The Final Authority

[Aslan]

It is evident that many contemporary Orthodox theologians, although they have never surrendered the claim that the Orthodox Church is the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, are in no haste to call other Christian churches and communions non‑churches, void of God's salvific presence and action. They recognize that God is not limited by the canonical boundaries of the Orthodox Church in his work for the salvation of all. Other Christian churches, therefore, and even other religions[21] may embody his saving will to the extent that they share at least something of the nature and functions of the church of God. To qualify as a "church" in the full theological sense of the term, a community must be apostolic in its faith, sacraments and ministry. More specifically, it must subscribe to the Orthodox faith as defined in the Nicene‑Constantinopolitan Creed, it must administer the sacraments, and it must possess an apostolic ministry transmitted through uninterrupted apostolic succession. These criteria may be modified according to the attitudes and the theological sophistication that prevail at particular moments in the life of the Church. For example, on the basis of a more flexible view of apostolic succession, Orthodox and Catholic theologians have recently been taking a more positive attitude towards the ministries and the sacraments of Anglicans and Protestants.

Source

Fromn the above quote.

To qualify as a "church" in the full theological sense of the term, a community must be apostolic in its faith, sacraments and ministry. More specifically, it must subscribe to the Orthodox faith as defined in the Nicene‑Constantinopolitan Creed, it must administer the sacraments, and it must possess an apostolic ministry transmitted through uninterrupted apostolic succession.

The way I see this it excludes most if not all protestant churches.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

It is evident that many contemporary Orthodox theologians, although they have never surrendered the claim that the Orthodox Church is the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, are in no haste to call other Christian churches and communions non‑churches, void of God's salvific presence and action. They recognize that God is not limited by the canonical boundaries of the Orthodox Church in his work for the salvation of all. Other Christian churches, therefore, and even other religions[21] may embody his saving will to the extent that they share at least something of the nature and functions of the church of God. To qualify as a "church" in the full theological sense of the term, a community must be apostolic in its faith, sacraments and ministry. More specifically, it must subscribe to the Orthodox faith as defined in the Nicene‑Constantinopolitan Creed, it must administer the sacraments, and it must possess an apostolic ministry transmitted through uninterrupted apostolic succession. These criteria may be modified according to the attitudes and the theological sophistication that prevail at particular moments in the life of the Church. For example, on the basis of a more flexible view of apostolic succession, Orthodox and Catholic theologians have recently been taking a more positive attitude towards the ministries and the sacraments of Anglicans and Protestants.

Source

Fromn the above quote.[quote:ebafa]To qualify as a "church" in the full theological sense of the term, a community must be apostolic in its faith, sacraments and ministry. More specifically, it must subscribe to the Orthodox faith as defined in the Nicene‑Constantinopolitan Creed, it must administer the sacraments, and it must possess an apostolic ministry transmitted through uninterrupted apostolic succession.

The way I see this it excludes most if not all protestant churches.[/quote:ebafa]
Yes it does- but this only deals with the designation of 'Church.' It does not say that those outside of Church go to hell. In point of fact, the quote about those in other religions simply brings forth the point that we do not know. It is God's business to judge.

 

[Orthodoxy]

The question is not why do believer's believe? The question is what do believer's believe?

Why or what do you believe - the answer is still Jesus Christ. You can ask the same question a hundred different ways to get a slightly different slant every time...but every time the answer is still Jesus Christ.

A person who believes in Christ believes in "Christ" and...

[quote:267e2]knowing he was the son of God, crucified for our sins and resurrected to the right hand side of God.

[/quote:267e2]

I see. So let me get this striaght.

Harry a modalist "believes" in the same Jesus Christ that the Mormons "believe" which is the same Jesus Christ as the Roman Catholics "believe" which is the same Jesus Christ that the Protestant "believe" and is the same Jesus Christ that you believe. Correct?

or Jesus Christ is Jesus Christ thus everyone that "believes" in His name is a christian no matter what they believe about the Son of God?

Orthodoxy

 

[Orthodoxy]

Can I go to heaven if I am not part of the Orthodox Church?

I need to qualify this question. When you say "go to heaven" is that the same as "saved"?

All men will go to heaven to stand before the judgement seat of Christ so yes you can and will go to heaven. You also cannot excape the fiery love of God thus everyone will either stand in the love of God hating it or one will stand in His love and love it. Nothing can seperate a man from the love of God, nothing.

Who are we certain Jesus Christ saves? All men? No for even Jesus said He would divide the wheat from the tare.

Just those that "believe" yet the meaning of "believe" is as nebulas as the word "Church". I "believe" what the Church believes about Jesus Christ defines who this Jesus Christ is that is to save us.

Ephesians 5:23-25,32, For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the Church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the Church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the Church, and gave himself for it; This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the Church.

The great mystery is the complete submission, unity and inseparable oneness of Jesus Christ and His Church that He is the saviour.

We know this for certain Jesus Christ is the saviour of the body, The Church.

Obviously being "in the Church" is being "in Christ" thus it is of a paramount importance that if a man desires to be saved then he must seek out the Church that Jesus Christ is saving.

"The Church" is defined by what it "believes" about the person of Jesus Christ, so my question remains what does "believe" mean to "the Church"?

Orthodoxy

 

[Orthodoxy]

Can I go to heaven if I am not part of the Orthodox Church?

That is not for the Orthodox Church to answer. But why do you ask?

It sounded like Orthodoxy believed this but did not come out and say it. I wanted clarification.

That's exactly right, they do believe you have to be a member of THE Church (which is the Orthodox Church) to get to heaven.

j

It would appear you have A church like the Jehovahs Witnesses A jesus.

The words "the" and "a" have specific meanings.

Orthodoxy

 

[Orthodoxy]

It is evident that many contemporary Orthodox theologians, although they have never surrendered the claim that the Orthodox Church is the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, are in no haste to call other Christian churches and communions non‑churches, void of God's salvific presence and action. They recognize that God is not limited by the canonical boundaries of the Orthodox Church in his work for the salvation of all. Other Christian churches, therefore, and even other religions[21] may embody his saving will to the extent that they share at least something of the nature and functions of the church of God. To qualify as a "church" in the full theological sense of the term, a community must be apostolic in its faith, sacraments and ministry. More specifically, it must subscribe to the Orthodox faith as defined in the Nicene‑Constantinopolitan Creed, it must administer the sacraments, and it must possess an apostolic ministry transmitted through uninterrupted apostolic succession. These criteria may be modified according to the attitudes and the theological sophistication that prevail at particular moments in the life of the Church. For example, on the basis of a more flexible view of apostolic succession, Orthodox and Catholic theologians have recently been taking a more positive attitude towards the ministries and the sacraments of Anglicans and Protestants.

Source

Fromn the above quote.[quote:05246]To qualify as a "church" in the full theological sense of the term, a community must be apostolic in its faith, sacraments and ministry. More specifically, it must subscribe to the Orthodox faith as defined in the Nicene‑Constantinopolitan Creed, it must administer the sacraments, and it must possess an apostolic ministry transmitted through uninterrupted apostolic succession.

The way I see this it excludes most if not all protestant churches.

Yes it does- but this only deals with the designation of 'Church.' It does not say that those outside of Church go to hell. In point of fact, the quote about those in other religions simply brings forth the point that we do not know. It is God's business to judge.[/quote:05246]

My dear brother,

Do we not see exclusivity in the protestant faith that denies the salvation of those that have never heard His name? and what about the child that cannot "believe" before "the age of accountability"? It would appear to me that the heterodox that says "believe" saves is excluding all those that dont "believe".

Hypocritically they accuse the Church of exclusivity because we say what the Scripture says "Jesus Christ is the saviour of the body, the Church" so we know that those "connected organically" to His Church on the Earth are the ones being saved, everyone else is being drawn by the Holy Spirit to this "body".

What did Jesus Christ say? "I am the truth, the way and the life, no man comes to the Father but by Me". How exclusive is that statement? I believe the Church says this same statement of Jesus Christ for it is His body and He is the head "The Church is the truth, the way, and the life. No man comes to the Father but by the Church"

In Christ,

Orthodoxy

PS my dear brother please ponder this:

In the days of Noah we know that those that entered the life saving "Ark" were "caught up" in the clouds by the flood being saved to inherit the Earth while those "left behind" where on the outside of the "Ark" and died in the flood only to inherited death and damnation. Do we not know this "Ark" to be "the Church"?

 

[JM]

If salvation exists outside of the Eastern Orthodox Communion, then why join? Comparing what the EO teaches to Scriptures on central issues such as justification by faith and ordo salutis, we know that the EO Church has gone astray so far in fact, they don’t know if another body of believers that call on the name of the Lord can be saved. This doesn’t mean that many EO believers are not saved, it means the EO Church is a fallen Church, a synagogue of Satan. The modern position has now softened, but still strong among old calendar Orthodox such as ROCOR...which I was a big fan of during my EO days. The EO have never accepted the ‘Sacraments’ of schismatics and still do not today, so if the Sacraments are not valid then how does the schismatic Church worshp? The pre-ecumenical/modern Orthodox would say it doesn’t. Even on the goarch site for the Greek Orthodox Church and you get the clear impression, the early EO Church didn’t recognize other Christians that did not belong via the rites of the EO Church as valid and they will not allow for intercommunion among such heterodox people.

To sum it up: the EO Church teaches it is the Church that began on the day of Pentecost, the EO believe that one must be a member of the Church to be saved (which we all agree, but differ on what the church is), BUT then they switch it up a little and say ‘we don’t know who will be saved outside of our communion.’ This is a nice way to say you have to belong to there Church to get to heaven...this is the logical conclusion one can draw from the statements made about the nature of salvation and the nature of the Church according to EO theology. I posted a quote earlier from an Orthodox Catechism that stated there is no salvation outside the Church and the Church is the EO church....for now I’ll simply give the title...I’m on vacation...' The faith : understanding Orthodox Christianity: an Orthodox catechism' by Carlton published by Regina Orthodox Press, c1997.

 

[Orthodoxy]

If salvation exists outside of the Eastern Orthodox Communion, then why join? Comparing what the EO teaches to Scriptures on central issues such as justification by faith and ordo salutis, we know that the EO Church has gone astray so far in fact, they don’t know if another body of believers that call on the name of the Lord can be saved. This doesn’t mean that many EO believers are not saved, it means the EO Church is a fallen Church, a synagogue of Satan. The modern position has now softened, but still strong among old calendar Orthodox such as ROCOR...which I was a big fan of during my EO days. The EO have never accepted the ‘Sacraments’ of schismatics and still do not today, so if the Sacraments are not valid then how does the schismatic Church worshp? The pre-ecumenical/modern Orthodox would say it doesn’t. Even on the goarch site for the Greek Orthodox Church and you get the clear impression, the early EO Church didn’t recognize other Christians that did not belong via the rites of the EO Church as valid and they will not allow for intercommunion among such heterodox people.

To sum it up: the EO Church teaches it is the Church that began on the day of Pentecost, the EO believe that one must be a member of the Church to be saved (which we all agree, but differ on what the church is), BUT then they switch it up a little and say ‘we don’t know who will be saved outside of our communion.’ This is a nice way to say you have to belong to there Church to get to heaven...this is the logical conclusion one can draw from the statements made about the nature of salvation and the nature of the Church according to EO theology. I posted a quote earlier from an Orthodox Catechism that stated there is no salvation outside the Church and the Church is the EO church....for now I’ll simply give the title...I’m on vacation...' The faith : understanding Orthodox Christianity: an Orthodox catechism' by Carlton published by Regina Orthodox Press, c1997.

Most of what you say it true. We do not know who is saved outside the Church Jesus is the savior of and loves. Can you find me a scriptural referance that says a man is saved "outside the Church"? Until you do then what we say is truth. We dont know who is saved outside the Church. Even the heterodox will claim those that "dont believe in Jesus" are not saved. So in heterodoxy we know that those that "dont believe" cannot be saved. Even the orthodox are not so arrogant and boastful to admit that idiosy.

Who is more arrogant:

One who says "I dont know who is saved but the Bible says "the Church"

or

One who says "only those that "believe" will be saved.

eh?

If the leadership of the Holy Orthodox Church become so limp wristed and weak that our parish is forced to commune with heathen rebels and protesting romans, I personally will become like Saint Maximus the Confessor.

Unworthy Servant,

Orthodoxy

 

[Orthodoxy]

Jason,

Please do tell us what the Orthodox understanding of "justification by faith" is compared to the Heterodox (protestant and roman, since you must know the two intertwine each other) understanding of this "central doctrine" of the "Christian faith". Thanks :D

ordo salutis

Latin? What does this mean? To me it does not look greek at all. Is this Latin for once saved always saved? Assured salvation with no race?

Unworthy servant,

Orthodoxy

 

[JM]

Can you find me a scriptural referance that says a man is saved "outside the Church"?

I can think of none : but the way in which a person becomes a member of the Church is very different in the Bible from the way the Orthodox teach. We are placed into the body by Christ with the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Latin? What does this mean? To me it does not look greek at all. Is this Latin for once saved always saved? Assured salvation with no race?

That means the order in which one is saved, or made a member of the Church. I've never said we are 'assured salvation with no race.' The saints WILL bring forth fruit and there is no excuse. If someone backslides, they are convicted by the Holy Spirit to repent and stay the course. This is the classic Biblical view of the doctrine of salvation. We see in John 17 that Jesus Christ is praying for His own, His sheep, that means we can never lose our salvation...unless you believe Jesus is less then God or there is decent in the God head.

peace,

jason

 

[Orthodox Christian]

If salvation exists outside of the Eastern Orthodox Communion, then why join?

If love exists outside marriage, why marry?
Such is the reasoning of the wicked.

"Join?" What do you think it is, the Kiwanis?
Why covenant with the Church? Because it is Christ's command to do so, and you who have examined the teachings of the Church and rejected them will face judgement. Those who are ignorant, say those who grow up within the confines of the traditions of men known as the Reformed 'church' and have no knowledge of the truth found in the Church will not be held to account in the same manner that you will Jason, as it is written.

Comparing what the EO teaches to Scriptures on central issues such as justification by faith and ordo salutis, we know that the EO Church has gone astray

sez you. We've already covered this ground, you and I, and the Reformist's laughable legal description of salvation.

so far in fact, they don’t know if another body of believers that call on the name of the Lord can be saved.

The litmus test of authenticity is the ability to take God's place on the Judgement Seat? What a pathetic load of faeces.

We do not presume, as you do in your adolescent arrogance, to know the fulness of the mind of God. By scripture alone, one comes to many different conclusions on this matter. By means of scripture, we have essentially one conclusion, and that is that God alone is the judge, but they who willfully sin perish.

Those who have heard the gospel and excise the Church from it will pay with fiery indignation.

This doesn’t mean that many EO believers are not saved, it means the EO Church is a fallen Church, a synagogue of Satan.

Heterodox cannot even quote scripture correctly. Do you know what that particular designation- synagogue of Satan- refers to? I don't suppose so.
Fallen Church sayeth Jason the arbiter of Truth.

The modern position has now softened, but still strong among old calendar Orthodox such as ROCOR...which I was a big fan of during my EO days.

Which explains a great deal about your foray into Fundamentalist Protestantism. Once a Fundie, always a Fundie.

The EO have never accepted the ‘Sacraments’ of schismatics and still do not today, so if the Sacraments are not valid then how does the schismatic Church worshp?

As you demonstrated earlier in the course of this dialogue, Jason, your studies were incomplete and errant. Do you not know that Baptism in the name of the Trinity is accepted in most Orthodox jurisdictions in America?
I accept this because this is the position of our Church. Personally, I think accepting Baptism done in a Calvinist or Reformed Church, even in the Name of the Trinity, is an abomination. But I am a son of obedience.

The pre-ecumenical/modern Orthodox would say it doesn’t. Even on the goarch site for the Greek Orthodox Church and you get the clear impression, the early EO Church didn’t recognize other Christians that did not belong via the rites of the EO Church as valid and they will not allow for intercommunion among such heterodox people

.
And we never shall. We will, I pray, work out communion with Rome in time, and the Oriental Orthodox. We might have with Canterbury, had they not went off the liberal deep end.

God may save Reformed Christians, but we shall never have communion with them, for they worship a God of dead letters and serve at the altar of their own feeble intellects.

To sum it up: the EO Church teaches it is the Church that began on the day of Pentecost, the EO believe that one must be a member of the Church to be saved (which we all agree, but differ on what the church is), BUT then they switch it up a little and say ‘we don’t know who will be saved outside of our communion.’ This is a nice way to say you have to belong to there Church to get to heaven

Jason, being an ahistorical heterodox Fundamentalist, I would expect for you to have no historical context to operate from, so I will spell it out for you:

In 950 AD, there was no excuse: Those who did not belong to the Church were heretics by intent.
In 2005 AD, many people have grown up in heterodox traditions, and are sincere, Pietistic, and devoted. God is a just God, and looks at the inner man.
He is not held to the sacraments or the communion of the Church- we are.
For those who have not been given opportunity to come to the Ancient Faith, their lot should rightly be considered that of those who live in darkest Brazil and have never heard of the One God.

You have travelled to the Mission, heard the Good News, and rejected it- in an analogous sense.
Therefore, God have mercy on your Apostate soul.

...this is the logical conclusion one can draw from the statements made about the nature of salvation and the nature of the Church according to EO theology. I posted a quote earlier from an Orthodox Catechism that stated there is no salvation outside the Church and the Church is the EO church....for now I’ll simply give the title...I’m on vacation...' The faith : understanding Orthodox Christianity: an Orthodox catechism' by Carlton published by Regina Orthodox Press, c1997.

Typical. I have given you official and documented rebuttal, and your response is "but it says here..." That's just a childish way of acknowledging your defeat.

I suggest you speak no further on these matters, you are unqualified.

 

[Klee shay]

Harry a modalist "believes" in the same Jesus Christ that the Mormons "believe" which is the same Jesus Christ as the Roman Catholics "believe" which is the same Jesus Christ that the Protestant "believe" and is the same Jesus Christ that you believe. Correct?

I said directly under you post...

A person who believes in Christ believes in "Christ" and...

[quote:81b28]Quote:
knowing he was the son of God, crucified for our sins and resurrected to the right hand side of God.

[/quote:81b28]

A PERSON WHO BELIVES IN CHRIST BELIEVES HE WAS THE SON OF GOD, CRUCIFIED FOR OUR SINS AND RESURRECTED TO THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF GOD.

If a person does not believe this - no matter how else they translate the rest of the scriptures then they DO NOT believe in Christ! If a Mormon does not believe what I wrote above in bold to be true then they do not believe in Christ. If a Roman Catholic does not believe what I wrote above in bold then they do not believe in Christ. If a Prodestant does not believe what I wrote above in bold then they do not believe in Christ either.

If you DO however believe in what I wrote above then you do believe in Christ as God had it proclaimed throughout the land of Jews and Gentiles.

Jesus Christ is Jesus Christ thus everyone that "believes" in His name is a christian no matter what they believe about the Son of God?

Can you be accurate in how you judge a man's heart and exactly what he does believe? No, you cannot. You cannot judge what is in a man's heart. So what are you arguing here? I did not state perfection was required to believe in Christ, I merely said you must believe.

 

[JM]

Oral Tradition is Untrustworthy

The orthodox claim tradition was first oral, and then latter written down. Due to the intense persecution the early Christians wrote little, the bulk of what was latter written in the second and third centuries has little reference to doctrines disputed by Christians and the eastern orthodox Christians. Tradition in light of the actual works we have collected and documented is reduced to mere report or word of mouth hearsay.

The Fathers Contradict Each Other

The eastern orthodox councils give us the false sense of unity, the early church fathers disagreed on important doctrines and sometimes even contradict themselves. A good example would can be found in the earliest writings found among the brethren that were taught by the apostles who believed in the imminent return of Christ. Two centuries latter that doctrine was condemned as false.

Where’s the unity?

Lactantius is ignored and icons are used. Jerome is ignored and the apocrypha is used. Where is the universal tradition & unanimous consent to the doctrines found among the eastern orthodox? There is none.

If love exists outside marriage, why marry?
Such is the reasoning of the wicked.

"Join?" What do you think it is, the Kiwanis?
Why covenant with the Church? Because it is Christ's command to do so, and you who have examined the teachings of the Church and rejected them will face judgement. Those who are ignorant, say those who grow up within the confines of the traditions of men known as the Reformed 'church' and have no knowledge of the truth found in the Church will not be held to account in the same manner that you will Jason, as it is written.

The logic is sound. If salvation is in Jesus Christ and Him alone then becoming one of the apostate makes no sense. Sure, many in your fold will be saved, but not because they are of your fold...they are placed into the Body of Christ by God. ("Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.")

sez you. We've already covered this ground, you and I, and the Reformist's laughable legal description of salvation.

and

The litmus test of authenticity is the ability to take God's place on the Judgement Seat? What a pathetic load of faeces.

I'll let this stand as it is. I'm not one of your fellow 'o'rthodox church members who like to talk in such a manner.

We do not presume, as you do in your adolescent arrogance, to know the fulness of the mind of God. By scripture alone, one comes to many different conclusions on this matter. By means of scripture, we have essentially one conclusion, and that is that God alone is the judge, but they who willfully sin perish.

Those who have heard the gospel and excise the Church from it will pay with fiery indignation.

You do not presume, because you can't find what the Scripture has to say within your human traditions. The Bible tells us in many places that we may 'know' truth as found in Scripture. By sola scriptura one becomes responsible for there faith, it's up to them to 'study to shew thyself approved' and not lean on others to tell them what to believe. This doesn't mean we don't follow the example of godly brethren or the advice of pastors and teachers, it simply means that we are judge by 'our' faith and not the faith of the denomination one belongs.

I trust in Christ Jesus for my salvation and Him alone.

Heterodox cannot even quote scripture correctly. Do you know what that particular designation- synagogue of Satan- refers to? I don't suppose so.
Fallen Church sayeth Jason the arbiter of Truth.

Do I know what a ‘synagogue of Satan’ is? Sure do and since the easterners claim to be the Israel of God using replacement type of theology, not only I but others find it fitting. Considering the context given in Rev. 3:9, where those who claim to be the chosen of God are really those who despise Christians...it works well.

Who is the arbiter of truth? Since you don’t know, I’ll get to that at the end of this post with a little reading on sola scriptura.

Which explains a great deal about your foray into Fundamentalist Protestantism. Once a Fundie, always a Fundie.

The ad hominem fallacy.

I quote: An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

• Person A makes claim X.
  Person B makes an attack on person A.
  Therefore A's claim is false.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... minem.html

As you demonstrated earlier in the course of this dialogue, Jason, your studies were incomplete and errant. Do you not know that Baptism in the name of the Trinity is accepted in most Orthodox jurisdictions in America?
I accept this because this is the position of our Church. Personally, I think accepting Baptism done in a Calvinist or Reformed Church, even in the Name of the Trinity, is an abomination. But I am a son of obedience.

As I demonstrated repeatedly, I have studied the doctrines of the e.o. church. As I demonstrated repeatedly, I reject those doctrines because they're inconsistent with the Bible and inconsistent within the context of the e. o. tradition itself. When I attended St. Nektarios Greek Orthodox Church, I was told I would have to be rebaptized if I wanted to join. This is a plain example of either inconsistent teaching, or a clear example of the false sense of unity in the teaching of the e. o. church. As you, yourself has demonstrated a hostility toward the sacraments of other Christians it only serves to press the point I made earlier. For the record, I'm not a member of the Reformed Church.

And we never shall. We will, I pray, work out communion with Rome in time, and the Oriental Orthodox. We might have with Canterbury, had they not went off the liberal deep end.

God may save Reformed Christians, but we shall never have communion with them, for they worship a God of dead letters and serve at the altar of their own feeble intellects.

No comment, this little tidbit speaks volumes and I can add nothing.

Jason, being an ahistorical heterodox Fundamentalist, I would expect for you to have no historical context to operate from, so I will spell it out for you:

In 950 AD, there was no excuse: Those who did not belong to the Church were heretics by intent.
In 2005 AD, many people have grown up in heterodox traditions, and are sincere, Pietistic, and devoted. God is a just God, and looks at the inner man.
He is not held to the sacraments or the communion of the Church- we are.
For those who have not been given opportunity to come to the Ancient Faith, their lot should rightly be considered that of those who live in darkest Brazil and have never heard of the One God.

It strange that you keep returning to the ad hominem attack. Do you as a member disagree with the fundamentals of the faith? Do you deny the virgin birth, maybe the Trinity, or is it the fact that Jesus is fully God and fully man? Who are you calling heterodox? Did I bring up the movement among your brethren to have Ivan the Terrible made a saint? Did I bring up toll houses?

When I attended the Greek Orthodox Church it was explained to me in simple terms: ‘we are catholic without the pope.’ Shouldn’t throw stones in a glass house. When every Sunday because a Greek festival and not worship something is wrong. When you’re told your children are welcome to attend Sunday school but it’s all in Greek, something is wrong. Since you display a lack of knowledge as to what the Church is, read the little Bible lesson following this post.

I suggest you speak no further on these matters, you are unqualified.

You have travelled to the Mission, heard the Good News, and rejected it- in an analogous sense.
Therefore, God have mercy on your Apostate soul.

I did travel to the orthodox church, I did hear what they call the gospel and I did reject it. The e. o. church is more concerned with culture then it is with souls. Therefore, God have mercy on all souls, those especially lead astray by the e. o. dogmas.

Typical. I have given you official and documented rebuttal, and your response is "but it says here..." That's just a childish way of acknowledging your defeat.

I suggest you speak no further on these matters, you are unqualified.

Typical. I provide a source to prove the inconsistency of the e.o. position and I get more ad hominem. I provided a title endorsed by e. o. henchmen/bishops and I get lynched. lol According to logic, it’s you that doesn’t make sense. The Eastern Orthodox has turned in on itself since the time of Constantine and has since rotted because of the Turks. It now has a petrified form of pagan faith mixed with Christian Gospel and the teachings are spewing forth rancid filth upon North America.

Each key stroke shows the contempt these 'o'rthodox brethren have for us, who want Jesus Christ’s truth know, well, 'ye shall know them by there works.'

A teaching on the Church
In Matthew 16:18 the Lord Jesus Himself tells us, "I WILL build My Church." The future tense of the verb used indicates, that the building of the church had not yet begun when Jesus said these words.

"For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit."

This "one body" refers to the Church (see also: 1 Cor. 12:27-28; Eph. 1:22-23; 5:30-32; Col. 1:18), the Body of which Christ is the Head. How does one become a member? Spirit baptism.
It is defined in 1 Corinthians 12:13 as that work of God whereby believers are baptized into Christ’s body, the church.

One more time from Scripture, how then does a believer become a member of the body of Christ? It is by Spirit baptism.

Who does the baptizing? Jesus Christ Himself.
“I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:†see also Acts 1:5; 11:16

A little on Sola Scriptura
“Sola scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. The doctrine does not say that there are not other, fallible, rules of faith, or even traditions, that we can refer to and even embrace. It does say, however, that the only infallible rule of faith is Scripture. This means that all other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by, the Scriptures. The Bible is an ultimate authority, allowing no equal, nor superior, in tradition or church. It is so because it is theopneustos, God-breathed, and hence embodies the very speaking of God, and must, of necessity therefore be of the highest authority. So as you can see, your definition does not correspond well to he actual doctrine.â€Â

and

http://aomin.org/THEOPNEU.html

Good day.

 

[JM]

One who says "I dont know who is saved but the Bible says "the Church"

or

One who says "only those that "believe" will be saved.

Ac 16:31 "And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved..."

Ro 10:9 "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."

eh?

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Oral Tradition is Untrustworthy

The orthodox claim tradition was first oral, and then latter written down.

Define 'tradition'
Due to the intense persecution the early Christians wrote little, the bulk of what was latter written in the second and third centuries has little reference to doctrines disputed by Christians and the eastern orthodox Christians. Tradition in light of the actual works we have collected and documented is reduced to mere report or word of mouth hearsay.

The Fathers Contradict Each Other

The eastern orthodox councils give us the false sense of unity, the early church fathers disagreed on important doctrines and sometimes even contradict themselves. A good example would can be found in the earliest writings found among the brethren that were taught by the apostles who believed in the imminent return of Christ. Two centuries latter that doctrine was condemned as false.

Where’s the unity?

Lactantius is ignored and icons are used. Jerome is ignored and the apocrypha is used. Where is the universal tradition & unanimous consent to the doctrines found among the eastern orthodox? There is none.
No one claims unanimity among the Church fathers. The resolve at Nicea was not unanimous. Strawman alert in aisle 5, please bring mop.

If love exists outside marriage, why marry?
Such is the reasoning of the wicked.

"Join?" What do you think it is, the Kiwanis?
Why covenant with the Church? Because it is Christ's command to do so, and you who have examined the teachings of the Church and rejected them will face judgement. Those who are ignorant, say those who grow up within the confines of the traditions of men known as the Reformed 'church' and have no knowledge of the truth found in the Church will not be held to account in the same manner that you will Jason, as it is written.

The logic is sound. If salvation is in Jesus Christ and Him alone then becoming one of the apostate makes no sense. Sure, many in your fold will be saved, but not because they are of your fold...they are placed into the Body of Christ by God. ("Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.")
I agree, becoming one of the Apostate makes no sense if one has access to and knowledge of the truth. While people are not saved because of merely belonging to the Church, rejecting the Church- His appointed- is synonymous with rejecting Him. (Mark 6:11).

sez you. We've already covered this ground, you and I, and the Reformist's laughable legal description of salvation.

and

The litmus test of authenticity is the ability to take God's place on the Judgement Seat? What a pathetic load of faeces.

I'll let this stand as it is. I'm not one of your fellow 'o'rthodox church members who like to talk in such a manner.
Contrived offense-that's a good a reason as any to avoid the content.

We do not presume, as you do in your adolescent arrogance, to know the fulness of the mind of God. By scripture alone, one comes to many different conclusions on this matter. By means of scripture, we have essentially one conclusion, and that is that God alone is the judge, but they who willfully sin perish.

Those who have heard the gospel and excise the Church from it will pay with fiery indignation.

You do not presume, because you can't find what the Scripture has to say within your human traditions.
Try me- let's make that a wager without money
The Bible tells us in many places that we may 'know' truth as found in Scripture. By sola scriptura one becomes responsible for there faith, it's up to them to 'study to shew thyself approved' and not lean on others to tell them what to believe.
Stop the nonsense right there. Don't even try to strangle "lean not on your own understanding, but in all thy ways acknowledge (Christ) as Lord" into a proof text for everymanapopeism. The entirety of the scriptures is a testimony that "we all should say the same things." Your wicked tradition places murderers like Calvin and his laughable scholarship on a pedestal above the received testimony of 100 generations of martyrs, theologians, martyr theologians, mystics, martyr mystics, and everyday folk.
This doesn't mean we don't follow the example of godly brethren or the advice of pastors and teachers, it simply means that we are judge by 'our' faith and not the faith of the denomination one belongs.
And of course, we orthodox do not think for ourselves, right? But you do. A convenient perception.

I trust in Christ Jesus for my salvation and Him alone.
You don't even know what salvation is- you think it's justification, like a clearing of a ledger seat. Salvation is a Person whom we Orthodox trust. We pay no heed to Reformist fables of a 'get out of hell free card' and the 'irresistible grace.'

Heterodox cannot even quote scripture correctly. Do you know what that particular designation- synagogue of Satan- refers to? I don't suppose so.
Fallen Church sayeth Jason the arbiter of Truth.

Do I know what a ‘synagogue of Satan’ is? Sure do and since the easterners claim to be the Israel of God using replacement type of theology, not only I but others find it fitting. Considering the context given in Rev. 3:9, where those who claim to be the chosen of God are really those who despise Christians...it works well.
It refers to those who claim to be Jews and are not. We do not claim to be Jews. We do not have Replacement theology. The Church is a continuation, not a Replacement.

Who is the arbiter of truth? Since you don’t know, I’ll get to that at the end of this post with a little reading on sola scriptura.
Another obnoxious bit of hubris. I don't only know WHO the arbiter of Truth is- I know the Arbiter of Truth.
And we'll come to your fables presently.

Which explains a great deal about your foray into Fundamentalist Protestantism. Once a Fundie, always a Fundie.

The ad hominem fallacy.
You deny your Fundamentalism?
You deny the logical connection between one brand of Fundamentalism and another?
Mine was neither an ad hominem fallacy nor a fallacy of any kind. Do you take umbrage with the term 'Fundie?' then I shall take pains to type out FUNDAMENTALIST.

I quote: An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

• Person A makes claim X.
  Person B makes an attack on person A.
  Therefore A's claim is false.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... minem.html
You were the one who cited your admiration for rigorist Eastern Orthodoxy- I simply pointed out that even the ROCOR would not satisfy a true dyed-in-wool FUNDAMENTALIST because ROCOR is only rigorist, not Ft.
Nevertheless, you have demonstrated a narrow understanding of Orthodoxy.

As you demonstrated earlier in the course of this dialogue, Jason, your studies were incomplete and errant. Do you not know that Baptism in the name of the Trinity is accepted in most Orthodox jurisdictions in America?
I accept this because this is the position of our Church. Personally, I think accepting Baptism done in a Calvinist or Reformed Church, even in the Name of the Trinity, is an abomination. But I am a son of obedience.

As I demonstrated repeatedly, I have studied the doctrines of the e.o. church. As I demonstrated repeatedly, I reject those doctrines because they're inconsistent with the Bible and inconsistent within the context of the e. o. tradition itself. When I attended St. Nektarios Greek Orthodox Church, I was told I would have to be rebaptized if I wanted to join. This is a plain example of either inconsistent teaching, or a clear example of the false sense of unity in the teaching of the e. o. church.
Obviously, you were not baptized in the name of the Trinity, otherwise you would not need to be re-baptized. I know the ins and outs of canon within the jurisdictions, especially in my own.

As you, yourself has demonstrated a hostility toward the sacraments of other Christians it only serves to press the point I made earlier. For the record, I'm not a member of the Reformed Church.
I don't have a hostility toward the sacraments of those who have sacraments. I have no issue with the sacraments of the Anglicans or the Lutherans, for they have sacraments. The specific traditions I pointed out are absolutely without regrad for the presence of God in any of the sacraments, and thus they do meaningless rituals. I find that abhorrent.

And we never shall. We will, I pray, work out communion with Rome in time, and the Oriental Orthodox. We might have with Canterbury, had they not went off the liberal deep end.

God may save Reformed Christians, but we shall never have communion with them, for they worship a God of dead letters and serve at the altar of their own feeble intellects.

No comment, this little tidbit speaks volumes and I can add nothing.
Glad we agree.

Jason, being an ahistorical heterodox Fundamentalist, I would expect for you to have no historical context to operate from, so I will spell it out for you:

In 950 AD, there was no excuse: Those who did not belong to the Church were heretics by intent.
In 2005 AD, many people have grown up in heterodox traditions, and are sincere, Pietistic, and devoted. God is a just God, and looks at the inner man.
He is not held to the sacraments or the communion of the Church- we are.
For those who have not been given opportunity to come to the Ancient Faith, their lot should rightly be considered that of those who live in darkest Brazil and have never heard of the One God.

It strange that you keep returning to the ad hominem attack.
Is a"historical Fundamentlist heterodox" ad hominem, and "apostate church" not? I think of ahistoric Fundamentalist heterodox as being three very accurate descriptors. perhaps you would propose three others? You have called yourself a Fundmanealist elsewhere. I observe that you are ahistorical, and describe you as heterodox.Do you as a member disagree with the fundamentals of the faith? Do you deny the virgin birth, maybe the Trinity, or is it the fact that Jesus is fully God and fully man? Who are you calling heterodox? Did I bring up the movement among your brethren to have Ivan the Terrible made a saint? Did I bring up toll houses?
I think within the designation "fallen church" and "apostate" you covered that. Why not bring up Nestorius as EP? Of course, we deposed him, and there is no Saint Ivan the Terrible. As for toll houses, save that for another thread.

When I attended the Greek Orthodox Church it was explained to me in simple terms: ‘we are catholic without the pope.’
I suppose this is where I should attempt to distance myself from this hearsay remark. Nah, I love my Catholic brethren, and there is some degree of truth in that remark, but there is a great deal of untruth in that remark as well.

Shouldn’t throw stones in a glass house. When every Sunday because a Greek festival and not worship something is wrong. When you’re told your children are welcome to attend Sunday school but it’s all in Greek, something is wrong. Since you display a lack of knowledge as to what the Church is, read the little Bible lesson following this post.
Ah, the condescension, bracing as a breeze off a New Jersey garbage schow.
One hundred years ago, all Lutheran Sunday Schools in my area were done in Swedish, German, or Norwegian. Eastern Europeans are late comers in the immigration game. In my parish, one of the oldest Greek parishes in the USA (est 1918), the situation is nothing like what you describe.
I suggest you speak no further on these matters, you are unqualified.

You have travelled to the Mission, heard the Good News, and rejected it- in an analogous sense.
Therefore, God have mercy on your Apostate soul.

I did travel to the orthodox church, I did hear what they call the gospel and I did reject it. The e. o. church is more concerned with culture then it is with souls.
This is an obvious and demonstrable falsehood.
Therefore, God have mercy on all souls, those especially lead astray by the e. o. dogmas.
You should have just stopped at "mercy on all souls." Anything else is simply your unqualified opinion cluttering up an otherwise good prayer.

Typical. I have given you official and documented rebuttal, and your response is "but it says here..." That's just a childish way of acknowledging your defeat.

I suggest you speak no further on these matters, you are unqualified.

Typical. I provide a source to prove the inconsistency of the e.o. position and I get more ad hominem. I provided a title endorsed by e. o. henchmen/bishops and I get lynched. lol According to logic, it’s you that doesn’t make sense. The Eastern Orthodox has turned in on itself since the time of Constantine and has since rotted because of the Turks. It now has a petrified form of pagan faith mixed with Christian Gospel and the teachings are spewing forth rancid filth upon North America.
Re-work that a bit, if you are going to attempt a stinging rejoinder, you should avoid mixing your metaphors.

And again, what you label ad hominem is simply a fair commentary. It is childish to argue a point you have been proven wrong on, and you are unqualified to make conclusive remarks. You have every right to express your opinion as such.
Each key stroke shows the contempt these 'o'rthodox brethren have for us, who want Jesus Christ’s truth know, well, 'ye shall know them by there works.'
Now who's attempting fallacies, playing to the crowd/grandstanding. I have no contempt for those who love Jesus and disagree with me. Read back through my posts and see the love and concern I have for those who are Catholic and Protestant as we look at the Kingdom together.

It is those who claim to know, those who attack even those I disagree with (specifically, Catholics) for whom I have contempt.

A teaching on the Church
In Matthew 16:18 the Lord Jesus Himself tells us, "I WILL build My Church." The future tense of the verb used indicates, that the building of the church had not yet begun when Jesus said these words.

"For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit."

This "one body" refers to the Church (see also: 1 Cor. 12:27-28; Eph. 1:22-23; 5:30-32; Col. 1:18), the Body of which Christ is the Head. How does one become a member? Spirit baptism.

It is defined in 1 Corinthians 12:13 as that work of God whereby believers are baptized into Christ’s body, the church.

One more time from Scripture, how then does a believer become a member of the body of Christ? It is by Spirit baptism.

Who does the baptizing? Jesus Christ Himself.
“I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:†see also Acts 1:5; 11:16
This is fluff. No one denies the action of the Spirit as central and essential to the salvation of any and every soul that would be saved. That you have set 'spirit baptism' as the lone qualifier for membership of the One Faith, One Baptism, One Lord' Church is ludicrous beyond comment.


A little on Sola Scriptura
“Sola scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. The doctrine does not say that there are not other, fallible, rules of faith, or even traditions, that we can refer to and even embrace. It does say, however, that the only infallible rule of faith is Scripture. This means that all other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by, the Scriptures. The Bible is an ultimate authority, allowing no equal, nor superior, in tradition or church. It is so because it is theopneustos, God-breathed, and hence embodies the very speaking of God, and must, of necessity therefore be of the highest authority. So as you can see, your definition does not correspond well to the actual doctrine.â€Â
This bit of dancing around what 'alone' means would make Clinton blush. What does is mean, anyway?
In truth, the Church determined that scripture was kanona- the measure of truth. This implicitly requires that no doctrine lean a differt direction than the plumbline reuires. But what sola scriptura, in the tortured, meandering definition you've given fails to account for is that there will AWAYS be a human being reading and interpreting. So now S.S. adherents acknowledge that there are some traditions of scriptural interpretation that are true and orthodox- yet they are inferior. How can something that is designated as truth be inferior to truth? If the Nicene Creed is to be considered 'inferior' to scripture, then anyone can go find a proof text and deny the Trinity. Guess what- they do- and yet S.S. adherents decry these folks as heretics.

Doubletalk.

Scripture is canon, that is to say, the measure of truth. But the way we read it is determined by the tradition we adhere to and the ones we don't.

 

[Klee shay]

I like your work Jason. I cannot admit to understanding everything which was written, or if everything you've stated is correct absolutely without exception; but you speak with freedom in Christ and that has the tendency to break bonds of oppression.

 

[JM]

First thing that comes to mind when reading this thread.

As Christians, we are to practice moral separation from sin and worldliness. We find it plain and clear in the writings of the New Testament, ‘Therefore "Come out from the midst of them and be separated," says the Lord. "Do not touch what is unclean, and I will receive you." (English Majority Translation) We separate ourselves from the world because of our new position in Christ, we are a redeem people and bare witness to God by our lives and actions. Our salvation does not depend on our separation from the world or false teachers; we separate from the world and false teachers because of our salvation. A believer has a purpose in this world, we are called to be light and salt, not to fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness. As light and salt in a fallen world, it is important to give a living testimony to those who are lost (Ep. 5:13) and is essential for our own spiritual growth. Eph. 4:17-29; 1 Pet. 4:1-4; 1 John. 2:15-17.

As Bible believing Christians, it can't just stop there, we are also called to separate over doctrinal issues or issues of biblical teaching and practice. Any teaching or practice that are contrary to what we find in the Bible is wrong and separation from brethren who are committed to these disobedient paths is then necessary. The Bible teaches that we are to separate from those who teach false doctrine and to separate from the apostate Christianity found in these last days. "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them" (Ro. 16:17). This idea of biblical separation is often contrary to what many modern Churches teach, but a quick review of 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 2 Timothy 1:13 will help offer more proof for separation. 2 John 8-11; Rev. 2:2; 1 Co. 5:11; 2 Th. 3:6; 1 Ti. 6:5; Mt. 18:15-18

The hard task we now have, is to put into practice biblical separation and thank God we have the Grace to do it! The biblical ideal begins with spiritual and doctrinal discernment, ‘Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.’ You can’t separate from false teaching if you don’t know the truth, each of us is responsible for our own study of God’s world. That means picking up your Bible and reading it CAREFULLY with a prayful spirit of discernment. In Jude 3 we are told to contend for the faith, not for the sake of contention, but because it is necessary to preserve the faith from corruption. The prophets contended for the faith and often died doing so, John the Baptist contended for the faith and was beheaded for denouncing the sin of the rulers. By studying the word of God and keeping ourselves separate we are obedience to God (Ro. 16:17; Jude 3; 2 Ti. 4:2). As believers, it isn’t an option but a command to remain steadfast, learned and separate! To be discerning of truth and error and to avoid all error is obedience. 1 Col. 1:9; 3:16; Heb. 5:12-14.

If someone has fallen away, there is no more sacrifice for sin (Heb. 6) and we shouldn't cast our pearls before unbelievers repeatedly (Matt. 7). O.C. and I have discussed these matters before and he refuses to accept the Bible as the final rule of faith. It's time for me to put into practice the Biblical doctrine of separation and pray that God changes the hearts of those in the eastern orthodox church.

I just want to leave with the offer of the Gospel offer...maybe those posting in this thread have never heard it before, I can't say.

God Loves You! God wants You to have His Peace and Eternal Life.
Romans 5:8 (KJV) But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Sin separates us from God.
God's Peace and Eternal Life are lost because of our sins.
Romans 5:12 (KJV) Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Romans 3:23 (KJV) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

God has provided a gift of New Life. This Life is in Jesus Christ.
Romans 6:23 (KJV) For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

You can have this Life! This Life is made available through Jesus Christ.
Romans 5:1 (KJV) Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
Romans 1:16 (KJV) For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Romans 5:21 (KJV) That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
Romans 10:9 (KJV) That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Romans 10:13 (KJV) For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Romans 10:10 (KJV) For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

O.C. and I have discussed these matters before and he refuses to accept the Bible as the final rule of faith

Only because the bible cannot be the final rule of faith. It will always be interpreted by someone, and cannot be read without interpreting it.

When citing scripture, each of us, you and I, cite our own influences upon our reading of scriptre.

The difference between you and I is that I am intellectually honest about my influences, while you deny yours even when they reside in your avatar.

By all means, continue in your schism. God will judge between us, I shall not.

I'd like to share a couple of scriptures that are dear to me as well.

Malachi 4:5-6
Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

1 corinthians 4:15
For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet [have ye] not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

We live in a time of separation, fatherlessness, and drifting. Nothing is sacred, children are revilers of parents, those who call themselves Christians are adulterous and hateful. The solution to this is Christ. The Body of Christ is the Church, not an idea or a movement.

Non-denominational Christianity offers a solution to 'nothing sacred:' nothing sacred. Modern Christianity offers a solution to fatherlessness: be a part of our family- and no, no one in our family is 'father.' Modern Christianity's answer to the disconnectedness of the modern world is church hopping.

As imperfect as the Orthodox Church is, I will place the tradition of the fathers and mothers against some pastor's interpretation any day, anywhere, any time.

As for my own interpretations: fortunately, I'm brilliant enough to realize my limitations. It's the modestly intelligent who seem to think their feeble minds can wrap around the awesome truths found in scripture.

 

[Orthodoxy]

How pray tell can something that is "incomplete" be the "final and infallible authority" in the Christin faith.

John 21:25, And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Not everything about Jesus Christ and His life are written in the Bible. How can it be the final authority when it does not contain all the "truth" but only parts of the "truth".

It would seem apparent the heterodox idol (the bible) is not the "fulness of Him" nor the "pillar and ground of truth" thus cannot be "the final authority".

Jesus sent men just as His Father sent Him. Jesus never sent a book to preach the gospel of His Kingdom.

Orthodoxy