Protestants explanation of this verse(s), Part 1

[Rdr Iakovos]

Denomination:

1. A large group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy.

See the qualifiers "single adminstrative and legal hierarchy?"

I see them. As I stated clearly before, we do not have a single adminstration and hierarchy.

And just because someone did it 1700 years ago makes it correct?

It makes it historically verfiable, which is what I said. Why do you insist on changing the ground of the argument? It doesn't seem that you engage in good faith.

So, you both believe the same thing, but don't agree on it?

I made it quite clear that 'unbroken' is not synonymous with 'unchanged.'

Which means you believe your denomination holds a higher and fuller truth then what I know as truth.

Well, for one, we know what a denomination is and is not.

I am not qualified to definitively judge what you believe to be truth, nor how well you've apprehended truth.

Great, so admit, that it is very possible that Christ's true Church could be ALL believers and not just a single group/denomination that adheres to certain doctrines and tradition, just as long as they have the common belief in Jesus's death and resurrection.

Mormons believe in Christ's death and resurrection, as do JWs- yet you would make haste to shove them out of this picture. Why? Because ultimately, you want Church to mean what you think it means. All I can tell you is that I will not say where God is not, for I cannot. I also have no way of saying definitively what sort of crafts are floating alongside the Ark of the Church, and whether they're seaworthy.

Those who are Trinitarian, those who administer the mysteries (sacraments)with some degree of reverence for the Real Presence, those who maintain some sense of episcopal order and fealty to biblical morality, those who hold the holy scriptures to be of Divine Inspiration, the measure of truth (kanona), those who worship God liturgically, in the manner of the early Church- each of these is holding fast to a measure of truth and ecclesiastic order.

The rest are something else altogether, not mine to say or be concerned about.

But wait, doesn't your denomination say it is the one true Church of Christ?

We say we are the Church that began at Pentecost. The other modifiers are yours.

How very odd.

Odd, to be humble enough to recognize one's limitations? I don't know, seems quite sensible to me.

Your greatest influence should be God. I've decide to place my life and future into His hands and to let Him guide me. I don't follow a set of doctrines or certain dogmas that could hender my interpretation of His word.

Good for you. Aside from being Mighty and Holy, He is humble and kind, worthy of being followed to the death and beyond.

Prove to me that they were united under the same doctrines and dogmas.

"Doctrines and dogmas"- now that's a loaded statement. I think what you want to know is 'can we be sure that John was an Apostle and Bishop to them?'
Absolutely, scripture earmarks John as an Apostle, and there are historical records that confirm his presence in Asia Minor. You do know where Patmos is, yes?

Regarding their fealty to "the Apostles' Doctrine and Teaching," this is another matter. The Ephesians were commended by Paul. The other Churches all fall into the province of Galatia, where apparently there was a great deal of Judaizing going on. Nonetheless, it is clear from Paul's letters in 50-62 AD, followed by John's letter (Revelation is a letter) in ca 90-95 AD, apostolic oversight continued in those regions.

But why don't you go ahead and research the matter for yourself, that you might be fully convinced in your own mind in this matter.

I believe you are part of a denomination, read the definition I provided above.

You've been proven wrong, but are quite apparently interested in arguing. I therefore will not respond on this matter further, for the sake of peace on this forum.
Peace, and be well.
Iakovos

 

[tall73]

James 5:14-15 Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; (15) and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he willbe forgiven.

I think it is straight-forward. The elders should be called, to pray, and the person who is sick will be healed. He should confess his sins and will be forgiven.

I have no problem with Elders being involved. Their very qualification according to the description in Paul's letters to Timothy and Titus is righteousness. The prayer of a righteous man availeth much, as the context reveals.

I have no problem with confession to one aother, especially so that we can pray for one another.

I have no problem with healing.

 

[racer]

Don't know what happened here. :o It was supposed to be a new thread.

 

[racer]

Here is how Augustine applied the power to forgive sins:

St. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book I

Chapter 18 - The keys given to the Church He has given, therefore, the keys to His Church, that whatsoever it should bind on earth might be bound in heaven, and whatsoever it should loose on earth might be loosed in heaven; that is to say, that whosoever in the Church should not believe that his sins are remitted, they should not be remitted to him; but that whosoever should believe, and should repent, and turn from his sins, should be saved by the same faith and repentance on the ground of which he is received into the bosom of the Church. For he who does not believe that his sins can be pardoned, falls into despair, and becomes worse, as if no greater good remained for him than to be evil, when he has ceased to have faith in the results of his own repentance.

See how forgiveness is determined, purely upon the belief and repentence of the person being forgiven. In other words if I seek forgiveness and turn away from my sins, the Church is then bound to accept me--unless, I give them some reason to doubt my sincerity. This has nothing to do with any special power or authority. It has to do with "recognition."

 

[Nickolai]

Here is how Augustine applied the power to forgive sins:

St. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book I

Chapter 18 - The keys given to the Church He has given, therefore, the keys to His Church, that whatsoever it should bind on earth might be bound in heaven, and whatsoever it should loose on earth might be loosed in heaven; that is to say, that whosoever in the Church should not believe that his sins are remitted, they should not be remitted to him; but that whosoever should believe, and should repent, and turn from his sins, should be saved by the same faith and repentance on the ground of which he is received into the bosom of the Church. For he who does not believe that his sins can be pardoned, falls into despair, and becomes worse, as if no greater good remained for him than to be evil, when he has ceased to have faith in the results of his own repentance.

See how forgiveness is determined, purely upon the belief and repentence of the person being forgiven. In other words if I seek forgiveness and turn away from my sins, the Church is then bound to accept me--unless, I give them some reason to doubt my sincerity. This has nothing to do with any special power or authority. It has to do with "recognition."

Do you really want to take one quote by a Church Father, that we know to have not been completly correct in everything he wrote, and use said quote to try and negate what the rest of the consensus of the Fathers say?

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Here is how Augustine applied the power to forgive sins:

St. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book I

Chapter 18 - The keys given to the ChurchHe has given, therefore, the keys to His Church, that whatsoever it should bind on earth might be bound in heaven, and whatsoever it should loose on earth might be loosed in heaven; that is to say, that whosoever in the Church should not believe that his sins are remitted, they should not be remitted to him; but that whosoever should believe, and should repent, and turn from his sins, should be saved by the same faith and repentance on the ground of which he is received into the bosom of the Church. For he who does not believe that his sins can be pardoned, falls into despair, and becomes worse, as if no greater good remained for him than to be evil, when he has ceased to have faith in the results of his own repentance.

See how forgiveness is determined, purely upon the belief and repentence of the person being forgiven. In other words if I seek forgiveness and turn away from my sins, the Church is then bound to accept me--unless, I give them some reason to doubt my sincerity. This has nothing to do with any special power or authority. It has to do with "recognition."

Here Augustine soundly defeats the Donatists, who say that there is no repentance for those who have apostasied.

The Church must receive the penitent, contra Donatist.
And yes, the faith and repentance of the penitent are sufficient cause to receive them back into the Church.

Now let's try a small experiment here:

but that whosoever should believe, and should repent, and turn from his sins, should be saved by the same faith and repentance on the ground of which he is received into the bosom of the Church.

Note how I changed the emphasis/underline. You see, in the first centuries of the Church, apostasy was always understood as betraying and leaving the Church- and forgiveness always involved reuniting them to the Church. This was done through confession and return to Eucharist.

But let us quickly add that it is God who forgives. In Orthodox practice, confession is not to the Priest, it is with the Priest, who stands as a brother/witness as the penitent confesses to Christ.

 

[Asinner]

The Priest is not a Vicar of Christ in Orthodox confession.

Yes. He is the innkeeper (Parable of the Good Samaritan).

God Bless

 

[Jig]

See the qualifiers "single adminstrative and legal hierarchy?"

From Wikipedia: Eastern Orthodox Church organization: The Eastern Orthodox Church is a communion comprising the collective body of fourteen or fifteen separate autocephalous hierarchical churches.

Autocephalous: In hierarchical Christian churches, especially Eastern Orthodox churches, autocephaly is the status of a hierarchical church whose head bishop does not report to any higher-ranking bishop.

Does not each seperate autocephalous church within your organization, considered an individual denomination?

I see them. As I stated clearly before, we do not have a single adminstration and hierarchy.

Yet, the church you go to now is part of a autocephaly, which in it self has a hierarchical set up and a single head bishop who holds the adminstrative powers. I gues, it would have been better for me to say, the EO Church is a bunch of denominations in one.

It makes it historically verfiable, which is what I said.

And like I said, that doesn't make it correct.

Well, for one, we know what a denomination is and is not.

Yup.

I am not qualified to definitively judge what you believe to be truth, nor how well you've apprehended truth.

Couldn't you say the same about the early church fathers?

Mormons believe in Christ's death and resurrection, as do JWs- yet you would make haste to shove them out of this picture. Why? Because ultimately, you want Church to mean what you think it means. All I can tell you is that I will not say where God is not, for I cannot. I also have no way of saying definitively what sort of crafts are floating alongside the Ark of the Church, and whether they're seaworthy.

OH, please...JW don't believe in the Jesus we believe in. They might get their infomation from scripture, but the Jesus they praise IS NOT God.

We say we are the Church that began at Pentecost. The other modifiers are yours.

I could say the same about you.

Odd, to be humble enough to recognize one's limitations? I don't know, seems quite sensible to me.

That's not why I was saying it was 'odd' thanks for putting words in my mouth.

You've been proven wrong, but are quite apparently interested in arguing. I therefore will not respond on this matter further, for the sake of peace on this forum.
Peace, and be well.
Iakovos

All we've been doing is debating. Look where you are posting...if you don't want debate, may I suggest posting in a place where everyone is of your faith.

 

[racer]

Here Augustine soundly defeats the Donatists, who say that there is no repentance for those who have apostasied.

The Church must receive the penitent, contra Donatist.
And yes, the faith and repentance of the penitent are sufficient cause to receive them back into the Church.

Now let's try a small experiment here:

but that whosoever should believe, and should repent, and turn from his sins, should be saved by the same faith and repentance on the ground of which he is received into the bosom of the Church.

Note how I changed the emphasis/underline. You see, in the first centuries of the Church, apostasy was always understood as betraying and leaving the Church- and forgiveness always involved reuniting them to the Church. This was done through confession and return to Eucharist.

But let us quickly add that it is God who forgives. In Orthodox practice, confession is not to the Priest, it is with the Priest, who stands as a brother/witness as the penitent confesses to Christ.

He clearly states that whether or not the Church forgives a man of his sins is based upon whether or not a man repents, seeks forgiveness and turns away from sin, as well as this man's belief in his own repentence. The "church" is subject to the persons "personal" belief in his own repentence and forgivenss.

What kind of authority is that?

 

[racer]

Do you really want to take one quote by a Church Father, that we know to have not been completly correct in everything he wrote, and use said quote to try and negate what the rest of the consensus of the Fathers say?

Oh let me guess, you're not Catholic?

Now, my question to you: Do you really think that is my intention?

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Oh let me guess, you're not Catholic?

Now, my question to you: Do you really think that is my intention?

No one can surmise your intention from aa few words on the internet. What we can surmise is what the result is of what you have said. Looking at the prior post, addressed to me, you said that, based upon a singular point that Augustine made, the Church is subjected to the subjective experience of the penitent.

That is doing pretty much this
Do you really want to take one quote by a Church Father, that we know to have not been completly correct in everything he wrote, and use said quote to try and negate what the rest of the consensus of the Fathers say?

The rest of what the Fathers have to say, in consensus, regarding Church discipline, repentance, restoration to the Body, and so forth, you cannot negate by taking one key point- again, addressed to those who would say that one cannot repent of apostasy(Donatists)- and use it to say that the Church has no authority because it must accept the returning prodigals.

I'd say, IMHO, that Nickolai's question is spot-on regarding your reply to me, at any rate.
James