Invalidating God's word

[CoreyD]

At Mark 7:7, 8, we read, "in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men. You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men."

In your experience, do you find many who identify as Christian, making their own commands and invalidating the commands in God's word the Bible?
I have.

To give an example, the word of God says, at Matthew 28:19, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".
Yet, I was told by someone who says they have holy spirit, that baptism is not necessary for salvation.

Have you heard this before, and what has your experience been. Do you find this kind of thing common - invalidating God's word, not baptism, or you don't experience it so much?

 

[Grip Docility]

At Mark 7:7, 8, we read, "in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men. You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men."

In your experience, do you find many who identify as Christian, making their own commands and invalidating the commands in God's word the Bible?
I have.

To give an example, the word of God says, at Matthew 28:19, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".
Yet, I was told by someone who says they have holy spirit, that baptism is not necessary for salvation.

Have you heard this before, and what has your experience been. Do you find this kind of thing common, or you don't experience it so much?

It's far easier for people to focus on that part, then the part that you point out before the Baptism part. "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nation"

Jesus didn't spend most of His time IN the Tabernacle, nor did the Apostles. The call to action to "Step outside the camp as Christ did" is the true source of contention.

Jesus went to those that the authorities of the Tabernacle despised and considered filthy sinners, wicked before God. The authorities of the Tabernacle were more concerned about maintaining good political ties with Rome to ensure their personal prosperity. Meanwhile, Jesus beat pavement and Saved Sinners. It's not the "symptom" of the matter that folks don't like (Baptism)... it's the "GO THEREFORE and Make disciples" part that is the root of the issue. It's far easier to squabble over baptism, then pound pavement.

That's my 2 cents and some pocket lint

 

[Guojing]

At Mark 7:7, 8, we read, "in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men. You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men."

In your experience, do you find many who identify as Christian, making their own commands and invalidating the commands in God's word the Bible?
I have.

To give an example, the word of God says, at Matthew 28:19, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".
Yet, I was told by someone who says they have holy spirit, that baptism is not necessary for salvation.

Have you heard this before, and what has your experience been. Do you find this kind of thing common - invalidating God's word, not baptism, or you don't experience it so much?

You should first consider Matthew 28:18 to understand who the therefore in the next verse is addressing to.

Once you do that, the word of God, in the same book, Matthew 19:28, also said And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Will you consider yourself the audience of this promise? Have you met anyone who does?

Are you invalidating God's word if you do not? What is the difference between the them in these 2 passages?

 

[RandyPNW]

At Mark 7:7, 8, we read, "in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men. You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men."

In your experience, do you find many who identify as Christian, making their own commands and invalidating the commands in God's word the Bible?
I have.

To give an example, the word of God says, at Matthew 28:19, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".
Yet, I was told by someone who says they have holy spirit, that baptism is not necessary for salvation.

Have you heard this before, and what has your experience been. Do you find this kind of thing common - invalidating God's word, not baptism, or you don't experience it so much?

I find that some, thinking they know God's word, judge those who disagree with them. The Bible does say that those who believe and are baptized will be saved. What it does not say is that baptism is necessary for Salvation. That would be adding to God's word.

When the Scriptures say that "baptism now saves you," the context indicates that baptism is *showing salvation* in the act of baptism, assuming that all understand that baptism is a symbolic act. Those who claim baptism is actually necessary for salvation contradict Paul's teaching that salvation comes exclusively through faith in Christ alone.

Paul said he was not called to baptize but to preach the Gospel. That indicates that water baptism is *not* part of the Gospel of our salvation.

 

[The Liturgist]

At Mark 7:7, 8, we read, "in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men. You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men."

In your experience, do you find many who identify as Christian, making their own commands and invalidating the commands in God's word the Bible?
I have.

To give an example, the word of God says, at Matthew 28:19, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".
Yet, I was told by someone who says they have holy spirit, that baptism is not necessary for salvation.

Have you heard this before, and what has your experience been. Do you find this kind of thing common - invalidating God's word, not baptism, or you don't experience it so much?

Well, the Early Church believed that there were means of salvation that did not involve ordinary baptism: there is the Baptism of Blood, where if someone is martyred confessing Christ, they are baptized as it were by their own blood, and are saved, because Christ our True God promises that He will confess before the Father all who confess Him before men (thus, all who are killed for confessing their faith in Christ and His Church become glorified as saints automatically in the Orthodox Church, even if they were not baptized, for example, the Ghanian national, whose name if I recall is still not known, who was martyred along with 18 Coptic workers in Libya by ISIS in 2014, after declaring “Their faith is my faith.” He probably was a Christian, but not likely a member of the Orthodox Church, although there are both Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox parishes in Ghana.

Additionally, there is the Baptism of Desire, which applies if one dies as a catechumen or energumen (a person who has completed their catechesis and is awaiting their baptismal liturgy; these traditionally happened on Holy Saturday, but now, with the collapse of last of the traditional mainline churches, the liberalism of Pope Francis, and disillusionment with the established order, there are so many converts to the Orthodox Church that catechumens are being received throughout the year), before being baptized (Continuing Anglican churches and the surviving Traditional Latin Mass communities not yet eradicated by Pope Francis have also seen an increase in conversion, but the influx into Eastern Orthodoxy is truly remarkable, and I would argue it began before the pandemic, with one early sign of the influx being the conversion of Hank Haanegraaf and his family in 2017, which resulted in many radio stations dropping him, since apparently one cannot claim to be the “Bible Answers Man” while being an Orthodox Christian, at least according to his former friend John MacArthur, who subjected him to a torrent of unwarranted and in my opinion, abusive criticism, which included a number of the unusual falsehoods about Eastern Orthodoxy (the allegations that the Orthodox are idolaters, that we worship the Theotokos and the saints as opposed to venerating them, that we don’t care about the Bible, et cetera). But I digress.

Another well recognized form of salvation is in the Harrowing of Hell, wherein our Lord, after He expired on the Cross, descended to Hades and liberated the souls of the righteous, as well as anyone else who wished to follow Him, an event commemorated in the Paschal Sermon of St. John Chrysostom, which is the the most often repeated sermon ever written in the history of Christianity (since it, and it alone, is preached in all Orthodox churches on Easter Sunday at the main liturgy, shortly after midnight).

Finally, we have the category of special acts of mercy of our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ, such as His saving of the Good Thief: “Tonight, you shall dine with me in Paradise.”

That said, baptism, for infants, children and adults, is the normal way of reception into Christ’s church, and it grieves me that some denominations like the Quakers and Salvation Army do not celebrate it, and still others, the “credobaptists” refuse the font to infants and those with mental disabilities. It equally grieves me that the same denominations do not celebrate Holy Communion (which many Protestants call “The Lord’s Supper”, which is fine, I don’t really care, but the important thing is that the Eucharist be celebrated, and with great reverence, and according to the traditional theology of the Real Presence, whether physical, or spiritual, of Christ in the Eucharist, since the alternatives of Zwinglianism, Memorialism and Receptionism are contrary to the literal meaning of scripture. Which is ironic, because the denominations that adhere to those Eucharistic theologies insist on a hyper-literal approach to other parts of Scripture, and even claim to interpret all of Scripture literally, but in those cases where such literalism happens to agree with Roman Catholicism, suddenly claim that it is obvious that the Scripture in question is metaphorical, or that our Lord was using a figure of speech. Now, I am not a Roman Catholic, but the traditional interpretation of the Eucharist is not limited to Roman Catholics, by any means, as my Lutheran friends @MarkRohfrietsch @JM and @ViaCrucis can confirm, Martin Luther, the prototypical Protestant par excellence, after thorough study and a rejection of Roman Catholic doctrines lacking scriptural (and indeed Patristic) support, such as Purgatory, retained the the traditional doctrine of the Eucharist. And of course, the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches maintain this tradition, as well as the Ancient and Assyrian Churches of the East,

So, I am greatly aggrieved by what I perceive to be scripturally unwarranted deviations from the traditional practice of Baptism and the Eucharist, including failure to provide Baptism and the Eucharist to infants and young children (which is the practice in Orthodox Churches: we proudly give the Lord’s Supper to infants following their Baptism and Confirmation, which we call Chrismation, and which lacks the catechtical aspects and the participation of the Bishop which it acquired in Western Europe). After all, Christ our True God commanded his disciples to permit the little children to come to Him. We are under the same obligation, and the way to Christ is, according to Scripture, through Baptism and the Eucharist. Baptism, according to 1 Corinthians, results in us being grafted onto the Body of Christ, which is the Church, and we then partake of His actual Body and Blood, and thus become, to quote St. Peter, “Partakers of the Divine Nature,” since in Jesus Christ the Divine Nature and Human Nature are united without change, confusion, separation or division. The Word was made flesh (John 1:14), and thus God offered His only begotten Son for our salvation, so that those who believe on Him may not perish, but have eternal life (John 3:16). Thus when we partake of Holy Communion, we are partaking of the Body and Blood of our Lord, in both His uncreated Divinity and His humanity, which He assumed in order to restore it and glorify it by uniting it with His deity, and through His passion on the Cross, God, on the sixth day, remade fallen humanity in His image, before once more resting on the seventh day, and rising on the first day, which corresponds to the mystical Eighth Day of Creation, which is the eternal life of the World to Come (for which reason we celebrate Pascha (the Feast of the Resurrection, also known as Easter in some Germanic languages) starting at mdnight on the Sunday following Great and Holy Friday, which is roughly speaking, the first Sunday on or after March 25th that follows the Vernal Equinox, thus corresponding as closely as possible to the 14th of Nissan in 33 AD, when Christ was Crucified and Resurrected, and then Ascended to Heaven after forty days, and then sent the Holy Spirit, who is uncreated, fully God, consubstantial with Christ and the Father, who proceeds from the Father and is worshipped together with the Father and the Son as the Third Person of the Trinity, on the traditional Jewish feast known in Greek as Pentecost. In Orthodoxy, since most of our churches use the Julian calendar, today, Thursday the 13th (for me, technically, tomorrow, as it is five minutes to midnight as I finish this post) is the Feast of the Ascension this year, and next Sunday will be Pentecost (this Sunday being the Sunday of the Holy Fathers of the First Ecumenical Synod, the Council of Nicea.

 

[The Liturgist]

In terms of more recent violations of the clear instructions given to us in Holy Scripture, I would be remiss if I did not mention the recent embrace of gross sexual immorality by all of the mainline Protestant churches.

In particular, the celebration of “Gay Pride Month” is completely unacceptable, and is sinful on multiple levels:

- All forms of sodomy and other same-sex relations are clearly and unambiguously defined as a sin in both the Torah and in the writings of the Holy Apostle Paul, and were regarded as a sin by the early Church.

- The widespread practice of sodomy was the reason for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and our Lord references Sodom in the context of how, relatively, its people will fare on the dread day of judgement, and additionally also condemns lascivious behavior and who clearly expresses an opposition to even fantasizing about sexual immorality; ergo, any claim that St. Paul was contradicting the teaching of Christ our God on this point is obviously baseless.

- Furthermore sex outside of marriage, which “LGBTQ+” individuals engage in even if they claim to be married, since marriage, according to Scripture, is between a husband and wife, between those of the male and female sexes, is sinful. St. Paul warns of the dangers of fornication at the same time as he warns of the dangers of same-sex relations.

- Pride is unequivocally condemned as both a sin and a dangerous delusion throughout all of Scripture. “Pride cometh before a fall.” Anyone with any substantial life experience can attest to the truth of that statement. I can, being guilty of this sin myself.

- When a clergyman, who is supposed to preach the Gospel, encourages people to be proud (which is itself a sin) of the fact that they chose to identify as members of a community whose defining characteristic is fornication with members of the same sex and sodomy, two sins which St. Paul clearly states are among those which are grounds for exclusion from the Kingdom of God, which all Christians are therefore called to repent of, creates a situation where under Galatians 1:8-9, the laity become obliged to depose them, for they have effectively anathematized themselves, and are in schism from the Church.

And where those committed to such clerical malpractice have seized control of the leadership of a church, their leadership is illegitimate, and it is incumbent on the faithful to connect with other right-worshipping Christians and continue worship with doctrinally orthodox clergy who have not capitulated to sexual immorality. Some may accuse the laity of being schismatic in this case, but that is not the case, for the schism was initiated by those clergy who opted to abuse their authority as pastors, by exploiting the teaching office of Christ’s Church to promote pride and sexual immorality, which are both inherently sinful according to Christianity. Where such clergy lack Godly elders and overseers to correct them or remove them from office and prevent such abuse from continuing, taking appropriate action to rectify the situation is not a schismatic act.

Additionally, the laity should do everything in their power to retain or regain control of any church buildings which are occupied, legally perhaps, but not licitly, according to Scripture and the traditions and canons of the Early Church concerning church leadership, by those persons who are preaching another gospel in violation of Galatians 1:8-9, by doing everything possible to lawfully remove such schismatic clergy from those buildings which are associated with the Church, lest those people who are seeking the Church, having never been baptized, or having lapsed in their faith, wander into what appears to be a legitimate church, and who, instead of hearing the Gospel delivered once to the Apostles, are instead exhorted to embrace and promote the sins of pride, fornication and sexual immorality. Thus, regaining control of church buildings by any legal means must be a priority; there are no grounds for tolerance of this kind of activity, because of the propensity of seekers of Christ to be led astray by schismatic clergy who are promoting immorality instead of the Good News of salvation through faith in our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ.

 

[CoreyD]

You should first consider Matthew 28:18 to understand who the therefore in the next verse is addressing to.

Once you do that, the word of God, in the same book, Matthew 19:28, also said And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Good point. We have to consider if it applies to us.

Will you consider yourself the audience of this promise? Have you met anyone who does?

Actually, all on these forums who identify as Christian consider themselves recipients of this promise, as well as being born again.
I don't.

Are you invalidating God's word if you do not? What is the difference between the them in these 2 passages?

I would be invalidating God's word, if I said something like, "persons will not sit on thrones, judging."
Whether I have a misunderstanding or not about who "them" applies to, is not the issue.

Please keep in mind, there is a difference between understanding, or misunderstanding God's word, and taking away from, or adding to God's word - changing what it says, or inserting our ideas into what it says.
The thread is not about understanding, or misunderstanding God's word, although that can sometimes be the cause for invalidating God's word.

Let me give you an example, in the hopes of helping you understand what I mean.
The Bible says:
Daniel 2:34-45

34 You watched while a stone was cut out without hands, which struck the image on its feet of iron and clay, and broke them in pieces. 35 Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold were crushed together, and became like chaff from the summer threshing floors; the wind carried them away so that no trace of them was found. And the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth.​

36 “This is the dream. Now we will tell the interpretation of it before the king.​

44 And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever. 45 Inasmuch as you saw that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold—the great God has made known to the king what will come to pass after this. The dream is certain, and its interpretation is sure.”​

​

Someone says:

The stone is the Messiah.​

Mind you, the person is shown the scripture, and the explanation is clear.
Regardless... the stone is the Messiah.

This is an invalidating of God's word, rather than a misunderstanding of it.
Here's one more.
The Bible says:
Revelation 20:1-3

1 Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. 2 He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; 3 and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished. But after these things he must be released for a little while.​

Someone says:
The Devil is not fully bound. He is partially bound, and still has an active influence.

I don't think I need to give an example of a misunderstanding. Unless of course you don't understand the difference, but you do, don't you.

So, I want to ask you this:
Jesus says one needs to know God, and Jesus Christ. John 17:3
Jesus said. one needs to be no part of the world. John 15:19; John 17:14-18
Jesus said, one needs to love their brothers. John 13:34, 35
Jesus said, one needs to bear fruit. John 15:8
Jesus said, one needs to remain in his word. John 8:31, 32
Jesus said, one needs to... and the list goes on.

Are all these necessary for salvation, or is there one or two that are not necessary?
Take note too, that the person is not saying baptism applies to a past generation of disciple, but not those today. That is not the issue, like in the case of the Mosaic Law.

An apostle of Jesus actually says, There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism... 1 Peter 3:21
Since people do not have a problem applying the expression "us" everywhere it is stated in the Greek scriptures, to themselves, then, applying the scripture at 1 Peter 3:21 to themselves, would not be an issue... or should not be.

 

[CoreyD]

I find that some, thinking they know God's word, judge those who disagree with them. The Bible does say that those who believe and are baptized will be saved. What it does not say is that baptism is necessary for Salvation. That would be adding to God's word.

When the Scriptures say that "baptism now saves you," the context indicates that baptism is *showing salvation* in the act of baptism, assuming that all understand that baptism is a symbolic act. Those who claim baptism is actually necessary for salvation contradict Paul's teaching that salvation comes exclusively through faith in Christ alone.

Paul said he was not called to baptize but to preach the Gospel. That indicates that water baptism is *not* part of the Gospel of our salvation.

So, you do not believe baptism is a necessary thing - a requirement, or do you?
Is obeying Jesus' commands "part of the Gospel of our salvation"?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

At Mark 7:7, 8, we read, "in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men. You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men."

In your experience, do you find many who identify as Christian, making their own commands and invalidating the commands in God's word the Bible?
I have.

To give an example, the word of God says, at Matthew 28:19, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".
Yet, I was told by someone who says they have holy spirit, that baptism is not necessary for salvation.

Have you heard this before, and what has your experience been. Do you find this kind of thing common - invalidating God's word, not baptism, or you don't experience it so much?

While I don't appreciate seeing a concerted and intentional effort by people to invalidate the Bible, on the other hand, in starting from a more existential position, I also recognize that it's not always easy to outright validate the whole of the Bible on historical grounds.

So, I think we need to approach people in a similar way that Blaise Pascal did----discern between those who are belligerent and want to utterly deconstruct the Bible from those persons who, even if wanting to be Christian, honestly and hesitantly admit they're having doubts about its contents.

 

[CoreyD]

Well, the Early Church believed that there were means of salvation that did not involve ordinary baptism: there is the Baptism of Blood, where if someone is martyred confessing Christ, they are baptized as it were by their own blood, and are saved, because Christ our True God promises that He will confess before the Father all who confess Him before men (thus, all who are killed for confessing their faith in Christ and His Church become glorified as saints automatically in the Orthodox Church, even if they were not baptized, for example, the Ghanian national, whose name if I recall is still not known, who was martyred along with 18 Coptic workers in Libya by ISIS in 2014, after declaring “Their faith is my faith.” He probably was a Christian, but not likely a member of the Orthodox Church, although there are both Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox parishes in Ghana.

Additionally, there is the Baptism of Desire, which applies if one dies as a catechumen or energumen (a person who has completed their catechesis and is awaiting their baptismal liturgy; these traditionally happened on Holy Saturday, but now, with the collapse of last of the traditional mainline churches, the liberalism of Pope Francis, and disillusionment with the established order, there are so many converts to the Orthodox Church that catechumens are being received throughout the year), before being baptized (Continuing Anglican churches and the surviving Traditional Latin Mass communities not yet eradicated by Pope Francis have also seen an increase in conversion, but the influx into Eastern Orthodoxy is truly remarkable, and I would argue it began before the pandemic, with one early sign of the influx being the conversion of Hank Haanegraaf and his family in 2017, which resulted in many radio stations dropping him, since apparently one cannot claim to be the “Bible Answers Man” while being an Orthodox Christian, at least according to his former friend John MacArthur, who subjected him to a torrent of unwarranted and in my opinion, abusive criticism, which included a number of the unusual falsehoods about Eastern Orthodoxy (the allegations that the Orthodox are idolaters, that we worship the Theotokos and the saints as opposed to venerating them, that we don’t care about the Bible, et cetera). But I digress.

Another well recognized form of salvation is in the Harrowing of Hell, wherein our Lord, after He expired on the Cross, descended to Hades and liberated the souls of the righteous, as well as anyone else who wished to follow Him, an event commemorated in the Paschal Sermon of St. John Chrysostom, which is the the most often repeated sermon ever written in the history of Christianity (since it, and it alone, is preached in all Orthodox churches on Easter Sunday at the main liturgy, shortly after midnight).

Finally, we have the category of special acts of mercy of our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ, such as His saving of the Good Thief: “Tonight, you shall dine with me in Paradise.”

That said, baptism, for infants, children and adults, is the normal way of reception into Christ’s church, and it grieves me that some denominations like the Quakers and Salvation Army do not celebrate it, and still others, the “credobaptists” refuse the font to infants and those with mental disabilities. It equally grieves me that the same denominations do not celebrate Holy Communion (which many Protestants call “The Lord’s Supper”, which is fine, I don’t really care, but the important thing is that the Eucharist be celebrated, and with great reverence, and according to the traditional theology of the Real Presence, whether physical, or spiritual, of Christ in the Eucharist, since the alternatives of Zwinglianism, Memorialism and Receptionism are contrary to the literal meaning of scripture. Which is ironic, because the denominations that adhere to those Eucharistic theologies insist on a hyper-literal approach to other parts of Scripture, and even claim to interpret all of Scripture literally, but in those cases where such literalism happens to agree with Roman Catholicism, suddenly claim that it is obvious that the Scripture in question is metaphorical, or that our Lord was using a figure of speech. Now, I am not a Roman Catholic, but the traditional interpretation of the Eucharist is not limited to Roman Catholics, by any means, as my Lutheran friends @MarkRohfrietsch @JM and @ViaCrucis can confirm, Martin Luther, the prototypical Protestant par excellence, after thorough study and a rejection of Roman Catholic doctrines lacking scriptural (and indeed Patristic) support, such as Purgatory, retained the the traditional doctrine of the Eucharist. And of course, the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches maintain this tradition, as well as the Ancient and Assyrian Churches of the East,

You said Early Church, but I don't think you meant the early Church.
The later "church" had these beliefs. Was that around the 13th century or so?

So, I am greatly aggrieved by what I perceive to be scripturally unwarranted deviations from the traditional practice of Baptism and the Eucharist, including failure to provide Baptism and the Eucharist to infants and young children (which is the practice in Orthodox Churches: we proudly give the Lord’s Supper to infants following their Baptism and Confirmation, which we call Chrismation, and which lacks the catechtical aspects and the participation of the Bishop which it acquired in Western Europe). After all, Christ our True God commanded his disciples to permit the little children to come to Him. We are under the same obligation, and the way to Christ is, according to Scripture, through Baptism and the Eucharist. Baptism, according to 1 Corinthians, results in us being grafted onto the Body of Christ, which is the Church, and we then partake of His actual Body and Blood, and thus become, to quote St. Peter, “Partakers of the Divine Nature,” since in Jesus Christ the Divine Nature and Human Nature are united without change, confusion, separation or division. The Word was made flesh (John 1:14), and thus God offered His only begotten Son for our salvation, so that those who believe on Him may not perish, but have eternal life (John 3:16). Thus when we partake of Holy Communion, we are partaking of the Body and Blood of our Lord, in both His uncreated Divinity and His humanity, which He assumed in order to restore it and glorify it by uniting it with His deity, and through His passion on the Cross, God, on the sixth day, remade fallen humanity in His image, before once more resting on the seventh day, and rising on the first day, which corresponds to the mystical Eighth Day of Creation, which is the eternal life of the World to Come (for which reason we celebrate Pascha (the Feast of the Resurrection, also known as Easter in some Germanic languages) starting at mdnight on the Sunday following Great and Holy Friday, which is roughly speaking, the first Sunday on or after March 25th that follows the Vernal Equinox, thus corresponding as closely as possible to the 14th of Nissan in 33 AD, when Christ was Crucified and Resurrected, and then Ascended to Heaven after forty days, and then sent the Holy Spirit, who is uncreated, fully God, consubstantial with Christ and the Father, who proceeds from the Father and is worshipped together with the Father and the Son as the Third Person of the Trinity, on the traditional Jewish feast known in Greek as Pentecost. In Orthodoxy, since most of our churches use the Julian calendar, today, Thursday the 13th (for me, technically, tomorrow, as it is five minutes to midnight as I finish this post) is the Feast of the Ascension this year, and next Sunday will be Pentecost (this Sunday being the Sunday of the Holy Fathers of the First Ecumenical Synod, the Council of Nicea.

There is no need for you to be aggrieved Liturgist.
Remember what Jesus said... "in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ You have disregarded the commandment of God to keep the tradition of men.” Mark 7:7, 8

Who was it that said there is nothing new under the sun. Solomon .Ecclesiastes 1:9
The later "church" deviated from Christ's commands, and held to their tradition.

The apostle Paul described it this way... 1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 1 Timothy 4:1-3

Have you ever read in the Bible that one must be celibate?
What about baptism of persons who have not believed, and commited their life to God - like infants... have you ever read that anywhere in the Bible?

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

At Mark 7:7, 8, we read, "in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men. You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men."

In your experience, do you find many who identify as Christian, making their own commands and invalidating the commands in God's word the Bible?
I have.

To give an example, the word of God says, at Matthew 28:19, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".
Yet, I was told by someone who says they have holy spirit, that baptism is not necessary for salvation.

What exactly is your point? A baptized person must believe salvation is contingent on salvation or they are not really Christians, they just "identify" as Christians?

Have you heard this before, and what has your experience been. Do you find this kind of thing common - invalidating God's word, not baptism, or you don't experience it so much?

I see it in this post. Using your logic, you are invalidating God's word by adding baptism to the list of things God requires of people before He saves them. Didn't Jesus tell the thief on the cross that he would be with Him in paradise that very day?

 

[The Liturgist]

Are all these necessary for salvation, or is there one or two that are not necessary?

Insofar as we fail to follow the instructions relayed to us through His Apostles by our Lord and Savior, the Incarnate Word of God, we must repent, that is to say, change our mind regarding our error, and ask for forgiveness with sincere contrition, trusting in the infinite love and mercy of Christ our True God, while at the same time being quick to forgive those who fail us. For the Only Begotten Son and Word of God, our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ, who intercedes for us before the Father, and who will also sit in judgement of us as Pantocrator (Judge of all) on the last day, has promised to forgive us our trespasses an infinite number of times (“not seven, but seventy times seven”), as long as we forgive those who have trespassed against us.

 

[CoreyD]

In terms of more recent violations of the clear instructions given to us in Holy Scripture, I would be remiss if I did not mention the recent embrace of gross sexual immorality by all of the mainline Protestant churches.

In particular, the celebration of “Gay Pride Month” is completely unacceptable, and is sinful on multiple levels:

- All forms of sodomy and other same-sex relations are clearly and unambiguously defined as a sin in both the Torah and in the writings of the Holy Apostle Paul, and were regarded as a sin by the early Church.

- The widespread practice of sodomy was the reason for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and our Lord references Sodom in the context of how, relatively, its people will fare on the dread day of judgement, and additionally also condemns lascivious behavior and who clearly expresses an opposition to even fantasizing about sexual immorality; ergo, any claim that St. Paul was contradicting the teaching of Christ our God on this point is obviously baseless.

- Furthermore sex outside of marriage, which “LGBTQ+” individuals engage in even if they claim to be married, since marriage, according to Scripture, is between a husband and wife, between those of the male and female sexes, is sinful. St. Paul warns of the dangers of fornication at the same time as he warns of the dangers of same-sex relations.

- Pride is unequivocally condemned as both a sin and a dangerous delusion throughout all of Scripture. “Pride cometh before a fall.” Anyone with any substantial life experience can attest to the truth of that statement. I can, being guilty of this sin myself.

- When a clergyman, who is supposed to preach the Gospel, encourages people to be proud (which is itself a sin) of the fact that they chose to identify as members of a community whose defining characteristic is fornication with members of the same sex and sodomy, two sins which St. Paul clearly states are among those which are grounds for exclusion from the Kingdom of God, which all Christians are therefore called to repent of, creates a situation where under Galatians 1:8-9, the laity become obliged to depose them, for they have effectively anathematized themselves, and are in schism from the Church.

And where those committed to such clerical malpractice have seized control of the leadership of a church, their leadership is illegitimate, and it is incumbent on the faithful to connect with other right-worshipping Christians and continue worship with doctrinally orthodox clergy who have not capitulated to sexual immorality. Some may accuse the laity of being schismatic in this case, but that is not the case, for the schism was initiated by those clergy who opted to abuse their authority as pastors, by exploiting the teaching office of Christ’s Church to promote pride and sexual immorality, which are both inherently sinful according to Christianity. Where such clergy lack Godly elders and overseers to correct them or remove them from office and prevent such abuse from continuing, taking appropriate action to rectify the situation is not a schismatic act.

Additionally, the laity should do everything in their power to retain or regain control of any church buildings which are occupied, legally perhaps, but not licitly, according to Scripture and the traditions and canons of the Early Church concerning church leadership, by those persons who are preaching another gospel in violation of Galatians 1:8-9, by doing everything possible to lawfully remove such schismatic clergy from those buildings which are associated with the Church, lest those people who are seeking the Church, having never been baptized, or having lapsed in their faith, wander into what appears to be a legitimate church, and who, instead of hearing the Gospel delivered once to the Apostles, are instead exhorted to embrace and promote the sins of pride, fornication and sexual immorality. Thus, regaining control of church buildings by any legal means must be a priority; there are no grounds for tolerance of this kind of activity, because of the propensity of seekers of Christ to be led astray by schismatic clergy who are promoting immorality instead of the Good News of salvation through faith in our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ.

I'm glad to hear that you feel strongly about disregarding God's word in the matter of sexual immorality. This certainly is a good example of invalidating God's word.

I'll like to ask... if the clergy the Catholic churches were to accept this particular view, what would you do?

So that you know this is not farfetched...
In an interview with the agency televised and published in Spanish Jan. 25, the pope had said that "being homosexual is not a crime. It is not a crime." He defined as "unjust" laws that criminalize homosexuality or homosexual activity and urged church members, including bishops, to show "tenderness" as God does with each of his children.
Pope clarifies remarks about homosexuality and sin
In the interview the pope said, "We are all children of God, and God loves us as we are and for the strength that each of us fights for our dignity. Being homosexual is not a crime. It is not a crime."
Pope clarifies remarks about homosexuality and sin
"And I would tell whoever wants to criminalize homosexuality that they are wrong," the pope wrote.

Pope Francis approves Catholic blessings for same-sex couples, but not for marriage
Pope Francis has granted his formal approval allowing Catholic priests to bless same-sex couples so long as they do not appear to endorse their marriage, marking the church's most permissive decree yet on the issue of same-sex couples.

[This] marks a major departure for the Vatican, which only two years ago had said God "cannot bless sin" in a controversial 2021 decision about same-sex couples.

The issue of homosexuality and the moral evaluation of homosexual acts have increasingly become a matter of public debate, even in Catholic circles.

Please read this interesting interview about the current position of the Catholic church on LGBTQ and family life from an openly gay Catholic priest - Openly Gay Catholic Priest Discusses Pope Francis' Appeal For LGBTQ Protections

The current Pope could be succeeded 'tomorrow', and changes could occur overnight.
Regardless if this happens or not, as a hypothetical, what would you do if the clergy of the Catholic churches were to accept homosexuality, as a normal way of life that should not be condemned?

I have a couple more questions, if you don't mind, on your personal view.
How do you feel about "blessing sin"?
Do you think the pope knows his Bible well, or perhaps he forgets what he reads?
I asked that because I read 1 John 3:10, and it reads...
By this the children of God are distinguished from the children of the devil: Anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is anyone who does not love his brother.

John said we distinguish between the children of God and the children of the devil, by this... anyone not practicing righteousness (practicing unrighteousness) is not of God.
Gay couples practice unrighteousness.
Therefore, according to the Bible, Gay couples are not God's children.

Why would Francis contradict that with We are all children of God, and God loves us as we are?
Would you not consider this invalidating the word of God?
It certainly contradicts it. Would you not agree?
Do you think perhaps there are some scriptures Catholics do not agree with, and so they make their own rules on what is right?

 

[CoreyD]

While I don't appreciate seeing a concerted and intentional effort by people to invalidate the Bible, on the other hand, in starting from a more existential position, I also recognize that it's not always easy to outright validate the whole of the Bible on historical grounds.

This part - it's not always easy to outright validate the whole of the Bible on historical grounds - flew over my head, I'm sorry. Can you please elaborate, on what you mean by that?

So, I think we need to approach people in a similar way that Blaise Pascal did----discern between those who are belligerent and want to utterly deconstruct the Bible from those persons who, even if wanting to be Christian, honestly and hesitantly admit they're having doubts about its contents.

I agree with this.

 

[CoreyD]

What exactly is your point? A baptized person must believe salvation is contingent on salvation or they are not really Christians, they just "identify" as Christians?

I see it in this post. Using your logic, you are invalidating God's word by adding baptism to the list of things God requires of people before He saves them. Didn't Jesus tell the thief on the cross that he would be with Him in paradise that very day?

I see that you are getting into debates on scripture, which is not the purpose nor the title of this thread.
If you want to debate certain teaching, please consider making a thread, and inviting me.
Feel free to include the questions you asked here, if you like.

However, let me ask where did I add "baptism to the list of things God requires of people before He saves them", and what do you mean by "saves them"?

 

[CoreyD]

Insofar as we fail to follow the instructions relayed to us through His Apostles by our Lord and Savior, the Incarnate Word of God, we must repent, that is to say, change our mind regarding our error, and ask for forgiveness with sincere contrition, trusting in the infinite love and mercy of Christ our True God, while at the same time being quick to forgive those who fail us. For the Only Begotten Son and Word of God, our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ, who intercedes for us before the Father, and who will also sit in judgement of us as Pantocrator (Judge of all) on the last day, has promised to forgive us our trespasses an infinite number of times (“not seven, but seventy times seven”), as long as we forgive those who have trespassed against us.

If you love me, keep my commands. John 14:15

 

[RandyPNW]

So, you do not believe baptism is a necessary thing - a requirement, or do you?
Is obeying Jesus' commands "part of the Gospel of our salvation"?

I thought I was pretty clear. Simply re-read what I said. Water Baptism is not an instrument of Salvation. It merely *shows* how we are saved by our being immersed in Christ, spiritually, when we accept his atoning works by faith.

Baptism is no more necessary than it is "required* that you lift your hand to accept Christ, or go down an aisle to the front to join the group of new believers. There is nothing you have to do to be saved other than accept Jesus Christ as your substitute. You just accept his way of life, which enables you to benefit from his atonement. Pretty simple, huh?

Water baptism was initiated by John the Baptist to bring *sinners* to repentance. I don't know that any Jews living in his time had to be baptized when they were already living for God? Christianity is an outreach to a pagan world, and naturally it would recommend water baptism to symbolize the change from paganism to Christianity. It is *not* necessary for Salvation, and is *not* a requirement.

 

[CoreyD]

I thought I was pretty clear. Simply re-read what I said. Water Baptism is not an instrument of Salvation. It merely *shows* how we are saved by our being immersed in Christ, spiritually, when we accept his atoning works by faith.

Baptism is no more necessary than it is "required* that you lift your hand to accept Christ, or go down an aisle to the front to join the group of new believers. There is nothing you have to do to be saved other than accept Jesus Christ as your substitute. You just accept his way of life, which enables you to benefit from his atonement. Pretty simple, huh?

Water baptism was initiated by John the Baptist to bring *sinners* to repentance. I don't know that any Jews living in his time had to be baptized when they were already living for God? Christianity is an outreach to a pagan world, and naturally it would recommend water baptism to symbolize the change from paganism to Christianity. It is *not* necessary for Salvation, and is *not* a requirement.

Perhaps you would need to read Acts 18:24-19:7.
Is obeying Jesus' commands "part of the Gospel of our salvation"?

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

I see that you are getting into debates on scripture, which is not the purpose nor the title of this thread.
If you want to debate certain teaching, please consider making a thread, and inviting me.
Feel free to include the questions you asked here, if you like.

So, what's the point of your thread? You didn't answer that question from my first comment. And my second comment was responsive to your question as to whether we often see people who invalidate the truth of Scripture by adding to it or taking away from it.

However, let me ask where did I add "baptism to the list of things God requires of people before He saves them",

The point is that God decided on His own, with no counsel from man, that He would "save those who believe" (1 Cor 1:21). He doesn't require the physical act of baptism as a condition before He saves them.

and what do you mean by "saves them"?

You are asking what it means to be saved?

 

[jas3]

The later "church" had these beliefs. Was that around the 13th century or so?

Are you suggesting that infant baptism wasn't the main form of baptism prior to the 13th century?