How would you greet a bishop?

[dzheremi]

It did not stop with the apostles.

I never said it did. I believe it likewise applies to all of us, but I didn't want this conversation to spin off into something else about who is following God today and who might not be. I'd like to think we're all at least trying to.

That is where you miss out on what the Christian way of life is to be about. The Apostles supplied our foundational Scriptures that are chock full of building materials.

The Church is pre-Biblical. The Church wrote, canonized, interpreted, and interprets (present tense) the Holy Scriptures. The chief cornerstone is Christ Himself, and the Holy Scriptures are our witness to the life of the community which walked, talked, ate, and did everything else with Him.

Gold, silver, and precious stones for constructing thoughts and concepts needed by growing and conquering believers in an ever changing world.

I'm not sure what this means. "Constructing thoughts and concepts needed by growing and conquering believers in an ever-changing world"...er...okay, then. I guess I can't really argue against it, since it's vague enough to mean basically anything. That's kinda part of the problem, though. At least those infected by what you have called "denominationalism" have definite interpretations of things that they can fall back on, in accordance with whatever hermeneutical school they happen to be a part of (Alexandria, Antioch, Edessa, etc). That prevents vagueness like this.

Uranium was buried in the earth since its creation. But only in recent years has man discovered its value and power. Likewise, God has buried in Scripture knowledge that has yet to be understood before its time as He planned it to be revealed and understood.

No, the Holy Bible is not like uranium (geez Louise). For one thing, from what I understand anyway uranium needs to be refined before it can be used. The Bible is fine as it is, within the communities which originally produced and received it (the Hellenized peoples of the Mediterranean); and even in its transmission to others (the non-Hellenized Syriacs, Armenians, South Indians, Slavs, and so on), nothing needs to be done to the text itself, either to 'reveal' its power (its power is evident for those who can hear) or for any other reason.

So I don't see what you're getting at here. Are you one of those "Bible secrets" numerology/cipher people? If that's the case, who let you off of the History Channel to post here on CF? Get back to claiming a bunch of wacky nonsense for our amusement.

Just like after the resurrection prophesy of OT Scripture just began to be understood in it fulfillment. God unfolded the insights by means of His Spirit working in men!

True enough, but I don't see how this is "just like" what you were talking about. Then again, I don't really understand what you were trying to say, so maybe this is a perfect analogy. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Paul knew that what was to be known did not stop with the Apostles.

And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more
and more in knowledge and depth of insight." (Philpns 1:9​

Insight goes beyond what had been understood before the insight was given!

Okay...again, this is all very vague. There's nothing wrong with the prayer (obviously), but I don't see how it supports...whatever it is you're trying to get at.

Religious minds still live and think as museum curators. The past great thinkers were raised up for what was needed in their day in the past. We still keep their foundational understanding to build upon. But we are to build! Not stand still! Growing! The body of Christ is a GROWING organism!

The Church, being the mystical Body of Christ with Christ as its head, has nothing to learn. It is perfect as it is, it has always been perfect, and it will always be perfect, by virtue of the perfection of the One Who ultimately keeps it and guards it from all harm.

Individuals within the Church -- the bishops, the priests, the deacons, the laypeople, etc. -- are nothing more than individual people, and so may be just as fallible and limited as anyone.

This distinction between the larger institution and the individuals within it should be familiar enough if you are an American or a Westerner more broadly. We have the same dichotomy built into our secular societies, wherein governments are changed often without really changing the society itself too much, because if the society itself guards its own freedoms and makes its overseers aware that it knows its own rights, then the government knows how far it can go before they are tossed out in favor of those who respect those freedoms that are in the nature of the society. Put into Church terms (and here I will allude to a comment from my own bishop, HG Bishop Youssef), while the laity have never had any kind of control over how the Church should be (i.e., it's not a democracy), it is true that they have righted a floundering ship in the past, as in the times of our father HH St. Athanasius the Apostolic and the struggle against Arianism which the whole world seemed to falling to, when the people were willing to be martyred over one letter (in reference to the homoousios vs. homoiousios controversy with the semi-Arians and their rebellion against the Orthodox Creed; HG's point here is that a well-informed, well-catechized laity can and do have a big impact on the Church, so the answer to our problems is never to take things over and become like all the modern churches where the lunatics are running the asylum, but to actually become more grounded in our Orthodox faith, so as to identify and not put up with nonsense).

So I would cautiously agree with you (even though I'm not sure you're actually agreeing with me), if by all this you mean that people must not become complacent and led by leaders into error. That is obvious. The question is more in how we tackle it: the solution for Orthodox Christians like me is to redouble our dedication to the Orthodox faith planted among the people by the apostles and disciples, not to seek to make the Church grow in this or that direction based on our own idiosyncratic understandings of scripture or whatever else. This is the value in cultivating the necessary humility to listen to and follow our leaders; it is not out of slavish devotion to people in authority as though they earn it by having the title, but out of a recognition that the Church cannot be conquered, but we can (if we become prideful and unwilling to submit) become as the errant churches of Asia spoken of in St. John's Apocalypse, which are rejected and condemned for various untreated illnesses infecting their people.

I would say, and here I know this seems extreme, that the entire vibe I'm getting from your post seems like one of those untreated illnesses: the "I can do it myself" illness. No you can't. It wasn't even set up that way. We are not individualized atoms nor islands which float through life unaffected and not affecting those around us. The Desert Fathers, who were my true introduction to Orthodoxy (though here I must also credit my former Father of Confession, Fr. Augustine, with introducing me to St. Ephrem the Syrian while I was still RC...though I'm not sure he'd want the credit if he knew where I ended up ), teach among other things that "our life and our death are with our brothers." This is the opposite of the individualistic message of many churches today.

Satan would love if he could lock believers into a set time and never changing.

What on earth are you talking about? Christ is timeless.

He could control the earth by making sure no one rocks the boat of that religious organization. He tried once to do that by burning advancing believers on the stake. Of course, he threw in a few crazies to make the genuine guilty by association.

If we're going to have an actual conversation, and I'm not just going to be used as your soapbox, then I'm going to have to ask you to define what you mean by "advancing believers". I don't know what/who that is, or what it means. Please tell me. Thank you.

Its just like we see with corrupt politics today. Its the Kingdom of God vs the kingdom of the god of this world. One can not stop and stand still in warfare! Otherwise, some will still be fighting with once proven bows and arrows while they find a smart bomb missile being dropped on them.

One can certainly say "Nuts to all this" and retire to a monastery. Granted, there the real warfare begins, but the point is it is possible and advisable to escape the world. (Full disclosure: the longest I've spent in a monastery was something like 12 days and I could just barely manage that, and honestly I was primarily there for sociolinguistic research; the abbots and the brothers, and their counterparts in the convents full of sisters, are the true spiritual warriors, and deserve all our support and admiration.)

Religion is rigid and stagnant. Tradition-centric.

Ohhhhh. I see now. You're one of those "Don't call it religion" people. I hate that. I love my religion, and my religion is the most important thing to me. And I don't see anything wrong with being tradition-centric. I don't agree that this, in itself, makes religion "rigid and stagnant". So we're just going to have to agree to disagree here, my friend.

Christianity is to be lived by the Spirit

Yes!

and learning truth to be alive and powerful.

Ehhh...this may be a difference between Eastern and Western Christianity more broadly. We would say that a theologian is one who prays well. That doesn't necessarily have anything to do with learning in the intellectual sense, but we're not against it. HH Pope Tawadros II has an advanced degree in Pharmacy, if I recall correctly (he ran a pharmaceutical company in his secular life), though his predecessor had focused on the humanities while in school and wrote a lot of poetry. And his predecessor (HH Pope Kyrillos VI) prayed in a mill in the middle of the desert to be completely alone (because there wasn't room in there for another person), while also establishing himself among the monks of the various monasteries he called for the rehabilitation of (with great success under the influential monk Fr. Matthew the Poor). It takes all kinds. No one can say that one did not live by the spirit based on any of this. Only God knows the souls of His servants (and that does include also all of us).

There must be truth understood to keep free in an ever advancing type of evil that constantly mutates like a deadly virus.

What? "to keep free in an ever advancing type of evil"? Is that what you meant to say? "Free in evil"? What does that mean?

I have to say, for someone who is talking about advancing in knowledge and all this, I'm having a really hard time understanding what you're actually trying to say. I'm sorry if that's rude. I want to understand you, but it's pretty well inscrutable.

Bible teachers of the highest order provide what is needed.

Well, if you're akin to the Ethiopian eunuch, sure, but this is not all that our leaders do. In an Orthodox liturgy, the center of our worship is not the sermon.

Religion can not provide excellent Bible teachers. For, religion does not comprehend excellent Bible teaching. Just like the religious could not comprehend the Word made flesh.

No. That's a hard no. The foundation of our religion is that the Word was made flesh. Was St. John not a religious man when he wrote all about that? And all the others likewise?

And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more
and more in knowledge and depth of insight. (Philpns 1:9​

.

Yeah, you quoted that already, and it's still not clear what you actually intend to say.

I'm sorry, my friend, but in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary, it seems like you're advancing a kind of quasi-Gnostic, occultic approach to Christianity, wherein only the initiated few can truly understand it. I do not believe that is an accurate representation or interpretation of the Christian religion. I hope I have you wrong here, but I await your clarification of your very obscure post.

 

[GenemZ]

No, the Holy Bible is not like uranium (geez Louise). For one thing, from what I understand anyway uranium needs to be refined before it can be used. The Bible is fine as it is, within the communities which originally produced and received it (the Hellenized peoples of the Mediterranean); and even in its transmission to others (the non-Hellenized Syriacs, Armenians, South Indians, Slavs, and so on), nothing needs to be done to the text itself, either to 'reveal' its power (its power is evident for those who can hear) or for any other reason.

I did not say the Bible is like Uranium. I said buried in the Scriptures are truths like uranium. Dormant at present until discovered and "refined." Buried and hidden at present.

"I will give you hidden treasures, riches stored in secret places, so that you may know
that I am the LORD, the God of Israel, who summons you by name." Isa 45:3​

That when God gives insight to those who study His Word in the Spirit. It can produce a great power to demolish evil and lies that may be trying to overtake a culture. Just like in WW ll. We did not see any atomic bomb until we reached that point in history. Yet, that same uranium that was used to make the bombs may have been laying under a battlefield that was once fought centuries ago using only swords and spears. That is why always seeking the founding fathers as our final answer can land us clinging to a spear that was once effectual, but more is needed to be understood today to secure victory.

Doctrines should be built upon previous doctrine. What was once swords and spears as the means to securing a past people's nation is not to be done today with the same weapons.

Yet? Religion keeps wanting us marching with swords and spears. Christianity is living and progresses. It appreciates the past victories of brave believers who used the Bible as the means for advancing. Like Martin Luther found himself forced to do with the Catholic church. He really had no choice. For he saw what the Scriptures contain. Truths that the RCC wished to deny, suppress, and oppress. Religion does that. Oppresses and suppresses thought where it should not be.

 

[GenemZ]

I'm sorry, my friend, but in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary, it seems like you're advancing a kind of quasi-Gnostic, occultic approach to Christianity, wherein only the initiated few can truly understand it. I do not believe that is an accurate representation or interpretation of the Christian religion. I hope I have you wrong here, but I await your clarification of your very obscure post.

You are still trying to relive and fight old battles that are over.

You really have no idea what I speak of. You can only imagine it may be like something you learned about. But, it does not really apply.

My post is not obscure. And, then it is. It will be obscure to those who habitually obscure God's purpose for the believer. The sermon (good Bible teaching) is to be the central focus for gaining more faith.

So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing
by the word of God." Rom 10:17


But without faith it is impossible to please Him,
for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and
that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him." Heb 11:6​

You can keep your church traditions all you want. As for me?

I want/crave sound Bible doctrine teaching. Faith that pleases God, is made from such.

.

 

[dzheremi]

You are still trying to relive and fight old battles that are over.

They would be over, but today there still remain those who are essentially Arians ('Oneness Pentecostals', Mormons, etc.), Modalists, etc. And people like you, who have a Gnostic approach to Christianity.

You really have no idea what I speak of.

Yes. That's the problem.

You can only imagine it may be like something you learned about. But, it does not really apply.

I don't know whether or not it applies, because you're not actually saying anything.

My post is not obscure. And, then it is.

Uh huh. Everything is one way, then the other. I've heard this before. I left it already for a Church that actually says something.

It will be obscure to those who habitually obscure God's purpose for the believer. The sermon (good Bible teaching) is to be the central focus for gaining more faith.

No. The sermon is not the central focus of the liturgy. Sorry, it's just not.

So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing
by the word of God." Rom 10:17


But without faith it is impossible to please Him,
for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and
that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him." Heb 11:6

Yes, and the sermon is preached in Church, to the believers, i.e., to those who have faith. The verses you quote are about how to acquire that faith, and how faith is necessary to have. We may need that reminder, if we are flagging in our own faith or facing challenges to it, but that does not change the actual structure of the liturgy, which is what I am talking about. To have the corporate worship of the Church centered around the sermon delivered by the pastor/priest/minister is a Protestant invention, and I suspect a rather late one at that. You don't realize that, I suspect, due to your anti-Tradition bent, but I don't share this viewpoint, so I'm just stating a fact over and against your idea of how Christian worship should be.

You can keep your church traditions all you want. As for me?

I want/crave sound Bible doctrine teaching. Faith that pleases God, is made from such.
.

Only you are separating the two in the first place, so do whatever you want. You're living in a fantasy world while criticizing all others who refuse to join you there, which in itself shows a spiritual haughtiness that if it were to come from a Roman Catholic or an Orthodox Christian you would surely criticize as proof of the "rigidness" of their traditions. This hypocrisy and arrogance is surely unbecoming of an "advancing believer", is it not? (Which, by the way, you still haven't explained what you mean by that term.)

I'm not sticking to Tradition out of an opposition to Biblical teaching, as teaching from the Bible is definitely part of it (how could it not be? Our apostle St. Mark wrote the Gospel which bears his name, so of course he left us strong Biblical teaching, even when there was no Bible to speak of), but so that I do not become unmoored. Again, the disease of "I can do it myself" is the death of the Church, even if you manage to gather many around that ethos.

 

[dzheremi]

I did not say the Bible is like Uranium. I said buried in the Scriptures are truths like uranium. Dormant at present until discovered and "refined." Buried and hidden at present.

No. What of the scriptures is 'buried and hidden at present'? You have more revelation to add to it? Sorry, Joseph Smith. Get off the internet and go back to being dead.

​

"I will give you hidden treasures, riches stored in secret places, so that you may know
that I am the LORD, the God of Israel, who summons you by name." Isa 45:3

Again, what of God was not revealed to the Church with the literal descent of the Holy Spirit upon the gathered worshipers in 33 AD? Was Christ lying when He said that the Holy Spirit would come and lead them to all truth? Either 'all' really means 'all' or it doesn't.

That when God gives insight to those who study His Word in the Spirit. It can produce a great power to demolish evil and lies that may be trying to overtake a culture.

Of course.

Just like in WW ll. We did not see any atomic bomb until we reached that point in history. Yet, that same uranium that was used to make the bombs may have been laying under a battlefield that was once fought centuries ago using only swords and spears.

Okay. I understand the metaphor, I just don't agree with it. My tradition does not do 'hidden' Bible readings, even though it is credited with a heavily metaphorical hermeneutic tradition. Metaphor is not the same as being hidden. Christ Himself spoke difficult sayings that were not easily understood upon their initial reception, but what He did not do is deliver 'secret teachings' a la Gnostic gospels like those the Gnostics accredited to Thomas and others. That's why such things are not in the Bible today. HH St. Athanasius the Apostolic, who established the NT canon in 367 AD, specifically says that there is no room in the Christian Biblical canon for such things.

That is why always seeking the founding fathers as our final answer can land us clinging to a spear that was once effectual, but more is needed to be understood today to secure victory.

No, I don't agree. I don't agree with that at all. As an Orthodox Christian, this idea of 'development of doctrine' strikes me as deeply troubling and heretical. Go talk to a Roman Catholic about that. You may not realize it as you continuously criticize their Church, but you are now following their line with this kind of thinking, as shown in the writings of people like Catholic convert (Blessed?) John Henry Newman.

So...congratulations: You are what you disagree with.

Doctrines should be built upon previous doctrine.

What we have been given by our fathers is sufficient. There is nothing that the Church cannot answer.

What was once swords and spears as the means to securing a past people's nation is not to be done today with the same weapons.

Sure, if you mean adaptation to local circumstances and times. Like in my diocese in the Southwest of the U.S., HG Bishop Youssef declared years ago that English is to be the primary language of all liturgies, as the Church is to be open to the world, and not an ethnic museum. That's how they got people like me to show up in the first place. (Well played, Sayedna.) I'm not an ethnic Egyptian, and have no ties to their culture.

The key is that in any case it be the same faith that is preached here as is preached in Egypt, in Sudan, in Libya, in Ethiopia, in Iraq, in Syria, in Armenia, etc. And that faith is the same faith as that which was brought to all those places by the apostles themselves and their direct descendants, the bishops (e.g., HH St. Athanasius the Apostolic first sent bishops to the Nubian territories -- what is now Sudan -- in the 340s). The faith itself does not 'change with the times', as it is perfect, being authored and perfected by Jesus Christ, our Lord, God, and Savior. Only the means of delivering it may change, and even then only in ways which are acceptable when measured against what we already do, just as the apostle St. Paul himself was not instantly accepted by the other apostles (having previously been a persecutor of the Church), but first had to show that the message he preached was the same as what the apostles were already preaching. That's why our Lord Jesus Christ told him in his vision that he was to go into the city and meet the already-existing believers there. Your "I can do it myself" approach to Christianity is deeply anti-Biblical.

Yet? Religion keeps wanting us marching with swords and spears. Christianity is living and progresses.

Ughhhh. Christianity is a religion. Get over it. I hate this new age nonsense! "Oh, it's not a religion! It's a relationship!" Yeah, and why can't it be a religion? "Because...religion is bad..." "Why?" "Because...something something something (it's 'rigid', it 'tells you want to do', etc. ALL OF WHICH CAN BE SAID ABOUT CHRISTIANITY AS PREACHED BY CHRIST. HE DIDN'T FOUND AN 'ANIMAL HOUSE' STYLE FRATERNITY. HE FOUNDED HIS CHURCH, AND TOLD IT WHAT TO DO.)

Ahem. Excuse me.

It appreciates the past victories of brave believers who used the Bible as the means for advancing.

And before the Bible? What then? You seem to have completely glossed over my point about the Christian religion being pre-Biblical. I guess for you there was no Church before 367 AD, then. How sad for you to have missed the founding of monasticism, the ante-Nicene fathers, the first ecumenical council, and all of these other things that are milestones in the actual history of the Christian faith.

Like Martin Luther found himself forced to do with the Catholic church. He really had no choice. For he saw what the Scriptures contain. Truths that the RCC wished to deny, suppress, and oppress. Religion does that. Oppresses and suppresses thought where it should not be.

I don't mean to be rude, but it seems like you should be having this conversation with a Roman Catholic. This is 1,500 years (give or take) after the founding of the Church, and really has nothing to do with anything. Protestants didn't even arrive to Egypt until the 1850s, and when they met with the preexisting Church and Christians there, one of the leaders (the bishop of Asyut) asked them "Our people have been living with Christ for nearly 2,000 years; how long have your people been living with Him?"

You have no frame of reference from which to challenge what has been established, and you attempting to do so now by using what has been established against the very people who gave you the scriptures that you have so unwisely weaponized. It has not worked for the past ~200 years in the East, nor for the past 500 in the West, so I don't know why you'd think it would work now, on this messageboard. It won't. Your message is just downright foolish. It's malformed and shows that whatever movement you are trying to get going will be nothing but another parasitic assembly, attempting feed off the host it nevertheless rages against, and being brushed off or picked out and squished to death just as easily. Goodbye, anti-Biblical parasite. We have no need for this, as we do all things in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and this is as we were taught by God Himself before there was anything we could call 'the Bible'. That is all we need.

 

[GenemZ]

They would be over, but today there still remain those who are essentially Arians ('Oneness Pentecostals', Mormons, etc.), Modalists, etc. And people like you, who have a Gnostic approach to Christianity.

You can not stop that from happening. Paul could not. Peter could not. What are you going to do? Burn them at the stake? Have an Inquisition and torture them into conformity?

"In the first place, I hear that when you come together
as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some
extent I believe it. No doubt there have to be factions among
you to show which of you have God’s approval." 1 Cor 11:18-19​

Those with God's approval will be the humble believers. The ones who understand how to be filled with the Spirit. The religious ones are filled with themselves.

God wants those believers who are walking in grace and truth to be stand out in contrast to those who walk after their own personal, subjective. Jesus. They walk after their flesh. After their pride. For angels are caused to witness to how God's grace works and is manifested in the church. In such allowed freedom, its ultimately revealed there is no excuse for accepting the false.

For by God's grace even a person of average IQ (when filled with the Spirit guiding him) can be made to be able to comprehend even the deepest doctrinal truths given by God's Word. Why would God have this conflict on open display before angels?

Some fallen angels made excuses that they were too dumb to know better. God proves them wrong by providing the freedom amongst believers to choose how they will place themselves into God's provision.. Grace? Or, into religion?

Satan created the first religion. His angels in arrogance were obedient followers. Satan demands obedience! Not, faith. he will call their obedience "faith." On the other side of the coin.. God's angels who were not the brightest, knew better and stayed loyal with the Lord. By grace!

All this confusion that the RCC went about murdering dissenters over is really God teaching angels that what we end up becoming? Does not depend on our natural abilities. But on His grace alone. Or, clinging to our own self in our desired way it should be. Religion thrives on imposed dogmatic fantasy that demands others accept it as truth.

So be it. Its religion vs grace.

That is why there will always be false doctrines taught and divisions until the Lord returns.

 

[GenemZ]

Ughhhh. Christianity is a religion. Get over it. I hate this new age nonsense! "Oh, it's not a religion! It's a relationship!" Yeah, and why can't it be a religion? "Because...religion is bad..." "Why?" "Because...something something something (it's 'rigid', it 'tells you want to do', etc. ALL OF WHICH CAN BE SAID ABOUT CHRISTIANITY AS PREACHED BY CHRIST. HE DIDN'T FOUND AN 'ANIMAL HOUSE' STYLE FRATERNITY. HE FOUNDED HIS CHURCH, AND TOLD IT WHAT TO DO.)

Religion = Man devising a system to fulfill, as to gain the approval of God. (saved by works ultimately.)

Christianity was God fulfilling His own system of required Justice that restores man back to the relationship God always intended for man.

 

[☦Marius☦]

What about the Wright Brothers? I am trying to fly a jet fighter and you are still wanting to live by their precepts that have been advanced upon... Not contradicted. Advanced upon.

The body of Christ did not stop growing and learning 1000 years ago. For those who are filled with the Spirit (not to be confused with what is called charismatics today) have been advancing in knowledge and understanding. Just like a person advances in his own life and does not quote his first grade teacher for all he must know today.

Religion worships images. Images of the past that were only foundational, not the final step in knowledge and understanding. Muslims have done that. They live locked in what was in the past and become stuck in a time warp in their thinking. Religion.

You can't make the claim that people aren't contradicting the fathers when their teachings are completely different then what they taught. It's not progression, it's invention. The Wright Brothers weren't dealing with dogmatic issues, truth doesnt change over time. The Holy Spirit doesn't change, God doesn't change. The teachings of the Father's and Apostles are eternal.

 

[☦Marius☦]

Religion = Man devising a system to fulfill, as to gain the approval of God. (saved by works ultimately.)

Christianity was God fulfilling His own system of required Justice that restores man back to the relationship God always intended for man.

Both works and faith are required for salvation. Religion is a system of beliefs, not necessarily man made. Evangelical attempts to redifine the word to suit their own progressive agenda doesn't change that.

 

[GenemZ]

You can't make the claim that people aren't contradicting the fathers when their teachings are completely different then what they taught. It's not progression, it's invention. The Wright Brothers weren't dealing with dogmatic issues, truth doesnt change over time. The Holy Spirit doesn't change, God doesn't change. The teachings of the Father's and Apostles are eternal.

The fathers? All the fathers?

Peter had this warning to his congregation. It was about what was about to take place as soon as he was gone...

Note what he tells them. It was to concern them, even at that early time in church history.


But there were also false prophets among the people,
just as there will be false teachers among you.
They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even
denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing
swift destruction on themselves. 2 Pet 2:1

I know you will most likely say it was some of the obvious heretics we all know about. But, when we find anyone teaching salvation by works? Salvation is perpetuated by partaking of the sacrament? Then one must be made aware that Peter said these type of teachers would position themselves in positions of authority. The only protection? Knowing what the Word of God contains with accuracy.

I do not accept by default anyone who was simply taught by the Apostles. That is why I must trust what is contained in the Word of God first. If I find that a founding father agreed with Scripture? Then I understand what his position was. Some of the early fathers I would not trust too much... Peter said to be cautious.

 

[☦Marius☦]

The fathers? All the fathers?

Peter had this warning to his congregation. It was about what was about to take place as soon as he was gone...

Note what he tells them. It was to concern them, even at that early time in church history.


But there were also false prophets among the people,
just as there will be false teachers among you.
They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even
denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing
swift destruction on themselves. 2 Pet 2:1

I know you will most likely say it was some of the obvious heretics we all know about. But, when we find anyone teaching salvation by works? Salvation is perpetuated by partaking of the sacrament? Then one must be made aware that Peter said these type of teachers would position themselves in positions of authority. The only protection? Knowing what the Word of God contains with accuracy.

I do not accept by default anyone who was simply taught by the Apostles. That is why I must trust what is contained in the Word of God first. If I find that a founding father agreed with Scripture? Then I understand what his position was. Some of the early fathers I would not trust too much... Peter said to be cautious.

The fathers were the ones accepted as following the teachings of the Apostles, the ones who were successors of the Apostles chosen by them as trustworthy, and the successors of those. There's more to being a church father then simply being old. If you've actually studied the fathers, you would be able to recognize the difference between them and the various heretics that plagued the early church. (and were cast from it)

Partaking of a sacrament isn't just a work, to actually save it has to been done with faith and in prayer. Notice the warnings to those not properly partaking of communion? They got sick and died. Works and faith are inseparable, and I don't know of any church Father's who taught otherwise.

 

[☦Marius☦]

The fathers? All the fathers?

Peter had this warning to his congregation. It was about what was about to take place as soon as he was gone...

Note what he tells them. It was to concern them, even at that early time in church history.


But there were also false prophets among the people,
just as there will be false teachers among you.
They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even
denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing
swift destruction on themselves. 2 Pet 2:1

I know you will most likely say it was some of the obvious heretics we all know about. But, when we find anyone teaching salvation by works? Salvation is perpetuated by partaking of the sacrament? Then one must be made aware that Peter said these type of teachers would position themselves in positions of authority. The only protection? Knowing what the Word of God contains with accuracy.

I do not accept by default anyone who was simply taught by the Apostles. That is why I must trust what is contained in the Word of God first. If I find that a founding father agreed with Scripture? Then I understand what his position was. Some of the early fathers I would not trust too much... Peter said to be cautious.

The real problem is people judging the Father's based on their own personal standards based on what they like and want. Not comfortable with Church authority? Reject that father despite Hebrews backing up their claims. Not comfortable with the real presence then you would have to reject most of the fathers despite the gospels and epistles backing up their claims. This can be done with anything and it is a slippery slope.

All the Church fathers should be accepted because they are church fathers primarily on the validity of their teachings, the miracles they did, and for many, their witness of martyrdom. Take Ignatius--Polycarp, a Bishop Paul speaks highly of, tells his flock to trust Ignatius. I trust Paul's judgement of Polycarp and therefore Ignatius. That is why apostolic succession is so important.

 

[GenemZ]

Both works and faith are required for salvation. Religion is a system of beliefs, not necessarily man made. Evangelical attempts to redifine the word to suit their own progressive agenda doesn't change that.

Faith is required to be saved. Works are required (as fruit) to reveal overtly that one has been saved. Carnal Christians have not yet gotten to the point where works designated by the Spirit's filling will be made manifest.

For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus
to do good works, which God prepared in advance
for us to do. Ephesians 2:10​

We must mature in Christ to discover ourselves doing works that God has chosen for us to do. Not doing works from some church program that designates certain works being the same for everyone. The works God assigns will be unique to each one of us.

Religion leading the religious needs to be told what works to do. For they are not Spirit led. In contrast to religion, Grace sometimes needs us to have our eyes opened to the fact that God led us to a place where a work was performed. For, works will flow naturally from a transformed soul.

Religion demands conformity to its devised system which will designate works it says a believer must do. Grace demands that we are to keep growing in knowledge of God's Word, in the Spirit's power. A power that will transform us more and more into the image of Christ.

Such a transformation? It will produce thinking and a power to accomplish what God wants us to do. A transformation in Divine power that will bring about one finding himself doing good works without looking for some good work to do.

Its a matter of Divine good (Grace instilled) vs human good (religion - legalism).

 

[GenemZ]

The real problem is people judging the Father's based on their own personal standards based on what they like and want. Not comfortable with Church authority? Reject that father despite Hebrews backing up their claims. Not comfortable with the real presence then you would have to reject most of the fathers despite the gospels and epistles backing up their claims. This can be done with anything and it is a slippery slope.

All the Church fathers should be accepted because they are church fathers primarily on the validity of their teachings, the miracles they did, and for many, their witness of martyrdom. Take Ignatius--Polycarp, a Bishop Paul speaks highly of, tells his flock to trust Ignatius. I trust Paul's judgement of Polycarp and therefore Ignatius. That is why apostolic succession is so important.

That is a non-issue. You seem to be setting up a straw man argument that says if you reject the present state of "the church?" That one is rejecting the teachings of the early church fathers.

Do you consider Origen to be one of the early fathers? Was he a valid candidate?

 

[charsan]

Again, the disease of "I can do it myself" is the death of the Church, even if you manage to gather many around that ethos.

Amen. It is the disease of many

 

[☦Marius☦]

Faith is required to be saved. Works are required (as fruit) to reveal overtly that one has been saved. Carnal Christians have not yet gotten to the point where works designated by the Spirit's filling will be made manifest.

For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus
to do good works, which God prepared in advance
for us to do. Ephesians 2:10​

We must mature in Christ to discover ourselves doing works that God has chosen for us to do. Not doing works from some church program that designates certain works being the same for everyone. The works God assigns will be unique to each one of us.

Religion leading the religious needs to be told what works to do. For they are not Spirit led. In contrast to religion, Grace sometimes needs us to have our eyes opened to the fact that God led us to a place where a work was performed. For, works will flow naturally from a transformed soul.

Religion demands conformity to its devised system which will designate works it says a believer must do. Grace demands that we are to keep growing in knowledge of God's Word, in the Spirit's power. A power that will transform us more and more into the image of Christ.

Such a transformation? It will produce thinking and a power to accomplish what God wants us to do. A transformation in Divine power that will bring about one finding himself doing good works without looking for some good work to do.

Its a matter of Divine good (Grace instilled) vs human good (religion - legalism).

James 2:14-26
14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? 26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.

 

[GenemZ]

James 2:14-26
14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?

Save him from what? Hell? Or from an evil wanting to take over his life?

There is eternal salvation. Done deal by faith in Christ. Which was a good work!

Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”

Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.” Jn 6:28-28​

That work saves us eternally.


Then after we are saved? And, yet remain on this fallen planet?

Then enters Ephesians 2:10!

"For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good
works, which God prepared in advance for us to do."​

The works God would have us to do will save us from others desiring to condemn our faith. Which is what James was dealing with with the cowardly Jewish believers afraid of the persecution taking place in Jerusalem among believers being boycotted by the religious Jews.

Among other things, God has assigned for us works that he planned for us to do!

Abraham was given a work of offering up his only son, Isaac. Abraham was given the work of leaving his comfortable home and leaving to live in another land. Are we all to do the same works? God has assigned each one of us a series of works that he planned for us to perform. They can not take place unless we mature as believers. Anyone can give up some food for lent. That does not require faith even. Simply a desire to win the approbation of others by proving you can do it.

 

[☦Marius☦]

That is a non-issue. You seem to be setting up a straw man argument that says if you reject the present state of "the church?" That one is rejecting the teachings of the early church fathers.

Do you consider Origen to be one of the early fathers? Was he a valid candidate?

You can't say something is a non issue just because you don't like the subject. I consider the Orthodox Church the present state of "The Church" and since we haven't changed any major teachings since the 7th century I think we can rightfully say we follow the church fathers.

Origin is considered a father though many of his teachings are not considered Canon after a certain point because he left the church. He is one of the few exceptions to the general rule. His pre excommunication teachings are accepted however.

 

[GenemZ]

You can't say something is a non issue just because you don't like the subject. I consider the Orthodox Church the present state of "The Church" and since we haven't changed any major teachings since the 7th century I think we can rightfully say we follow the church fathers.

Not changing is a good thing if the teachings are truth. Not growing in more understanding is not a good thing.

 

[☦Marius☦]

Save him from what? Hell? Or from an evil wanting to take over his life?

There is eternal salvation. Done deal by faith in Christ. Which was a good work!

Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”

Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.” Jn 6:28-28​

That work saves us eternally.


Then after we are saved? And, yet remain on this fallen planet?

Then enters Ephesians 2:10!

"For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good
works, which God prepared in advance for us to do."​

The works God would have us to do will save us from others desiring to condemn our faith. Which is what James was dealing with with the cowardly Jewish believers afraid of the persecution taking place in Jerusalem among believers being boycotted by the religious Jews.

Among other things, God has assigned for us works that he planned for us to do!

Abraham was given a work of offering up his only son, Isaac. Abraham was given the work of leaving his comfortable home and leaving to live in another land. Are we all to do the same works? God has assigned each one of us a series of works that he planned for us to perform. They can not take place unless we mature as believers. Anyone can give up some food for lent. That does not require faith even. Simply a desire to win the approbation of others by proving you can do it.

Faith without works is DEAD. Dead faith cannot save. Therefore works and faith are required for salvation. What does scripture also say? If someone wants to be saved he must be baptized. That is a work of faith. True there are exceptions to that rule if the person is not able, but that is rare.