Why do we do things not written in the Bible?

[The Liturgist]

Show me in scriptures where it says keep the first day of the week, (Sunday) like it's written in (Ex 20:8-10) (v.8) Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. (v.9) Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: (v.10) “But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD thy God”.

You’re changing the subject. I corrected your false historical claim that Constantine made Roman Catholicism the state religion of the Roman Empire. That claim is factually wrong. Constantine legalized Christianity in 313 AD with the Edict of Milan, which granted freedom of worship to all religions. He did not make Christianity the official state religion, let alone “Roman Catholicism.” That did not happen, as I have shown, until the Edict of Thessalonica. the Cunctos Populos, in 380 AD, under Emperor Theodosius I, decades later—and at that time, the Church was still undivided, not Roman Catholic as distinct from Eastern Orthodoxy. There was no “Roman Catholicism” yet in the modern sense.

Bringing up Exodus 20:8–10 is a red herring—a distraction tactic and a logical fallacy (it is also fallacious in the sense of being a non-sequitur and relying on a false equivalence fallacy, as I shall explain presently).

The issue was Constantine and Church history, not the Sabbath. Whether Sunday is the proper day for Christian worship is a separate theological discussion, and it does not prove your historical claim.

That said, the Church’s worship on Sunday is firmly rooted in both Scripture and apostolic tradition. Early Christians gathered on “the first day of the week”, which is Sunday, because that is the day of the Resurrection of Christ:

“On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread…” (Acts 20:7) “On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside…” (1 Corinthians 16:2)

This was confirmed by St. Justin Martyr around 155 AD in his First Apology, where he wrote:

“We hold our common assembly on the day of the Sun, because it is the first day, on which God…created the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior rose from the dead on the same day.”

And earlier still, St. Ignatius of Antioch, a direct disciple of the Apostle John, wrote around 107 AD in his Letter to the Magnesians:

“If, then, those who had walked in ancient customs came to a new hope… no longer keeping the Sabbath, but living in accordance with the Lord’s Day, on which also our life sprang up through Him…” (Magnesians 9:1)

So no, St. Constantine did not convert the Roman Empire to Roman Catholicism, nor is Sunday worship is a “Constantinian invention.” It predates Constantine by over two centuries, and is grounded in the resurrection of Christ and the practice of the Apostles and their disciples (as we see in Acts chapter 2, where the Holy Spirit literally descends on the 11 faithful members of the Twelve, St. Matthias the Apostle who was ordained to replace Judas Iscariot, and 200 other disciples) at the third hour of the morning, around 9 AM, on the First Day, Pentecost Sunday (a feast established in the Old Testament which is still kept by almost all Christian denominations at present).

Also, please understand: when you accuse traditional Christians—Orthodox, Catholic, or otherwise—of “idolatry” or false worship, you are echoing sectarian rhetoric that has been used to justify violence against Christians in the Middle East and elsewhere. These attacks are not theological debates—they result in real bloodshed. False accusations like that do nothing to build up the Church, and they have tragic consequences beyond online polemics.

Please consider the weight of your words—and at least take responsibility for the historical inaccuracies you’ve repeated.

 

[The Liturgist]

It seems to me that Jesus literally meant what he said. They believed/were in Christ for a while, but when tested by temptation, they did not endure in the faith.

Luke 8:13
Those on the rocky ground are the ones who receive the word with joy when they hear it, but they have no root. They believe for a while, but in the time of testing they fall away.

Matthew 10:22
You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.


Paul also preached that faithful endurance to the end of our life is necessary to be saved for eternal life.

2 Timothy 2:12
if we endure, we will also reign with him. If we disown him, he will also disown us;



Paul states that Christians can disown God/Jesus Christ. How can a person disown Jesus Christ?

Titus 1:16
They profess to know God, but in works they deny Him, being abominable, disobedient, and disqualified for every good work.

They deny him by doing evil works/deeds. They do not obey God's commandments.
I don't think these Christians will be saved for eternal life even though they had earlier accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

Perhaps I can assist.

What you said is “can a person be saved and then fall away?” to which @Hentenza replied not really - which I believe should be ecumenically acceptable, since obviously such a person was not saved. This applies regardless as to whether or not one believes in Eternal Security of the Elect (I do not, I believe apostasy is possible) or whether or not one believes in monergism (particularly Calvinism, but to a lesser extent Confessional Lutheran Monergism) or in synergism (such as Methodist and Evangelical Arminianism and Orthodox cooperation and voluntary love).

Rather the issue, where @Hentenza makes a point which I think the two of you could also agree upon, the Altar Call being problematic, is that some believe that if one believes in our Lord for a moment, even if they stop believing, they are saved from that momentary belief, which is hopeful but which contradicts numerous parts of New Testament scripture, in the Pauline epistles, the Epistle of St. James, and the statements of our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ (that not everyone who calls me Lord will be saved).

Thus I would suggest that the gap between your position and that of @Hentenza is smaller than might be apparent and you are at risk of talking past him, when his most recent post at least appears broadly compatible with Roman Catholicsm.

Now Hentenza and I disagree on a number of issues, for example, eschatology, but we also exist in an attitude of mutual respect, because I think you’ll find @Hentenza does not dunk on traditional Christians, and his doctrine is at its core compatible with ours, differing mainly in superficial areas where I am inclined to show him the same charity that he consistently shows me (this is similiar to the relationship I have with my Lutheran friends such as @Ain't Zwinglian @MarkRohfrietsch and @ViaCrucis - we clearly disagree on the issue of monergism, albeit our positions are in both cases based on the idea of divine love, and also there are a few other minor points of departure such as the intercession of the saints, however, because they’re very nice to me, I don’t want to get down into the mud with them in a pointless sectarian Lutheran vs. Orthodox debate, particularly when we agree on all key issues (for example, Mark and I have very similar opinions about the liturgy and liturgical beauty, right down to the vendors of vestments we like, and I routinely watch Mark’s parish in Ontario since it’s one of the best Lutheran churches in North America (it’s on the list of churches I like to enjoy weekly, which are predominantly Orthodox but include a few non-Orthodox churches such as St. John Cantius in Chicago whenever they have the 1962 Latin mass, St. Thomas Fifth Ave. in New York City whenever the Boy’s Choir is singing, Park Street Church in Boston, and some parishes of the Assyrian Church of the East, and a few other Anglican churches; of the Lutheran churches that stream regularly Mark’s is my favorite (I won’t mention the name in this thread but I’m sure he’d tell you).

Also there is the issue that growing up I attended an LCMS parochial school for most of my childhood and my godfather was a pastor in the Augustana Synod, a predominantly ethnically Swedish denomination in the US that unfortunately merged into the ultra liberal ELCA (via either the ALC or the LCA as an intermediary; I can’t recall which). The sad thing of the consolidation of Lutheran synods in the US is historically each state had at least one, which corresponded to the ethnicity of the Lutherans in that state, and the ecumenical consolidation of these synods did not reduce schism but actually triggered it, by creating a sort of super-giant ELCA spanning several regional “synods” (effectively dioceses, each with their own bishops), and then embracing various liberal doctrines, which led to various churches leaving and joining the North American Lutheran Church and other confessional churches; the Missouri Synod was very nearly a part of this liberalization process, except in remarkable circumstances, the LCMS was able to correct the problem of liberalization of its main seminary (the Seminex incident).

 

[The Liturgist]

It's incorrect because you want to feel good following mans tradition.

Ad hominem fallacy; disregarding someone’s argument as incorrect based on their identity is not logical.

The Council of Serdica in 343 AD

20 canons, 3 interesting canons pertaining to Rome's authority.

3. If a bishop is accused and a synod condemns him, he may appeal to the Bishop of Rome, who can judge or order a retrial.
4. Further provisions on appeals: If the Roman bishop deems it necessary, he may send presbyters to investigate and join the local synod.
5. Appeals to Rome are allowed in cases of deposition; the Roman see can confirm or reverse decisions.

Not an ecumenical synod, but rather specific to the Western Church.

Now, you could have argued for Canon 28 of Chalcedon, although if I recall, Serdica notwithstanding, historically Rome was uncomfortable with Canon 28, and thus the provision wound up being used chiefly by Constantinople (and indeed the failure of Constantinople to act on a canon 28 complaint by Antioch of an invasion of their canonical jurisdiction by the Church of Jerusalem led to the alienation of the Antiochian Orthodox Church from the Ecumenical Patriarchate in 2014, which was followed by the time of the Council of Crete in 2016 by the alienation of the Church of Jerusalem, which now, paradoxically, is part of the group of Orthodox churches concerned about recent actions of Constantinople (also including the Churches of Serbia, Bulgaria, Georgia, Russia, the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church, and the Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia). Some of these churches such as Constantinople, Russia, Ukraine, Serbia, Georgia and Jerusalem are known for being extremely liturgically traditional, whereas others such as Bulgaria, the Czech-Slovak church and Antioch use the Revised Julian Calendar rathere than the old Julian Calendar, and in the case of Antioch even use the Violakis typikon (the somewhat simplified form of worship prevalent in among Greek Orthodox churches since the 19th century; Violakis made ill-advised arrangements and abbreviations; interestingly, some of these were picked up by some of the Byzantine Rite Catholics who geographically overlapped with Orthodox churches using Violakis, while still other RCC jurisdictions made their own abbreviations which were taken up by Byzantine Rite Catholics who converted to Orthodoxy, for example, the Carpatho-Rusyns of the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church and the American Carpatho-Rusyn Orthodox Diocese, which worships in a manner closely resembling that of the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church.

Indeed, if the bishop of Rome had that much authority, the issue of clerical celibacy could simply have been imposed on the Eastern churches, but that did not happen (although it was brought up by the two Roman legates at Nicaea, however, opposition from other bishops, led in this case not by St. Athanasius but by another Egyptian bishop, St. Paphnutius of Thebes, to the prohibition of married clergy, resulted in the prohibition on married clergy being limited to the Roman Rite and its various regional uses that would emerge over time (such as the Sarum Rite, the Rites of Lyons, Braga, Koln and other cities, and religious order-specific rites such as the Dominican, Carthusian, Carmelite and Norbertine, all four of which are still extant albeit with small communities compared to their historic past), and the other Western Rites under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, such as the old Gallican Rite and its various variant forms (including the surviving Mozarabic rite and the thriving Ambrosian Rite, as well as various extinct forms such as the Beneventan Rite).

Of course we will all, whether Catholic or Orthodox or traditional Protestant, inevitably be falsely accused of following man-made tradition, despite the fact that the sacramental theological core of our churches is not greatly different (particularly in the case of Orthodox and Catholics and some high church, sacramental Protestants such as Anglicans and confessional Lutherans and a few others).

 

[Valletta]

It's incorrect because you want to feel good following mans tradition.

That's what's known as a deflection. You were simply mistaken.

 

[ARBITER01]

With more than half of the General Theology section regulars posting adamantly against the OP's topics in this thread,...... when there is no fellowship involved over any of the subject matter,....... you would think someone making the topics would get a clue,... ?!?!

 

[concretecamper]

Not an ecumenical synod, but rather specific to the Western Church.

It started as one but because the Eastern Bishop objected to Athanasius and other wrongly deposed Bishops being in attendance, they withdrew.

The canons approved shows Rome is in charge.

 

[concretecamper]

Now, you could have argued for Canon 28 of Chalcedon,

Pope Leo rejected canon twenty-eight not because it diminished his own see but because it upset the privileges of other sees traditionally recognized as having precedence ahead of Constantinople. Though both the Emperor and the Chalcedonian fathers hoped for papal confirmation of the canon, they still affirmed in their letter to Pope Leo that he was the final authority on the matter: “Accordingly, we entreat you, honor our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded to the head [Pope Leo] our agreement on things honorable, so may the head also fulfill for the children [the council] what is fitting”

 

[The Liturgist]

Pope Leo rejected canon twenty-eight not because it diminished his own see but because it upset the privileges of other sees traditionally recognized as having precedence ahead of Constantinople.

Except of course, Canon 28 did go into effect and remains in effect among the Eastern Orthodox, so his rejection was of no import other than to lay the seeds for a second schism (the first enduring schism, that with the Oriental Orthodox, already having been provoked through the needless adoption of language that differed in subtle ways from that used by St. Cyril the Great).

Also note that Archbishop Leo was not Pope Leo; it would not be until the 530s AD that the Roman bishop was first styled Pope. At the time of Chalcedon the only bishop called Pope was the Pope of Alexandria, who was deposed (rather unjustly I think if we look at the evidence, considering Pope DIoscorus did in fact anathematize Eutyches after realizing Eutyches had lied to him; while the idea of Chalcedon, that is, the rejection of monophysitism as a heresy is correct, and the anathematization of Eutyches, the collateral damage vis a vis the schism with the Oriental Orthodox who adhered to the miaphysite Christology outlined by St. Cyril the Great and had concerns about the phrase “in two natures” (but not “from two natures”; indeed the Christological hymn Ho Monogenes which precludes confessing Monophysitism or Nestorianism, was composed by Mor Severus of Antioch, the great Syriac Orthodox bishop, and has a more prominent place in the West Syriac liturgy, at least the Syriac Orthodox use, than in the Byzantine, Armenian or even Coptic liturgies - alas as far as I am aware that particular hymn was never used in the West, unlike the Trisagion, which has historically always been used in the West on Good Friday, at least in the pre-1955 form of the Paschal Triduum (indeed I think Pope Piux XII did not change that, although other changes of Pope Piux XII were greatly inadvisable and were almost as bad as what would follow with the Novus Ordo Missae of 1969, which caused an enduring schism which was within inches of being resolved, even with the SSPX, who Pope Francis had actually managed to develop a working relationship with, when Pope Francis for some reason decided to just reverse course not only on Summorum Pontificum but also Ecclesia Dei, which is the kind of arbitrary decision which in my mind demonstrates the central problem with the concentration of Papal authority, in that the actions of one Pope can in most cases be reversed by another, which has created misery for millions of pious Catholics who were among the most regular and devout churchgoers.

 

[The Liturgist]

It started as one but because the Eastern Bishop objected to Athanasius and other wrongly deposed Bishops being in attendance, they withdrew.

The canons approved shows Rome is in charge.

Ah, no, they don’t, at most they establish a kind of pre-Chalcedonian aticle 28 status, but the absence of St. Athanasius and so on deprives the council of ecumenical status or authority. And I don’t recall seeing it in the Pedalion, although I would have to check (there are some non-ecumenical councils that are authoritative in the East, such as the Quinisext Council at Trullo, which Rome rejected and was within its rights to reject, and thus Trullo is prescriptive only with regards to the Eastern Church and is not reckoned by canonical Orthodox bishops (at least, the vast majority of them; we might find one who really dislikes the Roman Catholic Church somewhere who would count it as ecumenical, but the majority only count as ecumenical Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, Constantinople II, Constantinople III and Nicaea II, with a few adding Constantinople IV, that being the synod where Rome agreed to drop the filioque, before later changing their mind in the 10th century and re-adding it, which itself was a provocative act but not enough to cause a schism; indeed even the grotesque “Cadaver Synod” was not enough to cause the Eastern Orthodox bishops to depart, indeed, the Orthodox did not depart on their own, Rome having removed itself from communion with the Orthodox by allowing the excommunication of the Patriarch of Constantinople. Although what really cemented the schism and interfered with later reconciliation was violence against Orthodox Christians during the crusades, especially the Fourth (the diversion of the Fourth Crusade to Constantinople under Venetian political pressure being a grievous act, a gross betrayal).

 

[Jan001]

What you said is “can a person be saved and then fall away?” to which @Hentenza replied not really - which I believe should be ecumenically acceptable, since obviously such a person was not saved. This applies regardless as to whether or not one believes in Eternal Security of the Elect (I do not, I believe apostasy is possible) or whether or not one believes in monergism (particularly Calvinism, but to a lesser extent Confessional Lutheran Monergism) or in synergism (such as Methodist and Evangelical Arminianism and Orthodox cooperation and voluntary love).

Thank you for your input. I appreciate it.


It seems to me that until a person dies, he can not know for sure whether he will inherit eternal life. Only God knows the heart of man. Matthew 15:8, Matthew 7:22-23, Luke 13:25-28


Adam's sin estranged mankind from God. Later, God sent his own son to earth to repair this estrangement that Adam's sin had caused. He sent his son to offer himself as a blood sacrifice, which was the only remedy for this estrangement.

God saved the people who believed in his son Jesus Christ through the water baptism that Jesus commanded in Mark 16:15-16.

What will God do to a person who later rejects this precious gift of salvation? He rejects this precious gift when he returns to his former sinful life instead of following/imitating Jesus in obedience until his death. Philippians 2:8, Romans 6:16

A person who returns to his sinful life spurns both the gift giver and the gift. Unless he repents before he dies, he will not inherit eternal life.


Hebrews 10:28-31
Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.


2 Peter 2:20-22
For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. 21 For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them. 22 But it has happened to them according to the true proverb: “A dog returns to his own vomit,” and, “a sow, having washed, to her wallowing in the mire.”

A Christian who returns to his sinful life and does not repent before death will suffer a worse punishment in hellfire than that of a person who never believed.

 

[Hentenza]

Thank you for your input. I appreciate it.


It seems to me that until a person dies, he can not know for sure whether he will inherit eternal life. Only God knows the heart of man. Matthew 15:8, Matthew 7:22-23, Luke 13:25-28


Adam's sin estranged mankind from God. Later, God sent his own son to earth to repair this estrangement that Adam's sin had caused. He sent his son to offer himself as a blood sacrifice, which was the only remedy for this estrangement.

God saved the people who believed in his son Jesus Christ through the water baptism that Jesus commanded in Mark 16:15-16.

What will God do to a person who later rejects this precious gift of salvation? He rejects this precious gift when he returns to his former sinful life instead of following/imitating Jesus in obedience until his death. Philippians 2:8, Romans 6:16

A person who returns to his sinful life spurns both the gift giver and the gift. Unless he repents before he dies, he will not inherit eternal life.


Hebrews 10:28-31
Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.


2 Peter 2:20-22
For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. 21 For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them. 22 But it has happened to them according to the true proverb: “A dog returns to his own vomit,” and, “a sow, having washed, to her wallowing in the mire.”

A Christian who returns to his sinful life and does not repent before death will suffer a worse punishment in hellfire than that of a person who never believed.

Hi Jan,

Do you agree with the following quote by Clement of Rome? What do you think he is trying to say here? Thanks

“Similarly we also, who by His will have been called in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, or our own wisdom or understanding or godliness, nor by such deeds as we have done in holiness of heart, but by that faith through which Almighty God has justified all men since the beginning of time. Glory be to Him, forever and ever, Amen.”- St. Clement of Rome (? – ~101 AD) (Letter to the Corinthians, par. 32)

 

[Jan001]

Paul and the other Scripture writers compare the process of salvation to an athletic track event. The difference between the two is that the race which results in winning the prize of eternal life is a life-long event.


The Great Christian Race

The prize: the crown of eternal life. James 1:12


The entry fee is paid for us: Jesus Christ's sacrificial death on the cross pays our entry fee. Genesis 3:24, Romans 5:12


Ephesians 2:8-10 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God— 9 not because of works, lest any man should boast. (Jesus saves us as his gift to us.) 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.


Now that we are saved, we must do the good works that God has prepared for us to do in order to be judged "worthy" to inherit eternal life. Matthew 7:21, Matthew 12:50, Matthew 10:37-39, Luke 20:35, Colossians 1:9-10


Our entry is confirmed by our repentance (Acts 3:19, Acts 2:38) and our baptism as commanded by Jesus in Matthew 28:18-20 and Mark 16:15-16.


Now, we begin our race. We must finish our race in order to win the prize—eternal life with God in heaven.


1 Corinthians 9:24-27 Do you not know that in a race the runners all compete, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win it. 25 Athletes exercise self-control in all things; they do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable one. 26 So I do not run aimlessly, nor do I box as though beating the air, 27 but I punish my body and enslave it, so that after proclaiming to others I myself should not be disqualified.

Hebrews 12:1-2 Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight and the sin that clings so closely, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us, 2 looking to Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith, who for the sake of the joy that was set before him endured the cross, disregarding its shame, and has taken his seat at the right hand of the throne of God.

Galatians 5:5-8 For through the Spirit, by faith, we eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything; the only thing that counts is faith working through love. 7 You were running well; who prevented you from obeying the truth? 8 Such persuasion does not come from the one who calls you.


Egregious sin causes us to stumble and fall. (Hebrews 10:26-27, 1 John 5:15-17) We must repent and confess these sins in order to continue our race. 1 John 1:9


2 Peter 1:4-11 Thus he has given us, through these things, his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of lust and may become participants of the divine nature. 5 For this very reason, you must make every effort to support your faith with excellence, and excellence with knowledge, 6 and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with endurance, and endurance with godliness, 7 and godliness with mutual affection, and mutual affection with love. 8 For if these things are yours and are increasing among you, they keep you from being ineffective and unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 For anyone who lacks these things is blind, suffering from eye disease, forgetful of the cleansing of past sins. 10 Therefore, brothers and sisters, be all the more eager to confirm your call and election, for if you do this, you will never stumble. 11 For in this way, entry into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be richly provided for you.


We must love God with our whole being and love our neighbors as ourselves in order to finish our race well.


Luke 10:25-28 And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 He said to him, “What is written in the law? How do you read?” 27 And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” 28 And he said to him, “You have answered right; do this, and you will live.”


Our death ends our race. Hebrews 9:27, Revelation 2:10

2 Timothy 4:5-8 As for you, be sober in everything, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, carry out your ministry fully. 6 As for me, I am already being poured out as a libation, and the time of my departure has come. 7 I have fought the good fight; I have finished the race; I have kept the faith. 8 From now on there is reserved for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will give me on that day, and not only to me but also to all who have longed for his appearing.


Matthew 25:21 His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a little, I will set you over much; enter into the joy of your master.’

 

[concretecamper]

Ah, no, they don’t, at most they establish a kind of pre-Chalcedonian aticle 28 status, but the absence of St. Athanasius and so on deprives the council of ecumenical status or authority

Ecumenical, there's that word again.

My point is who cares! Just because the East left doesn't negate the fact that the remaining Church Father said Rome is in charge.

And with regards to Chalcedon, I already showed that the East deferred to Rome and gave Pope Leo the final say. Using language portraying Leo as the "Head" and them as "children", it's obvious Rome was in charge.

 

[Jan001]

Hi Jan,

Do you agree with the following quote by Clement of Rome? What do you think he is trying to say here? Thanks

“Similarly we also, who by His will have been called in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, or our own wisdom or understanding or godliness, nor by such deeds as we have done in holiness of heart, but by that faith through which Almighty God has justified all men since the beginning of time. Glory be to Him, forever and ever, Amen.”- St. Clement of Rome (? – ~101 AD) (Letter to the Corinthians, par. 32)

Yes, I agree with him.

We cannot justify ourselves by ourselves alone. We cannot even take one breath without God's grace providing us with it.

Without God's saving grace abiding within us, we are not saved. Without God's grace, we cannot do any good deeds.

We are saved by our faith, but not by our faith alone. James 2:24

Even demons believe that there is a God. Demons do not obey God, so they do not have faith in God. James 2:19


In other words, if a Christian believes/has faith in God, he obeys God. He does what God tells him to do. If he does not obey God, he is lying when he says he believes in him. Luke 6:46, 1 John 2:4

Christians who do not obey God prove that they do not believe/have faith in him.


Jesus could not do anything by himself alone:

John 5:30
I can, of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me.

Jesus needed both his Father and the Holy Spirit to accomplish his work.

Father: Thought (the will of God originates with the Father)
The Son: The Word speaks the Father's will to action.
Holy Spirit: Action (The Holy Spirit provides the power to accomplish God's will.)


A Christian cannot do anything by himself alone. If he has faith/obeys God until his death, he will be approved as worthy to inherit eternal life.

 

[The Liturgist]

My point is who cares! Just because the East left doesn't negate the fact that the remaining Church Father said Rome is in charge.

To begin, the East did not leave; we were excommunicated by a Roman pope uncanonically, an outcome we did not desire.

Now,, regarding the word Ecumenical and Church Fathers saying Rome is in charge, well, firstly, your church agrees with our church that the council in question is not Ecumenical and like the Orthodox differentiates between local and ecumenical councils (it being on this basis why the Roman church rejected the Quinisext Council), and secondly, the local council in question stopped short of saying Rome was in charge, but merely gave it appellate powers equivalent to those conferred via Chalcedon in the case of certain disputes; in antiquity it was accepted that Rome was primus inter pares but never primus sine paribus.

Indeed even within the Western church the bishop of Rome had less authority than is presently the case; for example, St. Irenaeus of Lyons was in a position to rebuke St. Victor when St. Victor attempted to impose his will on churches outside of his jurisdiction. What St. Victor was trying to do, mandate the use of the Paschalion, was not inherently wrong, but the procedure was incorrect, and in the end it required the action of the Council of Nicaea (at which the Roman church barely participated, its participation being limited to two legates who agreed with nearly everything the council undertook, except on the issue of the rejection of mandatory clerical celibacy for all churches, a position which interestingly enough later became the position of the church of Rome after Rome began forming semi-autonomous Eastern Catholic in a coordinated way after the treaty of Brest (of course, there were Eastern rites under Rome before that, namely, certain Byzantine Rite parishes in parts of Italy, and also the Maronites, who entered into communion and subordinated themselves to the Pope during the first crusade, probably to strengthen their position and also avoid the unfortunate fate of some other Syriac speaking Christians of the Antiochian Orthodox and Syriac Orthodox churches and of the Church of the East (for it is known that Eastern Christians encountered violence despite not being a threat to the Crusaders).

Also, on the subject of the ecumenical Council of Nicaea, since you mentioned the historic order of precedence (and the inclusion of Constantinople offending Archbishop Leo I of Rome, causing him to not want to accept Canon 28, which went into effect anyway); at Nicaea, canon 6 affirmed the same privileges enjoyed by Rome, as being by right also exercised by Alexandria and Antioch and canon 7 granted these privileges to the re-established Hagiopolitan church, made relevant by the rebuilding of Jerusalem.

I would also note that attempts by a vocal minority Roman Catholics to challenge the historical consensus that the majority of Catholic scholars, and the majority of Orthodox and Protestant scholars as well, have, concerning the history of the early church, is as problematic as the advocacy of an erroneous historical narrative by adherents of various Restorationist churches, such as some Sabbatarians and (by definition) all Landmark Baptists. It is also from an internal Roman Catholic theological standpoint unnecessary, since the Roman church disagrees with the Orthodox church that doctrine is immutable, instead arguing for the development of doctrine, ergo attempting to prove an ancient Papacy in the modern Roman sense of the word is both superfluous and has the effect of promoting the false dichotomy of Catholic vs. Protestant that is leveraged by Restorationists such as Landmark Baptists and Sabbatarians to promote their anti-Catholic narrative, and which tends to write the Orthodox out of history, and to marginalize Lutherans, Anglo Catholics and other traditional Protestants. And this narrative is dangerous, because it is anti-Catholic in general, and not merely anti-Roman Catholic, that is to say, it is an attack on the integrity of the shared orthodox values of the Nicene Creed as historically believed by all Christians until very recently, when we began, to some extent in the 16th century with the Radical Reformation, and a bit more with the Quakers in the 17th century, but really in the 18th and 19th century, to encounter Christians such as Unitarians and Restorationists who were opposed to all doctrine that could be said to be Catholic, but who weaponized the idea of opposition to the papacy to convert people to their extremist sects, by conflating Catholicity with the specific beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church and then simply ignoring the Orthodox (not intentionally in many cases; I am reasonably certain that many Restorationists were either unaware of our existence or regarded us as being Roman Catholics but with unusual headgear).

Fortunately the majority of Roman Catholics have embraced the idea of ecumenical reconciliation with the Orthodox and also the Assyrian Church of the East, which is why Orthodox can receive the sacraments in any Catholic church and conversely Catholics can receive the sacraments in the Assyrian Church of the East, and in a few Oriental Orthodox churches, specifically, in Turkey, some Syriac Orthodox churches have been providing the Eucharist to Roman Catholics. But if we are to restore full communion, we must dispense with strident triumphalist movements on both sides; within Orthodoxy, the Old Calendarists and their fellow travelers in the canonical churches, who regard ecumenism as the most extreme of theological errors (by fallaciously conflating it with syncretism) and within Roman Catholicism, certain traditionalist movements which are fine with the loss of the beautiful Vetus Ordo liturgy but are extremely unhappy about the idea of ecumenical dialogue with the Orthodox and other denominations.

 

[Hentenza]

Yes, I agree with him.

We cannot justify ourselves by ourselves alone. We cannot even take one breath without God's grace providing us with it.

Without God's saving grace abiding within us, we are not saved. Without God's grace, we cannot do any good deeds.

We are saved by our faith, but not by our faith alone. James 2:24

Even demons believe that there is a God. Demons do not obey God, so they do not have faith in God. James 2:19


In other words, if a Christian believes/has faith in God, he obeys God. He does what God tells him to do. If he does not obey God, he is lying when he says he believes in him. Luke 6:46, 1 John 2:4

Christians who do not obey God prove that they do not believe/have faith in him.


Jesus could not do anything by himself alone:

John 5:30
I can, of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me.

Jesus needed both his Father and the Holy Spirit to accomplish his work.

Father: Thought (the will of God originates with the Father)
The Son: The Word speaks the Father's will to action.
Holy Spirit: Action (The Holy Spirit provides the power to accomplish God's will.)


A Christian cannot do anything by himself alone. If he has faith/obeys God until his death, he will be approved as worthy to inherit eternal life.

Thanks for your reply. I agree with him also and let me commend you on your work definitions by the Trinity.

I am, though, going to concentrate on the book of James of which you quote two verses in your post. I hope you don’t take the following as critical but merely offered in the spirit of learning. It is imperative to understand context when quoting individual verses to defend a position. Verses from different books usually are not written in the same context as others and quoting them together reflects and usually creates hermeneutical problems.

The book of James is believed to have been written between 40 to 45CE which places it at an earlier date than the book of Acts which was written by Luke around 60 to 65CE. This is important because it is written before the council of Jerusalem proclamations which is estimated to have occurred around 50CE. Secondly, the book was written to the twelve Jewish tribes of the diaspora. These were Jewish Christian converts that were probably dispersed by persecution.

The church was in its infancy, transitioning to new covenant living. The recipients were undergoing trials, poverty, and experiencing internal conflicts over wealth, favoritism, Jewish pressure for gentiles to convert to Judaism, and the need for ethical behavior.

James emphasizes that true faith is validated by actions, addressing practical wisdom, the "tongue," and the necessity of obeying God's law. It is the last one here that puts James teachings in conflict with Paul’s teachings

James was the head of the Jerusalem church which rested at the center of Jewish worship and cultural lifestyles. The new Jewish converts to Christianity would have a hard time understanding the transition of being under the law to being under grace. In fact, the events depicted in Acts 21 show the problems that James had while teaching Christian doctrine. In Jewish law teaching that the law was not necessary was punished by death. When Paul arrived in Jerusalem and met with the elders of the Jerusalem church including James he was well received initially until Paul told them stories about what God was doing with the gentiles through his ministry. The elders, which were still quite Jewish, decried that Paul was teaching them to abandon the teachings of Moses including the need for circumcision. These cause the uproar that almost cost Paul his life while James was afraid of defending Paul. Eventually, according to tradition and some historical accounts, James was martyred by the high priest Ben Ananus for probably the same reason that they wanted to kill Paul.

Given this we now understand James need to
placate the converted Jews by including the need to follow God laws. I do not think that James was full blown teaching that the law was necessary but offered the Jews a bone to keep them happy and this influenced James teachings. While Paul, on the other hand, teaches against following the law and walking in the Spirit. James teaches that we are not justified by faith alone while Paul teaches that we are justified by faith alone. They are really not in tension if one understands the historical and cultural context.

James is teaching what can be understood as having a faith that works and I would posit that all Christians with saving faith always have a faith that works. But here you and me will diverge because it also makes sense that Christians with saving faith do their works from salvation rather than for it. I borrow from the Calvinist view of the preservation of the saints to reach this conclusion. The Bible teaches predestination at some level and Jesus certainly knows the voice of His sheep. I don’t believe that Christians with saving faith can loose their salvation because they will always persevere with the help of the Holy Spirit.

So that’s my view. Thanks for reading my post.

 

[Jan001]

Thanks for your reply. I agree with him also and let me commend you on your work definitions by the Trinity.

......
James emphasizes that true faith is validated by actions, addressing practical wisdom, the "tongue," and the necessity of obeying God's law. It is the last one here that puts James teachings in conflict with Paul’s teachings
........
James is teaching what can be understood as having a faith that works and I would posit that all Christians with saving faith always have a faith that works. But here you and me will diverge because it also makes sense that Christians with saving faith do their works from salvation rather than for it. I borrow from the Calvinist view of the preservation of the saints to reach this conclusion. The Bible teaches predestination at some level and Jesus certainly knows the voice of His sheep. I don’t believe that Christians with saving faith can loose their salvation because they will always persevere with the help of the Holy Spirit.

So that’s my view. Thanks for reading my post.

Thank you for your kind words. I do enjoy our conversations.

I don't see that there is a conflict with James' and Paul's teachings.

James was writing about the spirit of the Law of Moses, which is also the royal law of Christ (law of liberty). James was not talking about the letter of the Law of Moses. James 2:8-13

As you can see from the following, James is warning his flock that salvation is not a once-and-done thing. It is an ongoing daily process until death. Luke 9:23

James 1:12-15
Blessed is the man who endures temptation; for when he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him. 13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. 15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth (spiritual) death.

We must continue to be saved until death to be approved to receive the crown of eternal life.

James 1:21-25
Therefore lay aside all filthiness and overflow of wickedness, and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.
22 But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. 23 For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man observing his natural face in a mirror; 24 for he observes himself, goes away, and immediately forgets what kind of man he was. 25 But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does.

James further warns:

26 If anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one’s religion is useless. 27 Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.

James 2:26
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

James teaches that the works we do (good or evil) show whether we have a faith that is saving us or a dead faith that is not saving us.

******

It would be fun to discuss predestination.

 

[concretecamper]

To begin, the East did not leave; we were excommunicated by a Roman pope uncanonically, an outcome we did not desire.

Now,, regarding the word Ecumenical and Church Fathers saying Rome is in charge, well, firstly, your church agrees with our church that the council in question is not Ecumenical and like the Orthodox differentiates between local and ecumenical councils (it being on this basis why the Roman church rejected the Quinisext Council), and secondly, the local council in question stopped short of saying Rome was in charge, but merely gave it appellate powers equivalent to those conferred via Chalcedon in the case of certain disputes; in antiquity it was accepted that Rome was primus inter pares but never primus sine paribus.

Indeed even within the Western church the bishop of Rome had less authority than is presently the case; for example, St. Irenaeus of Lyons was in a position to rebuke St. Victor when St. Victor attempted to impose his will on churches outside of his jurisdiction. What St. Victor was trying to do, mandate the use of the Paschalion, was not inherently wrong, but the procedure was incorrect, and in the end it required the action of the Council of Nicaea (at which the Roman church barely participated, its participation being limited to two legates who agreed with nearly everything the council undertook, except on the issue of the rejection of mandatory clerical celibacy for all churches, a position which interestingly enough later became the position of the church of Rome after Rome began forming semi-autonomous Eastern Catholic in a coordinated way after the treaty of Brest (of course, there were Eastern rites under Rome before that, namely, certain Byzantine Rite parishes in parts of Italy, and also the Maronites, who entered into communion and subordinated themselves to the Pope during the first crusade, probably to strengthen their position and also avoid the unfortunate fate of some other Syriac speaking Christians of the Antiochian Orthodox and Syriac Orthodox churches and of the Church of the East (for it is known that Eastern Christians encountered violence despite not being a threat to the Crusaders).

Also, on the subject of the ecumenical Council of Nicaea, since you mentioned the historic order of precedence (and the inclusion of Constantinople offending Archbishop Leo I of Rome, causing him to not want to accept Canon 28, which went into effect anyway); at Nicaea, canon 6 affirmed the same privileges enjoyed by Rome, as being by right also exercised by Alexandria and Antioch and canon 7 granted these privileges to the re-established Hagiopolitan church, made relevant by the rebuilding of Jerusalem.

I would also note that attempts by a vocal minority Roman Catholics to challenge the historical consensus that the majority of Catholic scholars, and the majority of Orthodox and Protestant scholars as well, have, concerning the history of the early church, is as problematic as the advocacy of an erroneous historical narrative by adherents of various Restorationist churches, such as some Sabbatarians and (by definition) all Landmark Baptists. It is also from an internal Roman Catholic theological standpoint unnecessary, since the Roman church disagrees with the Orthodox church that doctrine is immutable, instead arguing for the development of doctrine, ergo attempting to prove an ancient Papacy in the modern Roman sense of the word is both superfluous and has the effect of promoting the false dichotomy of Catholic vs. Protestant that is leveraged by Restorationists such as Landmark Baptists and Sabbatarians to promote their anti-Catholic narrative, and which tends to write the Orthodox out of history, and to marginalize Lutherans, Anglo Catholics and other traditional Protestants. And this narrative is dangerous, because it is anti-Catholic in general, and not merely anti-Roman Catholic, that is to say, it is an attack on the integrity of the shared orthodox values of the Nicene Creed as historically believed by all Christians until very recently, when we began, to some extent in the 16th century with the Radical Reformation, and a bit more with the Quakers in the 17th century, but really in the 18th and 19th century, to encounter Christians such as Unitarians and Restorationists who were opposed to all doctrine that could be said to be Catholic, but who weaponized the idea of opposition to the papacy to convert people to their extremist sects, by conflating Catholicity with the specific beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church and then simply ignoring the Orthodox (not intentionally in many cases; I am reasonably certain that many Restorationists were either unaware of our existence or regarded us as being Roman Catholics but with unusual headgear).

Fortunately the majority of Roman Catholics have embraced the idea of ecumenical reconciliation with the Orthodox and also the Assyrian Church of the East, which is why Orthodox can receive the sacraments in any Catholic church and conversely Catholics can receive the sacraments in the Assyrian Church of the East, and in a few Oriental Orthodox churches, specifically, in Turkey, some Syriac Orthodox churches have been providing the Eucharist to Roman Catholics. But if we are to restore full communion, we must dispense with strident triumphalist movements on both sides; within Orthodoxy, the Old Calendarists and their fellow travelers in the canonical churches, who regard ecumenism as the most extreme of theological errors (by fallaciously conflating it with syncretism) and within Roman Catholicism, certain traditionalist movements which are fine with the loss of the beautiful Vetus Ordo liturgy but are extremely unhappy about the idea of ecumenical dialogue with the Orthodox and other denominations.

Your the one who bought up canon 28 from Chalcedon. So I'll stick with that one. A few objective facts about canon 28.

1. The legates from Rome rejected the canon because it was not consistent with Orthodoxy
2. The Father's at Chalcedon sent a letter to Pope Leo requesting he accept the canon. The letter used the words "Head" when referring to Pope Leo and "Children" when referring to themselves.
3. Pope Leo rejected Canon 28.
4. The East reacted as some could say like Children and ignored Pope Leo's rejection. One has to wonder why they even bothered to ask for approval? Hmmm
5. Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople, the eldest brother of the group wrote to Pope Leo trying to smooth things over because he knew what happened was wrong.

“As for those things which the universal Council of Chalcedon recently ordained in favor of the church of Constantinople, let Your Holiness be sure that there was no fault in me, who from my youth have always loved peace and quiet, keeping myself in humility. It was the most reverend clergy of the church of Constantinople who were eager about it, and they were equally supported by the most reverend priests of those parts, who agreed about it. Even so, the whole force of confirmation of the acts was reserved for the authority of Your Blessedness. Therefore, let Your Holiness know for certain that I did nothing to further the matter, knowing always that I held myself bound to avoid the lusts of pride and covetousness.”

Now. you can spin these 5 facts anyway you'd like. You can write 3 more pages about extraneous issues, but IMO, it is clear everyone knew Rome was in charge.

 

[Bro.T]

The Acts of the Apostles is the second book attributed to Luke, I believe written about 80-90 A.D., we now come to one of the most frequently quoted verses of Paul to support the false teaching of the sacredness of Sunday: (Acts: 20: 7) And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. Now let’s take a close look at this verse and dissect it a little. Notice Paul continued his speech until midnight! It was after sunset, but prior to midnight. The first day of the week in biblical times did not begin at midnight, as men begin it today.

The Lord’s days begin and end at evening (sunset). (Gen. 1:5) And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first. All biblical days began and ended at sunset. Throughout the Roman world at that time, and for a few hundred years afterward, days began and ended at sunset. The practice of beginning the new day at midnight was started much later.

So this meeting, and Paul’s preaching, took place during the time that we now call Saturday night. Remember when dealing with the Lord’s days the evening comes first. If you read more than just that one verse you would see what actually happen. Paul’s companions were engaged in the labor of rowing and sailing a boat while Paul was preaching that Saturday night and early Sunday. They had set sail Saturday night, after the Sabbath had ended. Paul remained behind for one more farewell sermon. Then at day break Sunday morning, Paul set afoot, walking from Tro’-as to As’-sos to meet the ship. So actually Paul left Sunday Morning, but this verse (Acts: 20:7) says nothing about a change of the Lord’s Holy Sabbath day. And the term “break bread” simply means to eat, so every time Paul ate he broke bread, search it out for your self, the bible tells you to; (1Thess. 5:21) Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

The keeping of Sunday as the Christian Sabbath is not of God but of Man. Remember the Church started in the Wilderness in Acts 7: 38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us: Theses are the Hebrew Israelites, didn’t Paul say in Romans 9: 3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: 4 who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; 5 whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

Again in (Acts 18:1, 4) (v.1) After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth; (v.4) And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks. Why is Paul continuing to go into the church on the sabbath? Because that’s when everybody that dealt with the God of this bible held their holy convocations, every sabbath (Saturday). That’s why you had the Jews (Israelites) and the Greeks (strangers) in the church on the sabbath day.

I as a bible student have examined the bible testimonies on the first day of the week, there are eight to be exact, and without exception they are silent as to any of the disciples observing Sunday as a holy day.

How is it possible that these accounts, written over 40 years after the crucifixion, have neglected to mention Sunday sacredness? There is no biblical support for the changing of God’s holy Sabbath from the seventh day (Saturday) to the first day (Sunday).

 

[concretecamper]

There is no biblical support for the changing of God’s holy Sabbath from the seventh day (Saturday) to the first day (Sunday).

Before you ask this question, you must first establish the fact that all Christian truths are found in the Bible. And you must establish that using just the Bible.