A conversation about unity.

[Carl Emerson]

Saint Paul was not a successor to any of the twelve apostles, he was appointed by Jesus on the road to Damascus and confirmed in his appointment by Ananias in Damascus. Do you read these passages with filters over your eyes?

You confirm the very point I am making - have a great day.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Acts chapter one is post resurrection New Testament times, is it not? And why is it that you are so willing to correct the twelve apostles and the holy scriptures with your opinion on the legitimacy of casting lots after prayer for Divine guidance? Surely the apostles were competent to pray and receive from God the guidance for which they petitioned God?

No not really - it seems they preempted His choice.

Record of their understanding pre-Pentecost is hardly something to write home about...

As Jesus said...

“O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?” 27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

You asked "Surely the apostles were competent...

Clearly not.

 

[The Liturgist]

How? How can you tell if someone is in Christ or not?

We don’t claim to know if they are not in Christ - that is proving a negative, and like I said, we don’t know where the church isn’t, and indeed periodically have found Christians elsewhere who have entered into communion with us. We do know that the Orthodox are in Christ, and the Orthodox receive the Eucharist in a specific manner which varies depending on rite, but someone who was not Orthodox would not know the means by which we receive the Eucharist.

Also given that most Orthodox use a shared spoon, among other things, I feel confident anyone who does not believe in the real presence would be afraid to partake of our Eucharist.

Listen to you. What gives you the right to decide who is “authorized” to take communion? Who gives you the right to turn away the body of Christ outside of your church? Who gives you the right to decide who is a Christian and who is not?

1 Corinthians 11:27-34

But I could ask you the same question - what gives you the right to impose your views on other Christians? Why do you want our Eucharist, when you disagree with us on such important issues as the identity of the Blessed Virgin Mary as Theotokos, Transusbstantiation, Auricular Confession, the intercession of the saints, the veneration of icons, et cetera. Confessional Lutherans, Anglo-Catholics, Old Catholics, Assyrians, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox have beliefs which are different from those of your church. We do not deny your status as Christians, or your potential salvation, but we do have different beliefs, including that that only those who are members of our churches and those churches in communion with us should partake (and we are not all in communion with each other, but the Assyrians and traditional Anglicans have the least restrictive rules, with the traditional Anglicans requiring agreement with the Nicene Creed and baptism as prerequisites, and the Assyrians also requiring belief in the Real Presence.

 

[The Liturgist]

Like Luther?

Martin Luther is not a Reformed Protestant. The Lutherans specifically reject Reformed theology (which includes Calvinism, Zwinglianism and a few related movements such as the Huguenots, as well as the Radical Reformation groups like the Puritans and Anabaptists).

 

[The Liturgist]

And if that stranger professes his/her faith for the Lord then neither your church nor mine are in any position to call them a liar by omission.

We don’t call anyone a liar, but we also do not believe the criteria you provide are sufficient for admission to the Eucharist. It requires more than professed faith - see 1 Corinthians 11:27-34 and also James, entire. We believe Baptism and correct worship are necessary prerequisites, as well as a belief in the Real Presence and also not partaking of the Eucharist without examining one’s conscience and preparing through spiritual or physical fasting and confession, and many other things, based on our interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:27-34

If your church believes professing faith in Christ is sufficient to receive the Eucharist no Orthodox Christian will attempt to stop you, but conversely, your doctrine is not aligned with ours so we cannot say we are in communion with you - which does not mean we deny your Christianity, rather, we have disagreements that are sufficient to prevent us from partaking in the Eucharist with you.

Also your post omits the possibility someone could profess a sincere faith in the Lord but be in error on an essential point of faith, which is the case with Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses - they believe in Christ as much as anyone, but disagree with us on who He is.

What I don’t understand is why you want a church whose doctrines you reject to admit you to its Eucharist against its own beliefs?

 

[Carl Emerson]

Acts chapter one is post resurrection New Testament times, is it not? And why is it that you are so willing to correct the twelve apostles and the holy scriptures with your opinion on the legitimacy of casting lots after prayer for Divine guidance? Surely the apostles were competent to pray and receive from God the guidance for which they petitioned God?

The Apostles were fallible and even disagreed strongly at times - it was a learning curve for them. Post resurrection does not imply perfection among them. Jesus clearly corrected them post resurrection. This is clear from Acts 24:35ff

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The Apostles were fallible and even disagreed strongly at times - it was a learning curve for them. Post resurrection does not imply perfection among them. Jesus clearly corrected them post resurrection. This is clear from Acts 24:35ff

If the apostles were fallible where does that put your opinions?

 

[Carl Emerson]

If the apostles were fallible where does that put your opinions?

Where does it put everyones opinions ?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Like Luther?

Or the Great Schism?

 

[Servus]

It is disappointing to see so little understanding of the scriptures in your reply.

Matthias was chosen to replace Judas Iscariot as one of the twelve apostles following Judas’s betrayal and death, in a process marked by prayerful discernment and scriptural fulfilment. After Peter addressed the gathered believers—about 120 in number—he cited the Psalms: “May another take his place of leadership” (Acts 1:20), affirming the need to restore the apostolic number. Two men were nominated, Joseph called Barsabbas and Matthias, both of whom had accompanied Jesus throughout His ministry. The apostles then prayed, saying, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen” (Acts 1:24), and cast lots to determine the outcome. The lot fell to Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles, signifying divine approval and the continuation of apostolic witness.

He also had to meet the following conditions:

21 Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, 22 beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection. (Acts 1:21-22).

And since he was one of the 70 disciples who were sent out, he had already been personally chosen by Jesus in that respect.

 

[concretecamper]

Or the Great Schism?

Are you suggesting you're from the wrong branch of the Great Schism?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Are you suggesting you're from the wrong branch of the Great Schism?

More importantly, is there a "wrong" branch? Playing devil's advocate here, but there is a Biblical president of God advocating disunity; Babel. In that case too much unity resulted in people deifying themselves.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

More importantly, is there a "wrong" branch? Playing devil's advocate here, but there is a Biblical president of God advocating disunity; Babel. In that case too much unity resulted in people deifying themselves.

The lesson is "do not become so proud that you think you are gods". and a connected lesson is "do not think your opinions are so good that they are the voice of God". These are simple lessons but people do not learn them.

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

The lesson is "do not become so proud that you think you are gods". and a connected lesson is "do not think your opinions are so good that they are the voice of God". These are simple lessons but people do not learn them.

Claiming to have sole and exclusive "all truth" as a religious organization comes with a bit of a logical conundrum.

All truth is inclusive of only seeing in part, 1 Cor. 13:12.

So any said group claiming to have and contain all truth is technically already defeated by the seeing only in part portion it would seem, if they were encompassing "all truth." It's a bit of a dilemma the RCC has gotten themselves into, even within older orthodoxy in general.

The open evidence of this basic failure to grasp the fact of the most obvious element of human existence that is universally known to all mankind, that "nobody is perfect, our Lord excepted" is shown by these vast groups of well learned men, technically claiming to contain and have exclusive rights to the realm, can't even work out the modifications of agreements in the filioque after literally centuries. And I'm banking it will never happen.

We could start the pile on this basis, but needless to say, no collective of sinners is going to be sinless. Large centralized organizations often prove to be fatal to the masses, religious or political, precisely for this basic flaw.

Now how could anyone sit in the infamous chair, having evil present within them and within all of the members affirming, say they are, what is that term again? Oh yeah, infallible.

No thank you.

Honesty would be a GREAT place to start for unity.

It's just hard to buy into twisted logic no matter who is trying to sell it it or how great their silk robes and fancy hats are, again, religious or political.

Better to remain fragmented, as the 7 churches of Rev. all had their obvious issues. lest evil present coalesce. We've had our lessons at that well long enough too.

The claims of if y'all would only agree with "us" then everything would be fine is just another lie as well.

As the writer of Hebrews rightly stated, "for finding fault with them." hasn't changed. The final matter of faith is our HOPE of Perfection. An earnest deposit is not full payment. Again, how can we claim said HOPE while claiming "all truth," which is supposedly in harmony with Godly Perfection, yet still hope for same? Hope will disappear when The Perfect comes and not a day sooner.

For some odd reason I distrust anyone who says you MUST obey only me if that claimant is not Perfect. And even if so, could I really follow and obey if I were not the same? Nope.

I'd suggest the only unity the churches DO have is our imperfections and infirmities. Now sort that one out. Maybe we should glory in them as Paul suggested?

Would any of us today listen to a man, Paul for example, that admitted to having an onslaught of concupiscent thoughts, who claimed to do evil, to have evil present with him, who claimed to have a messenger of Satan in his own flesh and is the present tense, "I am" chief of sinners?

Most would run out of the doors holding their hands over their ears. People will NOT listen. They can not.

Pre-ordained, in prep, waiting obviously for the real final solution from our Father

 

[concretecamper]

More importantly, is there a "wrong" branch? Playing devil's advocate here, but there is a Biblical president of God advocating disunity; Babel. In that case too much unity resulted in people deifying themselves.

John 17:21

 

[Hentenza]

John 17:21

Not referring to your church, of course.

 

[Carl Emerson]

John 17:21

This unity was to be visible to the world - in the marketplace - we are called to go to into the world with Him together in agreement with the Aroma of life to life.

Our practices have become building-centric - not that they don't have a place but Jesus built the church house to house.

I wonder if readers have read "From temple to meeting house" by Harold Turner ???

 

[concretecamper]

This unity was to be visible to the world

Exactly, unity of Faith, One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church.

 

[concretecamper]

Our practices have become building-centric - not that they don't have a place but Jesus built the church house to house

Some recent start up faith communities may have become building centric.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Some recent start up faith communities may have become building centric.

This might sound a bit radical but I have often thought that the gathering for worship in a district could be once a month with the day to day work of being Christ to the world concentrated in homes and the marketplace.