Sanctification - Justification - Redemption

[redleghunter]

Hence it has been rejected by all of the apostolic churches.

You mean the self-proclaimed apostolic churches. Yet still waiting for that ecumenical council which condemns Reformed theology.

You won't have to go far as there has not been an ecumenical council since the Eastern Church, in disobedience to their Pope in Rome, left the Catholic church.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Ok, so in your theology salvation is not by Grace and free gift. You have to pay the landlord a certain amount to stay in the house. Did I get that right?

No you didn’t get that right. The wages of sin is death not works. No amount of works can ever make us justified by God. Salvation can only be obtain by God’s grace but as God always has since creation had expectations of those who are His children. It was because of our disobedience to begin with that we are in need of grace. Once a person has been justified those expectations have not ceased. Obedience is still and always will be expected. Do you think we receive God’s grace while retaining our sinful nature? Are we born again into that same sinful nature? Of course not. Some people get the idea that once we are born again we are transformed into a new creation and we can do no wrong anymore. If that were true there would be no need for any warnings about sin in the Bible because all Christians would never sin. But every born again Christian still sins of their own free will.

 

[Oldmantook]

Ok, so in your theology salvation is not by Grace and free gift. You have to pay the landlord a certain amount to stay in the house. Did I get that right?

Why do you suppose Scripture talks about persevering and being an overcomer? Do you just start the race or do you finish it? Do you just give up the fight or fight the good fight? Salvation is a free gift but in order to keep it, one must remain faithful and obedient. One must not only believe (Jn 3:16) but also obey (Heb 5:9).

 

[BNR32FAN]

I'll try again. Which ecumenical council. The above is not from an ecumenical council.

Yes I agree it was not an actual ecumenical council it was a local council which the entire Orthodox Church supports its decision.

 

[BNR32FAN]

You mean the self-proclaimed apostolic churches. Yet still waiting for that ecumenical council which condemns Reformed theology.

You won't have to go far as there has not been an ecumenical council since the Eastern Church, in disobedience to their Pope in Rome, left the Catholic church.

You have no idea what your talking about. Do you know anything about the pentarchy at all? If not I suggest you look at up and while your it it you might want to look up the east west schism of 1054 and get your facts straight before you discuss such matters. There was no pope before 1054AD.

https://www.britannica.com/eventSchism-of-1054


Pentarchy | Christianity

 

[redleghunter]

Why do you suppose Scripture talks about persevering and being an overcomer?

Perhaps it has something to do with adoption?

 

[redleghunter]

Yes I agree it was not an actual ecumenical council it was a local council which the entire Orthodox Church supports its decision.

But the Roman Pontiff and his bishops were not there. So can't be ecumenical.

 

[redleghunter]

You have no idea what your talking about. Do you know anything about the pentarchy at all? If not I suggest you look at up and while your at it you might want to look up the east west schism of 1054 and get your facts straight before you discuss such matters. There was no pope before 1054AD.

Know it well. I was raised and educated in Catholic schools. 1054 was the first Protestant revolt.

 

[BNR32FAN]

But the Roman Pontiff and his bishops were not there. So can't be ecumenical.

You really need to read the links I posted from Britanica.com. Rome was excommunicated from the Catholic Church in 1054AD

 

[BNR32FAN]

Know it well. I was raised and educated in Catholic schools. 1054 was the first Protestant revolt.

Who were the bishops of the pentarchy? What churches were they of?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Know it well. I was raised and educated in Catholic schools. 1054 was the first Protestant revolt.

Roman Catholic schools?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Know it well. I was raised and educated in Catholic schools. 1054 was the first Protestant revolt.

Ya know what I’ll just go ahead and explain it. Short version. There were 5 head bishops known as the pentarchy that governed the churches in their jurisdiction. They were the bishops of Antioch, Constantinople, Rome, Alexandria, and Jerusalem. The bishop of Constantinople claims he excommunicated Rome. The bishop of Rome claims he excommunicated all four of the other bishops. All four of the pentarchy bishops sided against Rome and adopted the name Orthodox meaning traditional. You see the way it works in a council is the majority decides not the minority or the single person. Rome was completely alone in their claim of papal supremacy. One head bishop can’t excommunicate all the others but all the others can excommunicate the one. Hence Rome was excommunicated in 1054AD.

 

[redleghunter]

Roman Catholic schools?

Where I was raised there were no others.

 

[redleghunter]

Ya know what I’ll just go ahead and explain it. Short version. There were 5 head bishops known as the pentarchy that governed the churches in their jurisdiction. They were the bishops of Antioch, Constantinople, Rome, Alexandria, and Jerusalem. The bishop of Constantinople claims he excommunicated Rome. The bishop of Rome claims he excommunicated all four of the other bishops. All four of the pentarchy bishops sided against Rome and adopted the name Orthodox meaning traditional. You see the way it works in a council is the majority decides not the minority or the single person. Rome was completely alone in their claim of papal supremacy. One head bishop can’t excommunicate all the others but all the others can excommunicate the one. Hence Rome was excommunicated in 1054AD.

Again, I know the history. But back then there was only one Pope and the other patriarchs rebelled against the Pope.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Again, I know the history. But back then there was only one Pope and the other patriarchs rebelled against the Pope.

That’s simply not true at all. Did you read anything about the role of the pentarchy bishops? Notice I did not choose some random website to quote as my source. I chose a secular organization who has a well know reputation for only presenting the facts. Britanica is admissible as evidence in courts of law in many countries around the world. I chose them because they are not biased either towards or against either side of the argument and because of their reputation.

 

[redleghunter]

That’s simply not true at all. Did you read anything about the role of the pentarchy bishops? Notice I did not choose some random website to quote as my source. I chose a secular organization who has a well know reputation for only presenting the facts. Britanica is admissible as evidence in courts of law in many countries around the world. I chose them because they are not biased either towards or against either side of the argument and because of their reputation.

Well I have to say the Western church sees it quite differently. Sure there was a lot of corruption and political intrigue on both sides, but when the Western church wrote their history, it comes out the Eastern church is in rebellion to the Papacy.

Now as a Protestant, I see why the Eastern church did that.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Well I have to say the Western church sees it quite differently. Sure there was a lot of corruption and political intrigue on both sides, but when the Western church wrote their history, it comes out the Eastern church is in rebellion to the Papacy.

Now as a Protestant, I see why the Eastern church did that.

Look at the history of the Orthodox Church. Where’s the corruption? I can’t find a single skeleton in their closet and I’ve really looked. Look what happened to Rome just 130 years after the schism. 1054 the schism happened 1184 was the official beginning of the inquisitions which lasted 686 years. Personally I believe it may have unofficially started earlier but 1184 is when the official decree was sanctioned by the pope of Rome. The inquisitions is a huge red flag signifying the corruption in the Roman church at that time. It was during that time that they invented the doctrine of purgatory in 1439 at the council of Florence. The Orthodox Church rejected it and had no part in any of the inquisitions. I will say that the Orthodox Church does believe it is possible that we may undergo a purification of our sinful nature in such a place similar place. But they reject that it would be for the remission of sin and this is not a doctrine but simply they consider to be a possibility. To me the 4 patriarchal bishops siding against the one patriarchal bishop and the actions of both parties appear to present strong evidence in favor of the Orthodox side of the story.

 

[Oldmantook]

Perhaps it has something to do with adoption?

So if adoption, then one is required to persevere in the faith and overcome correct?

 

[JIMINZ]

Do you think we receive God’s grace while retaining our sinful nature?

Of course not, through Baptism a Believer becomes Born Again, he is at that moment Transformed.......Into a New Creature, this is so basic, I would have thought you would have read it by now, here it is for you below.

2 Cor. 5:17
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Gal. 6:15
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

Are we born again into that same sinful nature? Of course not. Some people get the idea that once we are born again we are transformed into a new creation and we can do no wrong anymore. If that were true there would be no need for any warnings about sin in the Bible because all Christians would never sin. But every born again Christian still sins of their own free will.

1 Jn. 3:6
Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

1 Jn. 3:9
Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

Rom 6:1,2
1) What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

But every born again Christian still sins of their own free will.

Rom 8:3
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

Did you get that, SIN IN THE FLESH, has been destroyed.

Rom 8:4
That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us,
who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

1 Jn. 3:4
Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law:
for sin is the transgression of the law.

Rom. 4:15
Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

 

[redleghunter]

Look at the history of the Orthodox Church. Where’s the corruption? I can’t find a single skeleton in their closet and I’ve really looked.

No but as some Roman Catholics see it (saw it here a few times) the East was always the hotbed for the early church heresies. Other than Pelagius and Pelagianism (he was a British monk I think), I do believe the major early heresies were in the East bantered around the court of the Emperor.

Case in point Arianism came from teh Alexandrian school.

Theodotus of Byzantium and Adoptionism. Pope Victor condemned this heresy.

Apollinarianism was the heresy taught by Apollinaris the Younger, bishop of Laodicea in Syria about 361.

I will note the some of best champions of the Faith also came from the East.