realm been accomplish by Christ already, thus 1John 5:5 says; “Who is it who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of Godâ€Â. Yet, on a earthly realm, we are to strive to be holy nonetheless, knowing that this is pleasing to our Father who loves us and because He loves us chastises and corrects us on our pilgrimage to the celestial city built without human hands (Heb.11:8-10).

I of course agree with all of this but there is a gap in your theology that your not handling. You are telling me sanctification and chastisement has no purpose in the heavenly realm.

ps, when we are in heaven, we will be without sin once and for all time, this is glorification.

I of course agree with this. But above you said he was not perfect when he died. When he enters heaven he is. Do you see the problem. Something's gotta give right? How does he get from imperfect to perfect?

 

[Bubba]

Thess says:
“Catholicism teaches infused righteousness. But we are not talking about Catholicism and you are not dealing with the issue. There is absolutely nothing imperfect in heaven. By your doctrine of infused righteousness, you admit yourself he is still imperfect. Therefore he CANNOT be in heaven, wether his sins are forgiven or not. Further if he goes home and sins and then gets on that bus, he needs the chastisement that you say he gets. Doesn't the Lord chastise those whom he loves? You need to deal with the issue. Imperfection cannot enter heaven. These questions are not a problem in Catholicism.â€Â
First of all, I never said anything about “infused righteousness†that is an aberrant teaching of the RCC and the primary reason for the reformation. I said or implied an “imputed righteousness†happens the moment a person believes on Christ. The person is imperfect while alive on this earth, but positionally he is perfect in the Fathers eyes due to the substitutional death of Jesus for his sins. I also said that while a believer is alive he is to grow in grace by striving to be more Christ like which is the sanctification process and also God working out His plans in their lives. No one has ever lived on this earth and was perfect prior to their death, except Jesus, but because of Jesus, they are perfect in the next life (heaven). Now you may not accept these truths and I expect you will not, but this is paramount difference between the RCC and the protestant belief.
Have a meaningful Thanksgiving,
George

 

[Imagican]

Thess, my brother, don't take it personal, I don't. I wasn't being serious about the 'rack' thing. I was certainly being a bit facetious, I apologize if it hurt your feelings. I was simply pointing out the 'mind-set' of the Catholic clergy and their attempts at 'saving' their 'fellow man'.

No, I am NOT trying to tell you that the Catholic church 'taught' much of what it practiced. It did practice some pretty heinous crimes against it's followers though. None more grievous than what it continues to teach that Chrsit and God are NOT ENOUGH for SALVATION. It's simple statement that one MUST 'bow to the pope's wishes' ought to warn any that have read scripture that this is a VERY dangerous theology.

I don't fault you Thess, for your beliefs as I hope you won't me. We are all in this thing together regardless of what we choose to follow. My view is that I would have you be free from all this tradition and man-made 'religion'.

Do you know that the word 'religion' or 'religious' is only used 'seven' times in the entire Bible? Five times the word 'religion' is used, and two times 'religious'. Kind of makes one stop and wonder exactly 'how important' religion is. If we destroy all the man-made stuff and concentrate on God and His Son, we could eliminate 'religion' from the vocabulary of Christians, period.

God doesn't want robots. He wants children that love and adore Him from the freedom of their hearts. He loves us SO much and only wants for us to offer our love in return. Not only love for Him, but love for all our brothers and sisters also. All those that He has created and given us to share our lives with. HE is our Father. The one and only Father of ALL CREATION.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Here's what I asked:
Now again, sans condescension, are you Jason claiming that the current Orthodox ethos is sacralist in nature?
Jason's response-

OC, you've provided me with a smile the last hour! For real.

The very nature of the EO/RC theological make up is sacralist in nature, this is a fact. I just can't believe you guys are not defending this TRADITIONAL position your churches have held since Augustine.

Don't you remember the Donatists? When Constantine converted to Churchianity, in 313:

Quote: This was a fight between Christians which had started during the Great Persecution of Diocletian. The persecution had been very bad in Africa and many Christians had been killed. Some of the Christians in Africa had not done anything to hide or try to get away from the persecutors, but had stood up bravely for their faith. Others had done little things to try to protect themselves, like handing over copies of the Bible to the persecutors. Now the two sides were fighting, and they wanted Constantine to say who was right.

Constantine asked the advice of the Christian bishops at his court, and soon decided in favor of the moderates, the people who had hidden things and handed things over. He thought (here we go with the State getting into Church affairs) the other side, the Donatists, sounded like dangerous radicals and not the sort of responsible people you would want to be in charge of anything. But the Donatists appealed his decision. Constantine heard the case again, but again he decided in favor of the moderates.

In the end, the moderates won (keeping mind that history is written by the victors and they were seen as moderates only by themselves...history doens't prove they were. What it does prove, they were wordly and used tradition to back up false teaching.), but the Donatists never gave up fighting. Even Augustine couldn't stop them. They didn't stop when the Vandals came, or when the Romans reconquered Africa. The Donatists were still trying to push the moderates out in the 670's AD when the Arabs conquered North Africa.

Since Jason didn't source his quote, I will:
historyforkids.org
http://www.historyforkids.org/learn/rel ... atists.htm
What this has to do with contemporary or even ancient sacralism, I have no idea. Clearly Constantine put his support behind the "moderates." He often attempted intervention in the schisms and struggles within the Church. He also put his support behind the reinstatement of the Arians. So out the window goes the theory that Constantine steered the theology of the Church.

Now let's look at Donatism beyond the level of a child's encyclopedia, Jason. The so-called Donatists were opposed to the re-admission to flock of those who had capitulated under persecution. In other words, they would have never reinstated Peter, yet the Lord Himself did. Further, the implication of Donatist theology was that the failures of a priest or bishop could make the sacraments administered by same null and void. In other words, it would be the righteousness of the presbyter that made the sacrament a valid grace of God.

For this reason, in direct opposition to the rest of the Church, the 'Donatists' began to conduct their own rites of re-admission or exclusion, including re-baptizing.

Most of these had, of course, never actually experienced persecution themselves, or went through their own hour of testing.

Where were the Baptists when the Orthodox were being enslaved and crushed by first the Ottoman Turks and then the Communists? Safely in the arms of their North American utopia, where persecution is measured in dirty looks.

As for the Baptist trail of , it's valid in terms of NT principle. The folks listed in Baptist Trail of died fighting for the freedom to believe what they want...and as you wrote before, you agree. Baptists believe we are joined together as the Church because of Spirit baptism, members of the Church bear the fruit of the Spirit and those who don't aren't members of the Church...so, if Baptists did what the EO/RC's have done they cease to be members of the Church.

That had a creepy Donatist ring to it. If they messed up, they ceased to be members of the Body.

Keep me smile OC,

JM

I wasn't interested in making you smile, Jason, I was hoping to make you think, and perhaps shake you out of your contrived triumphalism, if only for a second.

Now please, either answer my questions as asked without condescension, or don't reply at all.
Thanks in advance.
Q:are you Jason claiming that the current Orthodox ethos is sacralist in nature? Please demonstrate.

 

[Bubba]

Orthodox,
What would you say are the basic differences between the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic in regards to tradition and doctrinal stance?
George

 

[thessalonian]

Thess says:
“Catholicism teaches infused righteousness. But we are not talking about Catholicism and you are not dealing with the issue. There is absolutely nothing imperfect in heaven. By your doctrine of infused righteousness, you admit yourself he is still imperfect. Therefore he CANNOT be in heaven, wether his sins are forgiven or not. Further if he goes home and sins and then gets on that bus, he needs the chastisement that you say he gets. Doesn't the Lord chastise those whom he loves? You need to deal with the issue. Imperfection cannot enter heaven. These questions are not a problem in Catholicism.â€Â

First of all, I never said anything about “infused righteousness†that is an aberrant teaching of the RCC and the primary reason for the reformation

I didn't say you did. I was simply stating that these questions that you once again gloss over and take the Catholic knocking route rather than explain and answer for your own theology, is why these questions are not a problem for me. I did not explain why they are not a problem and I doudt from your words that you understand infused righteousness. It does not mean we are perfect all the time. It does not mean we do not need perfection before heavenly glory. You wax nostalgic over the reformation but you cannot answer the questions you are presented directly and with clarity. I asked this question of a lutheran pastor as well. And he did the same thing try to answer by going after Catholic theology. Can't you guys answer Protestantism on it's merritts, rather than, well of course the Catholic teaching is wrong leaving the reader to conclude that you are right. It doesn't work.

I said or implied an “imputed righteousness†happens the moment a person believes on Christ. The person is imperfect while alive on this earth, but positionally he is perfect in the Fathers eyes due to the substitutional death of Jesus for his sins.

I understood. In fact I asked you if this was the case and you affirmed it. And I do not completely disagree with it. Christ died in place of us for our sins so that there is no eternal punishment if we repent. But this is brought about by grace. You separate from grace and from the reception of the Holy Spirit such that there is no real cleansing.

I also said that while a believer is alive he is to grow in grace by striving to be more Christ like which is the sanctification process and also God working out His plans in their lives. No one has ever lived on this earth and was perfect prior to their death, except Jesus, but because of Jesus, they are perfect in the next life (heaven). Now you may not accept these truths and I expect you will not, but this is paramount difference between the RCC and the protestant belief.
Have a meaningful Thanksgiving,
George

I for the most part agree (with some exceptions that I will try not to bring up so you can continue to avoid the question and derail the discussion. You say it youself. You have an imperfect person at death. You have a perfect person in heaven. What gives? How does the imperfect become perfect? Why do you keep avoiding the question? The guy who just got converted is far less perfect than Billy Graham who has gone through a life of trial and sanctification. God has put Billy to the test but not the other guy. Don't duck the question by saying "they both go to heaven because of the theif on the cross". By the way he didn't die for their sins yet Protestants always say that is why someone of this sort goes to heaven. :-D Just kidding but that's the kind of twisting that goes on with my words such as CJ's post a while back. There has to be some form of purification between death and eternal glory. It's completely logical. There, i've opened it up for you to go on another tangent, not answering the question according to the merrits of your own theology but doing some handwaving about Catholicism obviously being wrong because of some 16th century divisive doctrines. Go for it or prove that you can answer the question.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Orthodox,
What would you say are the basic differences between the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic in regards to tradition and doctrinal stance?
George

Hi Beza: You've asked a question that could be answered several different ways: comparative, critical, historical, concilliatory, and of course, sectarian. I chose to answer in the historical/concilliatory mode- being as the Latin communion and my own are seeking concilliation, I feel it would be counterproductive to attempt a critical/comparative approach. I hope that is ok.

The most significant difference between East and West is history and language. After the Muslim incursions of the 7th and 8th century, there was a huge geographical gulf opened up between the Eastern and Western Christian regions. Without the constant interaction provided by proximity, the differences in language and the passage of time itself created a distance greater than the traverse of land itself.

In an effort to combat the Muslim critique of Christianity, some clergy in Toledo, Spain (Latin rite) began using the filioque clause (ie, Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son...filioque=and the Son). This was problematic for us in the East, and we protested the alteration of the Creed. Initially, Rome concurred, but some 150 years later a Roman Pope disagreed, and the West has used the Filioque since.

This may sound like a small detail, but to us, the Nicene Creed, aka Symbol of Faith, is the fundamental doctrinal summary of biblical, canonical teaching on the nature of God.

A mistrust opened up between East and West that culminated in the period of Great Schism, from which we have not yet emerged. During this time, the West has been deeply influenced by the Scholastics and by rationalism, whereas the East has pursued with even greater fervor a mystical theology. The result is an entirely separate language of the divine, to such an extent that when we mean the same thing, you wouldn't know it from how we each state it- and sometimes, when we say the same thing, we mean something different.

The filioque issue is a classic example of the former. We have agreed, as of October 2003, that there is some fundamental truth in the filioque addition, yet it an addition which can also be misleading. Rome has agreed to drop it in when concelebrating with us.

Both East and West see Tradition as mutable and organic, not static. Rome is far more inclined to define doctrine (to the Nth degree) than are we- we don't really even have a Catechism per se. For us, doctrine emerges naturally from the worship of the Church. This approach annoys and distresses the logical/deductive, Aristotelian Western mind.

It is often said of the East by the Protestants in the West that we are like Rome without a Pope. In order for us to argue this point, we are put in a position of fault-finding Rome. I'd rather state categorically that the Protestant West doesn't understand Rome, so how are they going to understand us by comparing us to Rome, or vice/versa?

So, please, if there are doctrinal specifics that you would like to ask of/about the East, I would be very happy to answer them as best I can from the Eastern tradition.

best regards
James
aka Reader Iakovos*



* a Reader in the Eastern Tradition is an order of lay persons who read and chant the liturgy, epistles, and on occasion, the Gospels. Such persons are generally preparing for further ordained ministry within the Church. This order is one of several employed within the ancient Church, and defined by Canon 24 of the Seventh Ecumenical Council. I answer as Reader Iakovos when replying about the Orthodox faith.

 

[Bubba]

Thess,
I am starting to think that you may have a persecution complex going in regards to your Catholicism and me taking “the Catholic knocking routeâ€Â. The only thing I have done with my posts is to try and show that the RCC position on communion and the doctrine of justification is not consistent with Scripture, which I have given you a abundant amount of,to support my view. Yet, you want get philosophical and present possible scenario’s which I did address with Scripture.
You say, “What gives? How does the imperfect become perfect? Why do you keep avoiding the question? The guy who just got converted is far less perfect than Billy Graham who has gone through a life of trial and sanctification. God has put Billy to the test but not the other guy.â€Â
Do you look up the Scriptures I have given you? Did you not read the Scripture support of my view and the objections I have with the Council of Trent? Thess it is about grace, that is why a thief while dying on the cross, can look over at a dying Saviour and through the power of the Holy Spirit’s revelation, understand His significance of being more then just a mere man. Jesus tells this undeserving guy who didn’t spend a long life of service like brother Billy, that “today you will be with me in paradiseâ€Â. This is grace! Now if you got a problem with this real life scenario, you will have to take it up with your Creator.
George

 

[JM]

Orthodox,
What would you say are the basic differences between the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic in regards to tradition and doctrinal stance?
George

George, you and I know there is no difference. Thess and OC keep agreeing with each other on so many topics, yet, OC doesn't like the Traditional history of the EO state run Church, which both the RC's and EO's retained in the hierarchy.

Quote: The classical Byzantine formula of relationships between state and church power is contained in the Epanagoge (late 9th century): “The temporal power and the priesthood relate to each other as body and soul; they are necessary for state order just as body and soul are necessary in a living man. It is in their bonding and harmony that the well-being of a state lies.â€Â

“the Russian Orthodox Church, being part of the one Universal Church of Christ, shall have the pre-eminent public and legal status among other confessions in the Russian State, which befits her as the greatest shrine for the overwhelming majority of the population and a great historical force that built the Russian State... As soon as they are made public, decrees and statutes issued by the Orthodox Church for herself, according to the order she established, as well as actions of the church government and court shall be recognized by the State as legally valid and authoritative unless they violate state laws... State laws concerning the Orthodox Church shall be issued only with the consent of the church authorities.â€Â

http://www.stlukeorthodox.com/html/curr ... .cfm#III.1

Quote: Of course, Orthodoxy has been set about by petty nationalisms in the aftermath of persecution but normal Church life has always tried to recapture the Byzantine ideal of critical cooperation between Church and State.

Some Protestant Christians break agreement with Orthodoxy at the point of the Emperor St. Constantine’s legalisation of Christianity by the Edict of Milan in 313 AD and later in 393 AD when Emperor Theodosios I banned pagan worship, thereby effectively making of Christianity a State endorsed faith. It is thought that this subtly transformed Christianity from its original persecuted purity to an increasingly persecuting monstrous version of itself. From an Orthodox point of view this is to read back into ancient history the bitter experience of the Reformation struggles against the western patriarchate of Rome which by then had ceased to be Orthodox on other grounds for over 500 years. The reality on the ground in succeeding centuries of the western and later eastern Imperium is much more complex and, from an Orthodox (and Catholic) point of view, on the whole, proved to be beneficial in terms of Church-State relations and the ordering of a Christian society. http://www.orthodox.clara.net/church_state.htm

Ok OC, we find a little re-writting of history done by modern Orthodox. First, this 'Father' admitts Christianity was legalisated by two different Emperors and second, he makes the claim it was 'beneficial in terms of Church-State relations and the ordering of Christian society.' It seems this 'Father' is in agreement with what I've been stating, the Orthodox view society as the Kingdom NOW. This leads to all kinds of sacralism, this Tradition is carried on by the Reformed Church, this thinking also leads to the baptism of infants...they don't have a choice, they must be Christians to fit into the this false Tradition and mindset.

Quote: Orthodoxy needs to work with other Christian churches in the attempt to build something better between Church and State in the west but the ability of the Orthodox tradition...
http://www.orthodox.clara.net/church_state.htm

You asked 'Where were the Baptists when the Orthodox were being enslaved and crushed by first the Ottoman Turks...'

Quote: The patriarch of Constantinople was thus appointed by the sultan as head (millet-bachi) of the entire Christian population of the Ottoman Empire. http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/doctrine4.aspx

It seems the "symphony" you folks play with the secular world got you in that trouble...your own leader appointed them.

 

[Bubba]

James and Jason,
This truly was a legitimate question on my part, I have spent most of my Christian life, studing Scripture and I am pretty ignorant on Church history and Eastern Orthodox in particular, though I do have a little understanding of RCC, since I used to be one. I will digest the info and ask specific questions (if I have them) later.
George (Beza)

 

[Orthodox Christian]

I see you answered in consitent form, Jason.

Orthodox,
What would you say are the basic differences between the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic in regards to tradition and doctrinal stance?
George

George, you and I know there is no difference.

You've roundly demonstrated that you have no idea what you're talking about, Jason, as we shall see below. That being said, I highly doubt that Beza would have asked should have not wanted to know. Not everyone asks questions so that they have an opportunity to speak, Jason.

Thess and OC keep agreeing with each other on so many topics, yet, OC doesn't like the Traditional history of the EO state run Church, which both the RC's and EO's retained in the hierarchy.

That Thessalonian and I agree on many matters is a matter reasonably well explained by me in my previous post. Perhaps you read it? Maybe not?

What I have said, sans your distortion, is that the State has imposed its will upon the Orthodox communion at various times through history. Some members of the hierarchy saw benefits in the benevolent influence of the Stae, and at times the influence was benevolent. Mostly, the State looks after the State, and the Church has done all She could just to get through the manipulations of the State. Millions have died opposing the State, something you should know, and would, were you not reading history simply to refute Orthodoxy.

Quote: The classical Byzantine formula of relationships between state and church power is contained in the Epanagoge (late 9th century): “The temporal power and the priesthood relate to each other as body and soul; they are necessary for state order just as body and soul are necessary in a living man. It is in their bonding and harmony that the well-being of a state lies.â€Â

the article continues

This symphony, however, did not exist in Byzantium in an absolutely pure form. In practice it was often violated and distorted. The Church was repeatedly subjected to caesaro-papist claims from the state authorities, which were essentially the demands that the head of the state-the emperor-should have the decisive say in ordering church affairs. Along with the sinful human love of power, these claims had also an historical reason. The Christian emperors of Byzantium were direct successors of the Roman pagan rulers who, among their numerous titles, had that of pontifex marimus, chief priest. The caesaro-papist tendency manifested itself most bluntly and dangerously for the Church in the policies of heretical emperors, especially in the iconoclastic era.

Just as I said: The State imposed itself upon the Church, just as you Fundamentalists impose yourself on this State.
Further, from the introduction to the article you quoted out of context:

The Church, as a divine-human organism, not only has a mysterious nature, not submissive to the elements of the world, but also has an historical component, which comes in touch with the outside world, including the state. The state, which exists for the purpose of ordering worldly life, also comes into contact with the Church. Relationships between the state and the followers of genuine religion have continuously changed in the course of history.

I strongly recommend those reading this thread read the entire article for themselves, and you will see just what sort of distortion Jason is engaged in.
http://www.stlukeorthodox.com/html/curr ... apter3.cfm

“the Russian Orthodox Church, being part of the one Universal Church of Christ, shall have the pre-eminent public and legal status among other confessions in the Russian State, which befits her as the greatest shrine for the overwhelming majority of the population and a great historical force that built the Russian State... As soon as they are made public, decrees and statutes issued by the Orthodox Church for herself, according to the order she established, as well as actions of the church government and court shall be recognized by the State as legally valid and authoritative unless they violate state laws... State laws concerning the Orthodox Church shall be issued only with the consent of the church authorities.â€Â

Preceding this quote-

As far as the Synodal period is concerned, the evident distortion of the symphonic norm for two centuries in church history is associated with the distinct impact that the Protestant doctrine of territory and established church (see below) made on the Russian perception of law and order and political life. An attempt to assert the ideal of symphony in the new situation when the empire collapsed was made by the Local Council of 1917-1918.

In other words, the Reformed/Lutherian notion of Church/State made inroads to Russian thinking. Thus, the above statement, which reads like something straight out of Geneva.

And, the cogent and coherent reader will note that I earmarked Russia as an exception several times on this thread. :roll:

Quote: Of course, Orthodoxy has been set about by petty nationalisms in the aftermath of persecution but normal Church life has always tried to recapture the Byzantine ideal of critical cooperation between Church and State.

Cooperation is not synonymous with sacralism.

Some Protestant Christians break agreement with Orthodoxy at the point of the Emperor St. Constantine’s legalisation of Christianity by the Edict of Milan in 313 AD and later in 393 AD when Emperor Theodosios I banned pagan worship, thereby effectively making of Christianity a State endorsed faith. It is thought that this subtly transformed Christianity from its original persecuted purity to an increasingly persecuting monstrous version of itself. From an Orthodox point of view this is to read back into ancient history the bitter experience of the Reformation struggles against the western patriarchate of Rome which by then had ceased to be Orthodox on other grounds for over 500 years. The reality on the ground in succeeding centuries of the western and later eastern Imperium is much more complex and, from an Orthodox (and Catholic) point of view, on the whole, proved to be beneficial in terms of Church-State relations and the ordering of a Christian society. http://www.orthodox.clara.net/church_state.htm

Allow me to translate for you this complex reasoning, Jason: What is being said is that contrary to Protestant apocalyptic neuroses, open conflict with the State is not the best-case scenario. Cooperation is better for all, including society at large. By way of witness, the Christianization of Europe produced in its long run education, medicine, social services, the abolishment of slavery, better status for women, and the like. This was the Christian influence upon the world.

Ok OC, we find a little re-writting of history done by modern Orthodox. First, this 'Father' admitts Christianity was legalisated by two different Emperors and second, he makes the claim it was 'beneficial in terms of Church-State relations and the ordering of Christian society.' It seems this 'Father' is in agreement with what I've been stating, the Orthodox view society as the Kingdom NOW. This leads to all kinds of sacralism, this Tradition is carried on by the Reformed Church, this thinking also leads to the baptism of infants...they don't have a choice, they must be Christians to fit into the this false Tradition and mindset.

Your insertion of Anabaptist theology muddies the water. The real problem with cooperation isn't the inevitable baptism of babies (lest you forget, babies were circumcized in Israel). Rather, the real and present threat is SEDUCTION of the Church hierarchies- something that has happened in many places and in at many times, including among the Baptist faithful.

<cue climb down off high horse>

Quote: Orthodoxy needs to work with other Christian churches in the attempt to build something better between Church and State in the west but the ability of the Orthodox tradition...
http://www.orthodox.clara.net/church_state.htm

You asked 'Where were the Baptists when the Orthodox were being enslaved and crushed by first the Ottoman Turks...'

A question you fail to answer. Now proceed in ignorance...

Quote: The patriarch of Constantinople was thus appointed by the sultan as head (millet-bachi) of the entire Christian population of the Ottoman Empire. http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/doctrine4.aspx

It seems the "symphony" you folks play with the secular world got you in that trouble...your own leader appointed them.

Thee were dozens of Patriarchs who were martyred because they wouldn't dance to the Turkish tune. The people were slaves under Otooman rule, something you could find out for yourself quite easily. Here's how it ended
read
http://members.fortunecity.com/fstav1/g ... ocide.html
http://www.secularislam.org/articles/genocide.htm

Perhaps we could review the millions killed by Russian communists, including the execution and/or ouster of 78 of 80 Russian Orthodox Bishops between 1917 and 1925.

also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical ... man_Empire


Your baliwick is spit upon the graves of millions.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

James and Jason,
This truly was a legitimate question on my part, I have spent most of my Christian life, studing Scripture and I am pretty ignorant on Church history and Eastern Orthodox in particular, though I do have a little understanding of RCC, since I used to be one. I will digest the info and ask specific questions (if I have them) later.
George (Beza)

Thanks George: I truly appreciate those who ask questions in order to learn or become acquainted. I will answer the best that I can when you have a question.
James

 

[thessalonian]

Thess,
I am starting to think that you may have a persecution complex going in regards to your Catholicism and me taking “the Catholic knocking routeâ€Â. The only thing I have done with my posts is to try and show that the RCC position on communion and the doctrine of justification is not consistent with Scripture, which I have given you a abundant amount of,to support my view. Yet, you want get philosophical and present possible scenario’s which I did address with Scripture.
You say, “What gives? How does the imperfect become perfect? Why do you keep avoiding the question? The guy who just got converted is far less perfect than Billy Graham who has gone through a life of trial and sanctification. God has put Billy to the test but not the other guy.â€Â
Do you look up the Scriptures I have given you? Did you not read the Scripture support of my view and the objections I have with the Council of Trent? Thess it is about grace, that is why a thief while dying on the cross, can look over at a dying Saviour and through the power of the Holy Spirit’s revelation, understand His significance of being more then just a mere man. Jesus tells this undeserving guy who didn’t spend a long life of service like brother Billy, that “today you will be with me in paradiseâ€Â. This is grace! Now if you got a problem with this real life scenario, you will have to take it up with your Creator.
George

Beza,

You attack me and start making insulting questions about my santity because you cannot understand and answer a simple question. I acknowledge every scripture you gave me. I did not ignore them as you claim but they do not answer the question I am asking. It is not a philisophical question. I said I agreed about the theif on the cross. That he gets to go to heaven. The senario is not obscure in the slightest as you said above that all men die in an impure state. I was just trying to point out a blanantly plain example. I am trying to get you to narrow your focus and you make prideful accusations and bravado. Horray for beza. I can assure you I have no complex. I could really care less what you say about the Catholic Church. I am just trying to get you to answrer a question that bothers me greatly about Protestant theology. It was promted by a question you had on one of the canons of Trent and by your cut and past from a web sight back a while ago. In this dialogue I have tried to be painstakingly clear in getting you to answer. You call it a complex and give me more avoidance. Don't feel bad, a Lutheran pastor did the same kind of avoiding game. I have said I have no real problem with the theif being with Chrsit that day in paradise, though there is a first fruits question i will not get in to.
You apparently simply are not getting the point of the question. I'll try make it more clear. I of course agree with you that all is grace and grace is what has to do the cleansing by the power of the Holy Spirit. But you agreed "a) at least most (you say all) die and are not perfect. b) In heaven, all must be perfect. Are we agreed on that? At the time of death if one is not perfected he must be perfected to get in to heaven and so, between death and heaven, something has to happen so that the sinner is not only superficially clean (imputed) as the outside of a cup but he must actually have a clean heart. The cup must be clean on the inside. This must come about by grace and the power of the Holy Spirit. Can we agree on that?


Psalm 4
3: Who shall ascend the hill of the LORD? And who shall stand in his holy place?
4: He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully.
5: He will receive blessing from the LORD, and vindication from the God of his salvation.

Psalm 51
10: Create in me a clean heart, O God, and put a new and right spirit within me.

I will agree that God must do this by grace if you will agree that it must happen.

Blessings

PS, I've given you much scripture on communion as well and justification for that matter. Is there any reason I should accept your understandings over mine?