Are Schismatic interpretations...

[Justin-H.S.]

....of the Gospel considered “a different gospel?”

*Orthodox Forum*

Since the schismatic interpretations aren’t the “Christus Victor” gospel that is taught in Orthodoxy, are they considered “different gospels?”

Is TULIP a different gospel?
Is the five solas a different gospel?
Is Post-Schism Catholicism a different gospel?

Etc.

 

[Not David]

....of the Gospel considered “a different gospel?”

*Orthodox Forum*

Since the schismatic interpretations aren’t the “Christus Victor” gospel that is taught in Orthodoxy, are they considered “different gospels?”

Is TULIP a different gospel?
Is the five solas a different gospel?
Is Post-Schism Catholicism a different gospel?

Etc.

Just a consideration, Substitution Atonement is Orthodox too.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I’d say yes and no. no in the sense that they profess the risen Christ as the means of salvation, but yes because none of those three believes correctly the implications of the Gospel.

 

[HTacianas]

....of the Gospel considered “a different gospel?”

*Orthodox Forum*

Since the schismatic interpretations aren’t the “Christus Victor” gospel that is taught in Orthodoxy, are they considered “different gospels?”

Is TULIP a different gospel?
Is the five solas a different gospel?
Is Post-Schism Catholicism a different gospel?

Etc.

If you look at the history of Christianity you'll find those who add to the gospel and those who take away from the gospel. You'll find that Orthodoxy somewhat adds to the gospel, but only in clarifying the gospel in light of heresies. The first line of the Nicene Creed is "we believe in one God...". While that is and always was a given within Christianity, it was "added" to refute the gnostic idea of two gods. But then the teaching that the Eucharist is the flesh and blood of Christ has always been part of the gospel. There are those who have taken it away and claim that it is not.

The gospel has always been guarded and handed down through Apostolic succession. At some point someone, somewhere, at some time, broke from that Apostolic succession and in doing so broke away from the gospel and into some "other" gospel. I do not know precisely what that point was.

 

[Malleeboy]

HTacianas,

The gospel has always been guarded and handed down through Apostolic succession. At some point someone, somewhere, at some time, broke from that Apostolic succession and in doing so broke away from the gospel and into some "other" gospel. I do not know precisely what that point was.

Oriental, Roman Catholic, Anglican and some Lutherans claim Apostolic succession, and would make the claim that EO are the ones who broke from the gospel.

What is the Gospel to EO in a succinct form? Why are the other apostolic succession churches claims to succession not valid, outside your saying so?

 

[Malleeboy]

Just a consideration, Substitution Atonement is Orthodox too.

Not David,

How broadly is substitutionary atonement held in EO? (Whilst I get Christus Victor is one way to look at the jewel that is atonement, the typology for substitution atonement is just so common in OT, that I find it hard to see how someone could fail to see it. I was talking to my son about this and could list close to a dozen typological references to substitution on the spot without any study on it.)

 

[ArmyMatt]

Why are the other apostolic succession churches claims to succession not valid, outside your saying so?

because they have not maintained the faith of the Apostles.

 

[HTacianas]

HTacianas,



Oriental, Roman Catholic, Anglican and some Lutherans claim Apostolic succession, and would make the claim that EO are the ones who broke from the gospel.

What is the Gospel to EO in a succinct form? Why are the other apostolic succession churches claims to succession not valid, outside your saying so?

The gospel in the Orthodox Church is the same as it has always been. God has reconciled Himself to mankind through the sacrifice of Christ. The "good news" is that if one repents and accepts that sacrifice, through baptism all of his previous sins are forgiven. They then may receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Afterwards they are to participate in the sacramental life of the Church.

Other churches claiming apostolic succession are churches in schism. Schism is a split over some point or another. Schismatic Churches generally hold to the original gospel. And it is not up to me to decide who has valid apostolic succession. That is up to the Church.

 

[Malleeboy]

The gospel in the Orthodox Church is the same as it has always been. God has reconciled Himself to mankind through the sacrifice of Christ. The "good news" is that if one repents and accepts that sacrifice, through baptism all of his previous sins are forgiven. They then may receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Afterwards they are to participate in the sacramental life of the Church.

Other churches claiming apostolic succession are churches in schism. Schism is a split over some point or another. Schismatic Churches generally hold to the original gospel. And it is not up to me to decide who has valid apostolic succession. That is up to the Church.

Thanks, that is the Gospel that I would agree precisely.
Agreed somebody split, but everyone thinks everyone else split.

 

[Justin-H.S.]

I’d say yes and no. no in the sense that they profess the risen Christ as the means of salvation, but yes because none of those three believes correctly the implications of the Gospel.

Since many sects deny Christ’s descent into Hell, and that’s an important part of the Resurrection, could those sects be preaching a different gospel? I’d think so because that’s kind of a big deal.

And those sects that deny Christ left a visible Church on earth seems to be teaching a different gospel.

I ask because I was reading 2 Corinthians 11 and it made me wonder about what kind of different gospels are out there today.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Since many sects deny Christ’s descent into Hell, and that’s an important part of the Resurrection, could those sects be preaching a different gospel? I’d think so because that’s kind of a big deal.

And those sects that deny Christ left a visible Church on earth seems to be teaching a different gospel.

I ask because I was reading 2 Corinthians 11 and it made me wonder about what kind of different gospels are out there today.

it definitely would seem like a yes for those who deny Christ descending to hades.

 

[All4Christ]

Since many sects deny Christ’s descent into Hell, and that’s an important part of the Resurrection, could those sects be preaching a different gospel? I’d think so because that’s kind of a big deal.

And those sects that deny Christ left a visible Church on earth seems to be teaching a different gospel.

I ask because I was reading 2 Corinthians 11 and it made me wonder about what kind of different gospels are out there today.

Which sects are you aware of that disagree with Christ descending into Hades? That is a key teaching even in my old tradition before Orthodoxy (Pentecostal).

 

[Justin-H.S.]

Which sects are you aware of that disagree with Christ descending into Hades? That is a key teaching even in my old tradition before Orthodoxy (Pentecostal).

I think it was Baptists and some other group. I meant "many" because Baptists are a huge chunk of Americanity.

 

[Not David]

Not David,

How broadly is substitutionary atonement held in EO? (Whilst I get Christus Victor is one way to look at the jewel that is atonement, the typology for substitution atonement is just so common in OT, that I find it hard to see how someone could fail to see it. I was talking to my son about this and could list close to a dozen typological references to substitution on the spot without any study on it.)

Besides the Bible, plenty of Saints and catechism refer to that.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Not David,

How broadly is substitutionary atonement held in EO? (Whilst I get Christus Victor is one way to look at the jewel that is atonement, the typology for substitution atonement is just so common in OT, that I find it hard to see how someone could fail to see it. I was talking to my son about this and could list close to a dozen typological references to substitution on the spot without any study on it.)

it’s there, and we do affirm it, just not certain implications of it.

 

[Malleeboy]

I think it was Baptists and some other group. I meant "many" because Baptists are a huge chunk of Americanity.

I was so surprised by your assertion that I had to look it up, it is a doctrine that I have never heard doubted in over 50 years of hearing evangelical preaching and reading. Yes there are some theologians who had an issue without it at the reformation and a couple of names in the present time, but the current ones are both Calvinists, so maybe it is more common amongst Calvinists?

The Hymn I sang growing up certainly reinforced the doctrine in my mind...

Up from the grave he arose,
With a might triumph o'er his foes,
He arose the victor from the dark domain.

 

[All4Christ]

The Hymn I sang growing up certainly reinforced the doctrine in my mind...

Up from the grave he arose,
With a might triumph o'er his foes,
He arose the victor from the dark domain.

I can still hear the strong four part harmony of my family singing that hymn together in Church on Sunday mornings. “Up from the grace He arose!!” I have the hymnal we used and enjoy playing some of those hymns on our piano occasionally.