False Teachings on Southern Baptist Convention website?

[vanshan]

I have a few family members who are Southern Baptists, so I was just reviewing some of their beliefs at the Southern Baptist Convention's website. Here are just a few observations based on the postion statements and beliefs that I read:

From: http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/positionstatements.asp

We affirm the priesthood of all believers. Laypersons have the same right as ordained ministers to communicate with God, interpret Scripture, and minister in Christ's name.

Problem: Defends self-interpretation of scripture, rather than conforming to the correct revelation, or meaning, of scripture. Also suggests all are called to same calling, whereas the scriptures indicate members of Christ's body have different functions.

In some groups, statements of belief have the same authority as Scripture. We call this creedalism. Baptists also make statements of belief, but all of them are revisable in light of Scripture. The Bible is the final word.
Because of this distinction, we are generally more comfortable with the word "confession." Still, we are "creedal" in the sense that we believe certain things, express those beliefs and order our institutions accordingly.

Problem: No solid foundation for preserving revealed truth. According to this statement scriptural truth is subjective.

From: http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp#i

Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer's death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper.

Problem: Reduces act of baptism to a symbolic ritual, rather than a salvific work of God.

The Lord's Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming.

Problem: Reduces participation in the Lord's Supper to a symbolic ritual, rather than a salvific work of God.

All true believers endure to the end. Those whom God has accepted in Christ, and sanctified by His Spirit, will never fall away from the state of grace, but shall persevere to the end. Believers may fall into sin through neglect and temptation, whereby they grieve the Spirit, impair their graces and comforts, and bring reproach on the cause of Christ and temporal judgments on themselves; yet they shall be kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.

Problem: Asserts that once a person has "accepted Christ" they cannot fall away (i.e. once-saved-always-saved), in direct contradition to several passages in scripture. It also adds the qualifier that all "true believers" endure until the end, which seems to call into question the sincerity of some believers, suggesting that if anyone falls away, they weren't really a "true believer" in the first place.

These are definitely departures from earlier belief, that had been revealed and passed down to us.


Basil

 

[vanshan]

If scriptural understanding is merely subjective, rather than being a matter of preserving the revealed truth, we have no basis for condemning any false teachings a group might come up with from individual interpretation, right?

Christ came and revealed many things to mankind, but if we read scripture subjectively, then we may not come to the divinely revealed truth that was intended to be revealed to us.

Basil

 

[Rhamiel]

Problem: Reduces participation in the Lord's Supper to a symbolic ritual, rather than a salvific work of God.

it also brings up the topic of why Christ would command us to "do this in memoery of me" if it had nothing else behind it then just memory, why keep a tradition from 2,000 years ago, from a differant culture? Just to keep the tradition or because it is really the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ?

 

[holdon]

Problem: Defends self-interpretation of scripture, rather than conforming to the correct revelation, or meaning, of scripture. Also suggests all are called to same calling, whereas the scriptures indicate members of Christ's body have different functions.

This is not a problem: it a blessing. The apostle John told us so:
"And ye have the unction from the holy one, and ye know all things.
2:21 I have not written to you because ye do not know the truth, but because ye know it"

Problem: No solid foundation for preserving revealed truth. According to this statement scriptural truth is subjective.

No problem: the bible hasn't changed in ages. What was good then is still good now...

Problem: Reduces act of baptism to a symbolic ritual, rather than a salvific work of God.

Baptism is not a work of God. It is done by and for people.

Problem: Reduces participation in the Lord's Supper to a symbolic ritual, rather than a salvific work of God.

The Lord's Supper doesn't save: was Judas saved?

Problem: Asserts that once a person has "accepted Christ" they cannot fall away (i.e. once-saved-always-saved), in direct contradition to several passages in scripture. It also adds the qualifier that all "true believers" endure until the end, which seems to call into question the sincerity of some believers, suggesting that if anyone falls away, they weren't really a "true believer" in the first place.

Exactly as John the Apostle taught: "They went out from among us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have surely remained with us"

 

[NorrinRadd]

I have a few family members who are Southern Baptists, so I was just reviewing some of their beliefs at the Southern Baptist Convention's website. Here are just a few observations based on the postion statements and beliefs that I read:

From: http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/positionstatements.asp
...

Just so you know -- 'cause I'm sure it's never occurred to you -- you can safely lump all us Protestants into those "false" teachings, with the partial exception of "OSAS."

We don't all explicitly spell 'em out in a "Statement of Faith" or "Position Statements" or such, but we all hold to them.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

it also brings up the topic of why Christ would command us to "do this in memoery of me" if it had nothing else behind it then just memory, why keep a tradition from 2,000 years ago, from a differant culture? Just to keep the tradition or because it is really the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ?

Hi. Will that tradition still be kept when JESUS returns at the End of the Age?
Btw, where do the RCs see JESUS returning in Revelation? Thanks.

1 corin 11:26 For as often ever ye may be eating the bread, this, and the drink-cup ye may be drinking, the death of the Lord ye are according-messaging/kataggellete <2605> (5719) until which ever He may be coming/elqh <2064> (5632)

1 Thessalonians 3:13 Into the stand-fast of ye, the hearts blameless in together-holiness before the God and Father of us in the Parousia <3952> of the Lord of us, Jesus Christ, with all of the holy-ones of Him. [Zech 14:5]

Reve 19:11 And I perceived the heaven having be opened and Lo! A horse, white and the One sitting on it/him being called Faithful and True and in justice He is judging and is battling.

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

Just so you know -- 'cause I'm sure it's never occurred to you -- you can safely lump all us Protestants into those "false" teachings, with the partial exception of "OSAS."

That's not true. Many Protestants would agree with the OP on many of his assertions. This is especially true of the regenerative work of baptism and the Eucharist (for instance, many Lutherans and Anglicans would agree with the OP).

 

[sunlover1]

Problem: Defends self-interpretation of scripture, rather than conforming to the correct revelation, or meaning, of scripture.

HUH?
How can I study it to show myself approved if not
by reading it AND trying to understand it?

Also suggests all are called to same calling, whereas the scriptures indicate members of Christ's body have different functions.

We are all able ministers of the gospel of Christ.
You're right that there are different functions,
but they are right that we are all called kings
and priests.

Problem: Reduces act of baptism to a symbolic ritual, rather than a salvific work of God.

You say they're wrong, but that doesnt necessarily
mean that they are wrong.

Problem: Reduces participation in the Lord's Supper to a symbolic ritual, rather than a salvific work of God.

He did say to do this in MEMORY of Him.
did he say it saves?

IMO, unless you can show them scripture indicating
that they're involved in things that are displeasing
to God, I'd leave them alone and just pray for truth
for them AND you.

Because I know from experience, that talk is cheap,
but God's Spirit is the real deal.

It's not by might nor by power, but by His Spirit.
And except the Lord build the house, they
labor in vain who build it.

sunlover

 

[NorrinRadd]

That's not true. Many Protestants would agree with the OP on many of his assertions. This is especially true of the regenerative work of baptism and the Eucharist (for instance, many Lutherans and Anglicans would agree with the OP).

Hmm. Ok, I hadn't realized we Evangelicals differed so thoroughly from the "older" Protestants.

Good to know.

 

[vanshan]

This is not a problem: it a blessing. The apostle John told us so:
"And ye have the unction from the holy one, and ye know all things.
2:21 I have not written to you because ye do not know the truth, but because ye know it"

How did they know the truth? Certainly their knowledge of the gospel didn't come from reading the Old Testament scriptures alone, but from teachings they had received orally during direct contact with an apostle, and then later in letter.

2 Thessalonians 2:15:

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle."

Also, think of the example of the Ethiopian, who couldn't understand the meaning of the scriptures without the correct understanding being taught to him. We must be humble enough to admit we don't understand all things without help, and do not hear the voice of the Holy Spirit clearly enough to rely on our own understanding alone. If we could all Christians would believe the exact same things on the core teachings of Christ, but this is far from true.

No problem: the bible hasn't changed in ages. What was good then is still good now...

The Bible has been well-preserved and can be trusted as accurate; however, false teachings based on faulty interpretations abound. The Bible hasn't changed (although some very terrible translations have changed the meaning some passages -think "The Message" for the most egregious example).

Baptism is not a work of God. It is done by and for people.

Galations 3:27:

"For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

Romans 6:4:

"Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."

There is no need to debate the fact, which we all probably agree on, which is that Christ never encouraged empty rituals. If He commanded us to do something, it was because it was beneficial or necessary for us and our salvation. The Pharisees followed customs arrogantly for show, or created oppressive requirements that burdened men, but Christ cut through those things and commanded only that which is necessary for us.

The Lord's Supper doesn't save: was Judas saved?

Mystically we become partakers of Christ's divine nature by participating in this. Again, it's no empty ritual Christ commanded us to participate in, it was designed by God to benefit us spiritually. The gifts offered mystically become the Body and Blood of Christ for us, by a miracle performed by the Holy Spirit.

1 Corinthians 10:16-17:

"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread."

The true meaning which Christ Himself had proclaimed in the gospels is reinterated in this letter. When we participate in communion we are joined together in One Body. This is the correct ecclessiology of the Church also: that we are mystically joined to Christ as His Body, by our participation in the one communion. It's not just the intellectual process of believing that joins us together as the Body, but as it indicates above, we are one Body when we "partake of that one bread."

John 6:53-54:

"Then Jesus said to them, 'Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.'"

Sound like it's an empty ritual? Read the entire last half of this chapter. It's very clear that participation in communion gives us life, as weird as it may seem to our finite intellect. This is God's plan, so we may wonder at the mystery of it, but we must submit to His plan of salvation, not our own intellectual take on the gospel.

As far as Judas, participating in communion doesn't assure us of salvation. In fact the scriptures warn that participating in communion without proper preparation heaps condemnation upon us, which is one of the reasons the Orthodox Church has closed communion . . . everyone is welcome to come, but not without proper spiritual prepartation. There is real power there, and coming unworthily is harmful to us.

Exactly as John the Apostle taught: "They went out from among us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have surely remained with us"

Is this from the end of the John 6? Those who departed at that time were troubled by the quote above, where Christ revealed that eating His Body and Blood was necessary for Him to abide in us and us in Him. Their earthbound logic was repulsed by His statement, especially among those who were observant Jews, who were unclean if they even touched blood and were forbidden to eat animal blood.

Basil

 

[Zecryphon]

it also brings up the topic of why Christ would command us to "do this in memoery of me" if it had nothing else behind it then just memory, why keep a tradition from 2,000 years ago, from a differant culture? Just to keep the tradition or because it is really the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ?

The problem I always had with the "memorial" or symbolic view of the Lord's Supper is that it seemed to go against what Christ plainly said. He said "this is my body, this is my blood." If He meant it to be a symbolic ritual, He would have said so, by saying "this represents my body, this represents my blood." He didn't do that. Plus, when The Lord's Supper is seen as a memorial, you have to ask yourself, if you're partaking of this as a memorial, who are memorials held for? The dead. Christ is not dead but risen. The symbolic view is problematic on a few levels.

 

[holdon]

How did they know the truth? Certainly their knowledge of the gospel didn't come from reading the Old Testament scriptures alone, but from teachings they had received orally during direct contact with an apostle, and then later in letter.

Yes and your point being???

2 Thessalonians 2:15:

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle."

Yes, some use this to say that Tradition is so important. But when probed as to what teachings of Paul (because that is what this verse refers to) they would have OUTSIDE the bible, they mumble the Fathers, Didache etc, but can't come up with any word from Paul. So, there goes your "tradition" down the drain.

Also, think of the example of the Ethiopian, who couldn't understand the meaning of the scriptures without the correct understanding being taught to him. We must be humble enough to admit we don't understand all things without help, and do not hear the voice of the Holy Spirit clearly enough to rely on our own understanding alone. If we could all Christians would believe the exact same things on the core teachings of Christ, but this is far from true.

The Ethiopian did not have the Holy Spirit yet. We're glad to help you too if you have any needs.... And as to know who had the correct interpretation: how in the world would the Roman Church or the Orthodox church have that? And more importantly: how would YOU know that she had it????

The Bible has been well-preserved and can be trusted as accurate; however, false teachings based on faulty interpretations abound. The Bible hasn't changed (although some very terrible translations have changed the meaning some passages -think "The Message" for the most egregious example).

Yes and no Church has been exempt from these false teachings. So?

Galations 3:27:

"For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

Romans 6:4:

"Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."

There is no need to debate the fact, which we all probably agree on, which is that Christ never encouraged empty rituals. If He commanded us to do something, it was because it was beneficial or necessary for us and our salvation. The Pharisees followed customs arrogantly for show, or created oppressive requirements that burdened men, but Christ cut through those things and commanded only that which is necessary for us.

Yes, that's exactly why we baptists insist that only people that are truly born again should be baptized. Why baptize unbelievers? Wouldn't that be just an empty ritual? Why bury someone who is not even dead? Baptism can't save the soul.

Mystically we become partakers of Christ's divine nature by participating in this. Again, it's no empty ritual Christ commanded us to participate in, it was designed by God to benefit us spiritually. The gifts offered mystically become the Body and Blood of Christ for us, by a miracle performed by the Holy Spirit.

This is false teaching if there ever was one. The Judas had the divine nature??? Or how many times would have to eat the Lord's Supper for it to become effective?

1 Corinthians 10:16-17:

"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread."

The true meaning which Christ Himself had proclaimed in the gospels is reinterated in this letter. When we participate in communion we are joined together in One Body. This is the correct ecclessiology of the Church also: that we are mystically joined to Christ as His Body, by our participation in the one communion. It's not just the intellectual process of believing that joins us together as the Body, but as it indicates above, we are one Body when we "partake of that one bread."

No, they are just symbols. They are not bread and wine. When Jesus instituted it, He stood (or sat) right in front of them alive and intact. The truth developed by Paul about the one body is very important to me as well. But it is not that true the Lords' Supper we become one body. No, we partake to express that we ARE already.

John 6:53-54:

"Then Jesus said to them, 'Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.'"

Sound like it's an empty ritual? Read the entire last half of this chapter. It's very clear that participation in communion gives us life, as weird as it may seem to our finite intellect. This is God's plan, so we may wonder at the mystery of it, but we must submit to His plan of salvation, not our own intellectual take on the gospel.

This is not about the Lord's Supper at all. And if it were, you would only have to partake of it ONCE, because that is the force of vs. 51 and 53. This is completely misunderstood by Roman Catholics for example. Lost in translation?

As far as Judas, participating in communion doesn't assure us of salvation.

Well then communion does NOT procure life at all, which indeed it doesn't.

In fact the scriptures warn that participating in communion without proper preparation heaps condemnation upon us, which is one of the reasons the Orthodox Church has closed communion . . . everyone is welcome to come, but not without proper spiritual prepartation. There is real power there, and coming unworthily is harmful to us.

I doubt not that there is real power if the Lord is still present in such assembly.

Is this from the end of the John 6?

No, it is from John's first epistle. People may have sheep skin on the outside not reflecting what is on the inside. They may have outward confessions and not be true Christians.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Colour me suprised, that an E&O would find baptist teachings in error.

 

[vanshan]

Yes and your point being???Yes, some use this to say that Tradition is so important. But when probed as to what teachings of Paul (because that is what this verse refers to) they would have OUTSIDE the bible, they mumble the Fathers, Didache etc, but can't come up with any word from Paul. So, there goes your "tradition" down the drain.

The idea that no other historic sources or evidence, outside of canonical scripture, can be used to check our understanding against what had been believed throughout time, is an artificial limitation placed on our faith that is illogical.

Scripture, rightly understood, is held in very high esteem as the standard by which all other holy traditions are tested against, but there is no law that says we can't read what other Christians have written over time to be edified and built up in our faith in Christ, and gain historic perspective to make sure we're maintaining the true faith that was passed down from the beginning. If we can't learn from other sources, don't listen to another sermon, read another Christian book, or listen to another Christian program on TV or the radio.

The Ethiopian did not have the Holy Spirit yet. We're glad to help you too if you have any needs.... And as to know who had the correct interpretation: how in the world would the Roman Church or the Orthodox church have that? And more importantly: how would YOU know that she had it????

If we study any historic event, we can find a "papyrus trail" to understand what happened. We must always relay on these sources to gain clarity on historic occurences, because we can't go back in time to observe events first hand. Only in Christianity do some refuse to use historic sources to gain clarity on the faith and practices of the early Christians. If we do use these sources, holding them against scripture, we can make sure we are staying on the straight (ortho) and narrow when it comes to preserving the truth against modern intellectualism's gospel according to man.

Yes, that's exactly why we baptists insist that only people that are truly born again should be baptized. Why baptize unbelievers? Wouldn't that be just an empty ritual? Why bury someone who is not even dead? Baptism can't save the soul.

Baptism is the beginning of our salvation, because in it the old man is put to death, and we rise out of the waters a new creature in Christ. We are born into the Kingdom of God, by the power of God in this act of faithfulness. It was never seen as an empty ritual until the last couple hundred years among a relatively tiny group of Christians. If you are willing to read any other historic evidence, to corroborate or clarify how scripture about baptism was always understood from the beginning, there are many sources that show that the Christians from the Apostles forward have alway seen baptism as salvific, not a ritual.

This is false teaching if there ever was one. The Judas had the divine nature??? Or how many times would have to eat the Lord's Supper for it to become effective?

He took it unworthily, so it was actually harmful to him, I would guess.

If you understand salvation as a process of us being translated from the kingdom of darkness to the Kingdom of Light, rather than a flash occurence, then you may begin to understand how participation in communion is like treatment for our sickness of sin. It helps us gain more spiritual nourishment to help us overcome sin and death. Salvation is our reaching our potential in Christ of being restored to our natural postion of being Sons and Daughter of God, who act in full cooperation with Him, like Adam and Eve had done in Paradise prior to the fall. All the progess is acheived by God's grace alone, so no one can boast, but we must be faithful to cooperate with Him to be saved.

No, they are just symbols. They are not bread and wine. When Jesus instituted it, He stood (or sat) right in front of them alive and intact. The truth developed by Paul about the one body is very important to me as well. But it is not that true the Lords' Supper we become one body. No, we partake to express that we ARE already.

We tend to think of time in term of kronos, or linear time, but God is not restricted to this type of time. God exists in the eternal present. Christ was offering the sacrifice of His body and blood, which had been broken before the actual chronological event occured, but mystically they were participating in that event which was yet to occur in chronological time. Now when we participate in communion, we too are joined to that one sacrifice mystically in the eternal now in which occured chronologically centuries ago.

Basil

 

[holdon]

The idea that no other historic sources or evidence, outside of canonical scripture, can be used to check our understanding against what had been believed throughout time, is an artificial limitation placed on our faith that is illogical.

Oh, they may be consulted. Sure. No problem. But they're not God's Word. So, they have no authority.

Scripture, rightly understood, is held in very high esteem as the standard by which all other holy traditions are tested against, but there is no law that says we can't read what other Christians have written over time to be edified and built up in our faith in Christ, and gain historic perspective to make sure we're maintaining the true faith that was passed down from the beginning. If we can't learn from other sources, don't listen to another sermon, read another Christian book, or listen to another Christian program on TV or the radio.

No, here you are correct in the sense that we have to listen to what other Christians teach us. But at the same time we have to check that what they teach is compatible with the Word of God. How else would you know the truth? That's what the Bereans did even with Paul or Apollos teaching them.

If we study any historic event, we can find a "papyrus trail" to understand what happened. We must always relay on these sources to gain clarity on historic occurences, because we can't go back in time to observe events first hand. Only in Christianity do some refuse to use historic sources to gain clarity on the faith and practices of the early Christians. If we do use these sources, holding them against scripture, we can make sure we are staying on the straight (ortho) and narrow when it comes to preserving the truth against modern intellectualism's gospel according to man.

But the bible itself tells us that we do not need that.

Baptism is the beginning of our salvation, because in it the old man is put to death, and we rise out of the waters a new creature in Christ.

That's not what it says: to walk in newness of life.

We are born into the Kingdom of God, by the power of God in this act of faithfulness. It was never seen as an empty ritual until the last couple hundred years among a relatively tiny group of Christians. If you are willing to read any other historic evidence, to corroborate or clarify how scripture about baptism was always understood from the beginning, there are many sources that show that the Christians from the Apostles forward have alway seen baptism as salvific, not a ritual.

You confound salvation of the soul with walking as a saved person. And I don't give two cents for what early Christians said or did if it is not in agreement with Scripture. Even in Paul's day all those in Asia (the "orthodox" realm) had abandoned him already.....

He took it unworthily, so it was actually harmful to him, I would guess.

If you understand salvation as a process of us being translated from the kingdom of darkness to the Kingdom of Light, rather than a flash occurence, then you may begin to understand how participation in communion is like treatment for our sickness of sin. It helps us gain more spiritual nourishment to help us overcome sin and death. Salvation is our reaching our potential in Christ of being restored to our natural postion of being Sons and Daughter of God, who act in full cooperation with Him, like Adam and Eve had done in Paradise prior to the fall. All the progess is acheived by God's grace alone, so no one can boast, but we must be faithful to cooperate with Him to be saved.

The bible teaches that we are saved (a done thing), that we are being saved and that we will be saved.

 

[vanshan]

Just so you know -- 'cause I'm sure it's never occurred to you -- you can safely lump all us Protestants into those "false" teachings, with the partial exception of "OSAS."

We don't all explicitly spell 'em out in a "Statement of Faith" or "Position Statements" or such, but we all hold to them.

Sorry, there definitely is a continuum on which different groups fall, as far as how much of the original meaning of scripture and true revelation of Christ they have maintained. Snake handling churches miss the mark by a much greater distance than Lutherans, the group (Missouri Synod) I was born into.

I found it really funny that they tried to mince words about whether or not they have "creeds," as if it were a bad word. A creed is just a statement of faith, which is really just a simplified summary of scriptural beliefs. A creed by any other name is still a creed, and it's a good thing to summarize the main points to help people.

Basil

 

[vanshan]

Oh, they may be consulted. Sure. No problem. But they're not God's Word. So, they have no authority.

We agree on that. I certainly wouldn't hold the letters of Saint Ignatius on the same level as those written by the Apostle Paul, but it still gives us a glimpse into what was believed by someone who was himself a direct disciple of the Apostles. He became the bishop of Antioch after Peter (St. Evodius was bishop there for one year between the two, but Ignatius was right after that). Obviously reading his writings gives us valuable insight into the mind of the early Christians, and what they had been taught, which can still be held against scripture to see that it agrees with it.

We value the writings of many Church fathers and mothers, who may have been wrong, or at odds with the consensus held by almost everyone else, on a few points, but that doesn't discount the value they have as one indicator of a clear continuity of belief that has been maintained over time on core beliefs.

No, here you are correct in the sense that we have to listen to what other Christians teach us. But at the same time we have to check that what they teach is compatible with the Word of God. How else would you know the truth? That's what the Bereans did even with Paul or Apollos teaching them.

Godly humility will lead us to test our understanding against what has been believed from the beginning. Just like the Bereans, we struggle to reconcile the biblical interpretations that are passed down against the scriptures to see if they are in alignment. If we suppose the consensus held for 2000 years on some subjects is wrong and our new modern interpretation is correct, we're guilty of extreme arrogance.

You confound salvation of the soul with walking as a saved person. And I don't give two cents for what early Christians said or did if it is not in agreement with Scripture. Even in Paul's day all those in Asia (the "orthodox" realm) had abandoned him already.....

History shows the early church by and large maintained the orthodox beliefs passed down from Christ and the gospel spread like wildfire throughout the known world. Some groups got it wrong and were effectively corrected, and some got it wrong and departed from the Church.

The bible teaches that we are saved (a done thing), that we are being saved and that we will be saved.

This is exactly the Orthodox, and as we agree biblical, view of salvation. We are saved when we come to Christ, we are being saved by our continued saying "yes" in obedience to God each day, and we place our hope in God that despite any failure to be perfect, we will be saved by His mercy in the end.

Basil

 

[holdon]

Godly humility will lead us to test our understanding against what has been believed from the beginning. Just like the Bereans, we struggle to reconcile the biblical interpretations that are passed down against the scriptures to see if they are in alignment. If we suppose the consensus held for 2000 years on some subjects is wrong and our new modern interpretation is correct, we're guilty of extreme arrogance.

Consensus is not so important. Paul said so specifically in Philippians 3:15.

And Jesus said the Scriptures were a treasure trove and someone, provided he is in the right spirit, can still find out "new" things:

"And he said to them, For this reason every scribe discipled to the kingdom of the heavens is like a man that is a householder who brings out of his treasure things new and old. "

History shows the early church by and large maintained the orthodox beliefs passed down from Christ and the gospel spread like wildfire throughout the known world. Some groups got it wrong and were effectively corrected, and some got it wrong and departed from the Church.

The gates of Hades will not prevail against Christ's Church. But some make something else out of it, which isn't quite His.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

The problem I always had with the "memorial" or symbolic view of the Lord's Supper is that it seemed to go against what Christ plainly said. He said "this is my body, this is my blood." If He meant it to be a symbolic ritual, He would have said so, by saying "this represents my body, this represents my blood." He didn't do that. Plus, when The Lord's Supper is seen as a memorial, you have to ask yourself, if you're partaking of this as a memorial, who are memorials held for? The dead. Christ is not dead but risen. The symbolic view is problematic on a few levels.

I was raised Lutheran, but became an Evangelical Christian for about 15 years of my adult life. During my time as an Evangelical, I appreciated the Evangelical zeal for seeking though he scriptures- but I was also troubled by the memorial view that I found there. In the long run, I became Eastern Orthodox, and have since gained a great appreciation for the Lutheran and Anglican views on the Eucharist. Thanks much.

 

[squint]

Consensus is not so important. Paul said so specifically in Philippians 3:15.

And Jesus said the Scriptures were a treasure trove and someone, provided he is in the right spirit, can still find out "new" things:

Well said holdon. I have to give credit where good things are opened up by others.

In many ways understandings of God in Christ have been distributed over a vast array of believers. We may never join to find all of our missing ingredients til we all learn to love each other. Under current doctrinal constructions that will never happen and it's meant NOT to happen by God.

"And he said to them, For this reason every scribe discipled to the kingdom of the heavens is like a man that is a householder who brings out of his treasure things new and old. " The gates of Hades will not prevail against Christ's Church. But some make something else out of it, which isn't quite His.

There are doors in scripture that remain completely shut and locked that only God In Christ can open to a person individually.

When a person seeks to honestly love one's neighbors as themselves, an entirely different aspect of eternal judgment arises openly from God's Words that NONE but lovers of their fellow man will see, OR be allowed to see.

Those Words are meant to be seen and will be seen eventually by ALL God's children, ALL mankind.

Currently however those Words will be vehemently resisted, primarily IN God's children because THAT is where the Word is sown and that's where the CHIEF THIEF comes to STEAL. The churches then are the best (in being the worst) examples of loving their fellow man. The presence of the THIEF in the churces is ignored and placed always at the expense of "the other guys."

If the Pope stopped condemning our fellow man in the name of his supposed religious requirements, the Pope would be my brother in Truth. I would have no cause of issues with him or his "group" because THEN love would be held pre-emminent above ALL ELSE. Not love that is only gained in submission to their doctrines, not love that is only activated upon our exercise of wills. But real and divine Love that only comes from Above.

I pray we, all God's children, turn our backs on eternal damnation judgment unto our fellow man, find the resistance TO LOVE that are in US but are NOT US, and look then to the cause of those thefts that "force US" as slaves to NOT love our neighbors as ourselves. All of them. We CAN lay our Divinely Granted judgment where it properly belongs and STILL find love for our neighbors. We CAN tell people starting with ourselves that one can be ENSLAVED by DARKNESS, even while they are NOT the same as that which enslaves them.

This was the calling of the early churches. But the wolves rushed in IMMEDIATELY to quench that outbreak, and fractured nearly the lot of them into segments, divisions, rivalries and strifes. The enemy of the churches are NOT PEOPLE.

All the churches can only be joined IN HIS LOVE and in SOUND JUDGMENTS. They will NEVER be joined under the flag of the eternal condemnation of our fellow man. Never. Ever. Those who want to insist in that way have found the broad path that leads to DESTRUCTION and that is where those SLAVES belong (for now) by God's calling and election for THEM to carry that EVIL to their OWN crosses in their OWN flesh.

I say perhaps that time is ending. Perhaps the "earth" has sufficiently swallowed up enough of the DRAGONS FLOOD of words for the last couple of thousand years. Perhaps it is drawing closer to our "real" Victory of the Presence of Christ LIVING AND LOVING in us ALL to EVERYONE.

I write in His Hope daily and pray to see the reality of love daily in my own life, even while EVIL is present within me in that walking.

In that way the EVIL in me is TORTURED daily as I reach out to EVERYONE I meet, here and on the street. And I die daily because I KNOW what it is that is causing me and all of us TO DIE in the flesh.

You all have at least my measure of HOPE, and I HOPE that some can sense this...as I watch for HIS REAL LOVE arising in YOU ALL.

Jesus will come as a thief IN THE NIGHT. The NIGHT is IN US.

keeping my candle lit...and buring with pure olive oil bought on the streets from my fellow man. All of them, in His Love.

enjoy!

squint