Why is there so much hate in fundamentalism toward Catholics and Orthodox

[DeaconDean]

Of course it is wrong. I'm sorry and I don't mean to be rude, but that is neither the traditional understanding from the very beginning of the Christian faith nor is it in line with the Covenant of God and how He deals with us in a covenant paradigm.

Salvation is being made part of the Covenant Kingdom. In the Old Covenant, we see that the worst curse that could be placed upon a man was that he was "cut off from his people." That is because salvation is corporate, not individual. Salvation is being brought into the Kingdom as a member of the covenant.

And how was that done in the Old Covenant? Circumcision. It made the one being circumcised to be part of the Kingdom of God, which at that time was National Israel.

In continuing along that same principle, baptism replaced circumcision as the ritual of covenant entrance.

Also, salvation is not a "once and done deal" as Evangelicalism teaches. Salvation is a journey, a trek into becoming more and more like Christ. In the Orthodox Church we call this "theosis." The Romans call it "divinization" but it means the same thing - being changed into His likeness more and more and more. Ultimate salvation is nothing less than union with God, which is achieved not by some legal decree of "Not Guilty" in the courts of heaven (Augustine's soteriological idea as refined by the Medieval Catholic Church and Protestantism, i.e. "forensic justification) but by what St. Paul said "putting off the old man of sin and putting on the new man created in Christ." It is an eternity long process which begins here by being made part of the Kingdom by baptism into the covenant.

The people of Christ are covenant people. Jesus said "This is the New Covenant in my Blood." The word covenant is mentioned over 300 times in the Bible, making it a very important principle. Therefore, since our salvation is covenant in nature, it must follow the principles of a covenant.

Go to Amazon and find the book THE DANCE OF ISAIAH by Patrick S. O'Hara. He does a pretty good job of explaining this as a former Protestant turned Catholic.

Rom. 10:9-10 tells me what it means to become saved.

Secondly, I have no desire to read any book written by a former Protestant turn Catholic.

Fact is, I was saved in 1974 at an altar in a little church, I am now currently being saved, and at some point in the future, I will be saved.

I knew you would throw some sort of Catholicism into this.

Catholicism won't let it ever be as simple as believing by faith, and trusting in the Lord, as I have said.

Sad, truly sad.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[anna ~ grace]

Catholicism won't let it ever be as simple as believing by faith, and trusting in the Lord, as I have said.

Actually Sir, that is not quite true. What we do as a part of and within our having faith and trusting in the Lord is also viewed as a part of and a means of our salvation.

We have been saved, we are being saved, and we shall be saved (as you said), but by grace working in us, though us, on us, and within us as we become more and more like the Son of Man, as Light of the East said. It is a saving grace which works within, shines through, and reaches without.

 

[DeaconDean]

In continuing along that same principle, baptism replaced circumcision as the ritual of covenant entrance.

Also, salvation is not a "once and done deal" as Evangelicalism teaches. Salvation is a journey, a trek into becoming more and more like Christ. In the Orthodox Church we call this "theosis." The Romans call it "divinization" but it means the same thing - being changed into His likeness more and more and more. Ultimate salvation is nothing less than union with God, which is achieved not by some legal decree of "Not Guilty" in the courts of heaven (Augustine's soteriological idea as refined by the Medieval Catholic Church and Protestantism, i.e. "forensic justification) but by what St. Paul said "putting off the old man of sin and putting on the new man created in Christ." It is an eternity long process which begins here by being made part of the Kingdom by baptism into the covenant.

The people of Christ are covenant people. Jesus said "This is the New Covenant in my Blood." The word covenant is mentioned over 300 times in the Bible, making it a very important principle. Therefore, since our salvation is covenant in nature, it must follow the principles of a covenant.

In the first place, you cannot come in here and tell me that my Fundamentalist beliefs on salvation are wrong. That is against the rules.

I have not ever gone to your area, or the OBOB areas and told ya'll that your beliefs on salvation are wrong, so I thank you if you do not come here and tell me my view of salvation is wrong.

"And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." -Acts 16:30-31 (KJV)

"For by grace are ye saved through faith;" -Eph. 2:8 (KJV)

Secondly, I personally do not adhere to "Covenant Theology" as do Presbyterians.

Thirdly, as long as the thief on the cross is in scripture, there goes your theory on "baptism replacing the ritual of covenant theology".

You are partly right in some of what you said, however where your wrong is in your view on salvation. You said:

"Ultimate salvation is nothing less than union with God, which is achieved not by some legal decree of "Not Guilty" in the courts of heaven (Augustine's soteriological idea as refined by the Medieval Catholic Church and Protestantism, i.e. "forensic justification) but by what St. Paul said "putting off the old man of sin and putting on the new man created in Christ." It is an eternity long process which begins here by being made part of the Kingdom by baptism into the covenant."

Here, you have salvation and sanctification in the wrong places. Sanctification is a life long process, salvation is complete in Jesus Christ.

Fourthly, it is questionable, as to whether or not the Greek MSS originally had the word "new" in your proof text. Most textual criticism authors agree that it was added sometime later to bring Matthew and Mark into harmony with Luke. So until it is proven, your proof text is questionable.

Fifthly, at the Last Supper, there were no conditions placed on it. I.e.: baptism. In fact, scriptures records that that wasn't included until after the resurrection.

Sixthly, if "baptism" is as important as you place it, how come Paul, an Apostle, refused to perform it? Scripture only records that he baptized two individuals.

Seventh, as far as the "New Covenant' is concerned, to whom was the writer of Hebrews addressing?

"I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:" -Heb. 8:8 (KJV)

So there it is, like it or not, believe it or not. I don't care.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Actually Sir, that is not quite true. What we do as a part of and within our having faith and trusting in the Lord is also viewed as a part of and a means of our salvation.

We have been saved, we are being saved, and we shall be saved (as you said), but by grace working in us, though us, on us, and within us as we become more and more like the Son of Man, as Light of the East said. It is a saving grace which works within, shines through, and reaches without.

Here again, salvation is complete in Christ Jesus:

"And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:" -Col. 2:10 (KJV)

Sanctification is the lifelong process of being led by the Holy Spirit, whereby we are striving to become more Christ like in our lives.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[anna ~ grace]

Here again, salvation is complete in Christ Jesus:

"And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:" -Col. 2:10 (KJV)

Sanctification is the lifelong process of being led by the Holy Spirit, whereby we are striving to become more Christ like in our lives.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Hey, Sir. We would identify what many call sanctification *as* a part of the process of salvation itself. Hence (we'd argue) references in Scripture to enduring to the end, working out our salvation with fear and trembling, continuing in good works, and finishing the race. We see it as an ongoing walk, as opposed to a single event; to be sure our salvation begins with confessing and believing, but does not end there.

 

[DeaconDean]

Hey, Sir. We would identify what many call sanctification *as* a part of the process of salvation itself. Hence (we'd argue) references in Scripture to enduring to the end, working out our salvation with fear and trembling, continuing in good works, and finishing the race. We see it as an ongoing walk, as opposed to a single event; to be sure our salvation begins with confessing and believing, but does not end there.

Be that as it may, remember your in my area, and in this area, salvation and sanctification are two different things.

When Fundamentalism was coming into its own, most of what they said they believed came from Reformed Theology and Baptist theology.

Salvation and sanctification are two separate things.

"The Scriptures exhort to sanctification of the whole nature, both body and soul. See 2 Cor. 7:1; Eph. 4:17-24; Col. 3:5-10; 1 Thess. 5:23. That of the body alone is urged. The apostle tells the Ephesians about his prayers for their spiritual sanctification. Eph. 1:17-19.

4. It is not a sanctification to be completed in this life.

It is not, like justification, a single act, but is a continuous process. The work goes on throughout the lifetime of the believer, nor is it completed before death."

James P. Boyce, Abstract of Systematic Theology, 1858, Chapter 37, Sanctification.

Also, this principle of salvation first, sanctification second, is seen in the writing of "Consecration, By: Henry W. Frost."

"The first thing that I noticed in my study is, that consecration and sanctification are not one and the same thing. We are dealing, as I believe, with a verbally inspired Scripture, and I observe that the Spirit says, “consecrate and sanctify.” This signifies to me that consecration and sanctification — I speak from an experimental standpoint — are separate things. It is clear that they are closely connected, that one precedes the other and leads to the other, and that the other follows the one and results from that one. Indeed, one may truly say that they are inseparable. At the same time, consecration comes first and sanctification comes second. To put it in the form of a picture, consecration is the initial act of going through the outer door of a palace, and the subsequent acts of passing through other doors in the palace in order to occupy the whole and to reach the throne-room of the king; and sanctification is the palace itself, the whole of which is the home of the king, and where the king may be seen face to face. Or, to put it more simply and plainly, consecration is an initial act and many subsequent, similar acts; and sanctification is the consequent and resultant state."

Source

Sorry

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

I would also ask that you members of both EO and OBOB faith, to go back to your areas, enter my name in the search function and look and see just how many times in the 13 years I've been a member here, just how many times I've posted in your areas. And just exactly how many times I've been to your areas to tell you how wrong your views are.

Thank you.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Light of the East]

Secondly, I personally do not adhere to "Covenant Theology" as do Presbyterians.

Stop and think about what you just said. The word "covenant" appears in the Scriptures over 300 times. Jesus said "This is the New Covenant in my Blood." Yet you feel no compunction against ignoring these facts and choosing a salvation which appeals to you.

As for coming into our area and telling us our views are wrong, I kinda felt you threw down the gauntlet with your statement "Now I suppose you will tell me that I am wrong." Perhaps I misunderstood your intent, but that's how I read it.

If you are baptized, you are saved. The Sacrament is structured in such a way that it works, even for those who do not believe in it. That is God's mercy to all of us.

 

[Light of the East]

Thirdly, as long as the thief on the cross is in scripture, there goes your theory on "baptism replacing the ritual of covenant theology".

The thief was under the Old Covenant and already was a member of the Kingdom. The New Covenant and the New Covenant Kingdom did not start until Christ died and the veil of the Temple was rent into, signifying the end of the Old Covenant, since the Holiest of All was where the yearly sacrifice of Yom Kippur renewed the covenant every year. Without the Holiest of All to renew the covenant, the Old Covenant was done, and Hebrews 13: 8 says as much.

The four Gospels are still in the Old Covenant, even though they have been erroneously place in what is called "The New Testament." Until Christ died and that veil was torn asunder, the Old Covenant was still in place.

 

[DeaconDean]

Stop and think about what you just said. The word "covenant" appears in the Scriptures over 300 times. Jesus said "This is the New Covenant in my Blood." Yet you feel no compunction against ignoring these facts and choosing a salvation which appeals to you.

In the oldest of the Greek MSS, other than Luke, the other Gospel passages, on the very same subject, does not have the word for "new".

Furthermore:

" For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." -Mt. 26:28 (KJV)

"And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many." -Mk. 14:24 (KJV)

Also, as many here know, Greek words often have several meanings. " diaqhkh" (Strongs #1242) is certainly no exception.

"1) a disposition, arrangement, of any sort, which one wishes to be valid, the last disposition which one makes of his earthly possessions after his death, a testament or will
2) a compact, a covenant, a testament
2a) God's covenant with Noah, etc."

Source

But since its rendered "testament" that is what we'll go with.

Your point is moot.

In the New Testament, the word "covenant" is used only 24 times. And the Gospels, its only used 3 times:

Mt. 26:15:

"And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver."

Lk. 1:72:

"To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;"

Lk. 22:5:

"And they were glad, and covenanted to give him money."

Here again, this renders you point moot.

As for coming into our area and telling us our views are wrong, I kinda felt you threw down the gauntlet with your statement "Now I suppose you will tell me that I am wrong." Perhaps I misunderstood your intent, but that's how I read it.

It was not meant to be a question, neither as a gauntlet. Rather a tongue-in-cheek remark. Which as it was shown, was correct.

"Now I assume you will tell me how wrong I am."

But if you want to get technical, salvation can bee seen in three easy steps:

1. Recognize your a sinner.
2. Repent of your sins.
3. Believe.

If you are baptized, you are saved. The Sacrament is structured in such a way that it works, even for those who do not believe in it. That is God's mercy to all of us.

If, "you are baptized, you are saved", that makes your point of "salvation being a lifelong process" also moot. For nothing, short of absolute and total apostasy could render your baptism invalid. (But here again, I do not think God would allow any of His sheep to apostatize)

I read an article: "Conversion is a Lifelong Process".

One statement highlighted is this:

"Salvation is a lifelong process."

And it also states that salvation can be lost because God gave man a free will.

If your salvation is lost, how can that be if "you are baptized, you are saved"?

Its like the old Tootsie Roll commercial:

"How many sins does it take to lose your salvation?

One? Five? Ten? One hundred? One thousand?

Tell me, that way I'll know just how many times I can sin before I lose my salvation. But here again, I've been baptized, so I'm saved.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

The thief was under the Old Covenant and already was a member of the Kingdom. The New Covenant and the New Covenant Kingdom did not start until Christ died and the veil of the Temple was rent into, signifying the end of the Old Covenant, since the Holiest of All was where the yearly sacrifice of Yom Kippur renewed the covenant every year. Without the Holiest of All to renew the covenant, the Old Covenant was done, and Hebrews 13: 8 says as much.

The four Gospels are still in the Old Covenant, even though they have been erroneously place in what is called "The New Testament." Until Christ died and that veil was torn asunder, the Old Covenant was still in place.

While technically your right, technically your wrong also.

Did Christ not bring the "good news"?

And again, to whom was the book of Hebrews written to?

And why is this important?

Moses went up on Mount Sinai. And was there 40 days. Do you really believe he only came back with the Decalogue?

No, he came back with both the Decalogue and the Torah.

Why is this important?

Because we read in Deut. 4:

"And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone."

Here we see both the Decalogue and the Torah, the way for the Hebrews in the Old Testament, being included under one act.

So when it is written:

"But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:" -Heb. 8:6-8 (KJV)

This book was primarily addressed to Jewish Christians of the first century. Not that we can't lean from it though.

"This 8th chapter of Hebrews treats of two things: the sphere of our High Priest’s ministry and the better covenant with which it is connected: the one being in suited accord with the other. The 6th verse gives the connecting link between them. The apostle’s object in introducing the "new covenant" at this stage of his argument is obvious. It was to the old covenant that the whole administration of the Levitical priesthood was confined. The entire church-state of the Jews, with all the ordinances and worship of it, and all the privileges connected with it, depended wholly on the covenant which God made with them at Sinai. But the introduction of the new Priesthood necessarily abolished that covenant, and put an end to all the sacred ministrations which belong to it. This it is which the apostle here undertakes to prove.

"But now hath He obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also He is the Mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (verse 6). "This verse is a transition from one subject to another; namely, from the excellency of the priesthood of Christ above that of the law, to the excellency of the new covenant above the old. And herein also the apostle artificially compriseth and confirmeth his last argument, of the pre-eminence of Christ, His priesthood and ministry, above that of the law. And this He doth from the nature and excellency of that covenant whereof He was the Mediator in the discharge of His office" (John Owen)."

Arthur W. Pink, An Exposition of Hebrews, Chapter 37, The Two Covenants, Hebrews 8:6-9

and Hebrews 13: 8 says as much.

I'm sorry, I'm having trouble seeing how Hebrews 13, or even 13:8 fits in here.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Light of the East]

"DeaconDean In the oldest of the Greek MSS, other than Luke, the other Gospel passages, on the very same subject, does not have the word for "new".

Furthermore:

" For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." -Mt. 26:28 (KJV)

"And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many." -Mk. 14:24 (KJV)

Also, as many here know, Greek words often have several meanings. " diaqhkh" (Strongs #1242) is certainly no exception.

"1) a disposition, arrangement, of any sort, which one wishes to be valid, the last disposition which one makes of his earthly possessions after his death, a testament or will
2) a compact, a covenant, a testament
2a) God's covenant with Noah, etc."

Source

But since its rendered "testament" that is what we'll go with.

It is rendered by translators who also mistranslated several other verses in Scripture. Western translators of the Greek have not be very honest in what they have done with the Scriptures, most like to avoid the ramifications of Covenant Theology. I remember overhearing a Fundamentalist pastor at the the assembly I was attending say to a friend of mine "You better watch out for that Covenant Theology. That's dangerous stuff."

Uh huh.....

In the New Testament, the word "covenant" is used only 24 times. And the Gospels, its only used 3 times:

Mt. 26:15:"And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver."

Lk. 1:72:"To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;"

Lk. 22:5:"And they were glad, and covenanted to give him money."

Wrong again. It is used 4 times in the NT. Matt. 26: 28, Mark 14:24, Luke 1:72, & Luke 22:20. As for the verses you gave, the word which is dishonestly translated "covenant" in Matt. 26:15 and Luke 22:5 (syntithemi Pronunciation sun-te-tha-me) means the following according to Strongs:

to put together with, to place together, to join together

1. to place in one's mind
   
   1. to resolve, determine
      
   2. to make an arrangement, to engage
      
2. to assent to, to agree to
   

Every use of covenant in the Bible shows a joining of beings, such as the covenant of God with Abraham, the covenant of marriage between husband and wife, the Yom Kippur covenant of God with His people. To take a Greek word which means "agreement" and try to shoehorn it into the meaning of a personal relationship is profoundly dishonest of the translators of the KJV.

But if you want to get technical, salvation can bee seen in three easy steps:

1. Recognize your a sinner.
2. Repent of your sins.
3. Believe.

If, "you are baptized, you are saved", that makes your point of "salvation being a lifelong process" also moot. For nothing, short of absolute and total apostasy could render your baptism invalid. (But here again, I do not think God would allow any of His sheep to apostatize)

If this is so, then why was this idea not taught in Christianity for 16 centuries until the Anabaptists invented it? You are not an unintelligent man, so why do you think that if this belief in the three steps you outlined is essential for salvation that God would allow 16 centuries to go by before the Christian faith finally "got it?"

And it also states that salvation can be lost because God gave man a free will.

If your salvation is lost, how can that be if "you are baptized, you are saved"?

Because you are approaching salvation from a merely legal and technical standpoint rather than one of a growing relationship. Remember, I was a Fundamentalist for 13 years and then a PCA Calvinist for 12. I am not unaware of the legal basis of Western soteriological understanding. The Church at Rome started this mess and the Protestant Reformation finished it with their ideas of "once saved - always saved."

Now if salvation was merely a matter of having a judge (THE Judge) forgive you in some heavenly court of law and it is a done deal, then you would be correct. But that idea really didn't get a head of steam up until after the Reformation and Luther and Calvin's ideas of "forensic justification" or the idea that once a sinner is legally saved, he is forever okay with God.

This is not how a covenant works at all because a covenant is a personal relationship, not a legal draft. The Bible analogizes our relationship to Christ as a marriage (Christ is the divine Bridegroom and we the Bride). Covenant is the complete giving of yourself to the other, most intimately worked out in the nuptial bed where the intent of the heart becomes the reality of the flesh.

But does such a relationship last forever? Or can the covenant love be destroyed by a philandering husband? You can have all the legal paperwork you want in a relationship, but if the heart and will is not there, it is just paper.

Finally, the goal of salvation is not just getting a legal acquittal in the heavenly law court. God created mankind that we may be gods. St. Peter speaks about our having received the divine nature. Salvation for mankind picks up the broken pieces of man's destiny and puts them back together in Christ so that our divinization can continue. But it is a process of change, not a legal framework, an ontological change of our very being which takes place in each human being at a different pace and time according to our makeup.

OH....and I don't believe in "losing your salvation" either. Mankind has been saved. Those who are saved through faith in Christ are in a relationship which will never end. Covenant principles teach that when we break our covenant relationship, there are consequences. God as Father does what any good father does and chastises the wayward child to being the child back to Himself. I utterly reject any and all of the Romish fantasies of hell that cropped up in the Middle Ages which describe God as Monster rather than as Father. Love does not do such things to the object of its affection. Our relationship can with Christ/God can be either bliss or horror, depending upon how we react to His offer of love, but there is no such thing (technically speaking) as "losing your salvation." Losing your relationship, yes. Salvation - no.

 

[DeaconDean]

"DeaconDean In the oldest of the Greek MSS, other than Luke, the other Gospel passages, on the very same subject, does not have the word for "new".

Furthermore:

" For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." -Mt. 26:28 (KJV)

"And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many." -Mk. 14:24 (KJV)

Also, as many here know, Greek words often have several meanings. " diaqhkh" (Strongs #1242) is certainly no exception.

"1) a disposition, arrangement, of any sort, which one wishes to be valid, the last disposition which one makes of his earthly possessions after his death, a testament or will
2) a compact, a covenant, a testament
2a) God's covenant with Noah, etc."

Source

But since its rendered "testament" that is what we'll go with.

It is rendered by translators who also mistranslated several other verses in Scripture. Western translators of the Greek have not be very honest in what they have done with the Scriptures, most like to avoid the ramifications of Covenant Theology. I remember overhearing a Fundamentalist pastor at the the assembly I was attending say to a friend of mine "You better watch out for that Covenant Theology. That's dangerous stuff."

Uh huh.....

And that bears on this subject how?

In the New Testament, the word "covenant" is used only 24 times. And the Gospels, its only used 3 times:

Mt. 26:15:"And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver."

Lk. 1:72:"To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;"

Lk. 22:5:"And they were glad, and covenanted to give him money."

Wrong again. It is used 4 times in the NT. Matt. 26: 28, Mark 14:24, Luke 1:72, & Luke 22:20. As for the verses you gave, the word which is dishonestly translated "covenant" in Matt. 26:15 and Luke 22:5 (syntithemi Pronunciation sun-te-tha-me) means the following according to Strongs:

to put together with, to place together, to join together

1. 
   
   
   • to place in one's mind
     1. to resolve, determine
     2. to make an arrangement, to engage
   • to assent to, to agree to

Every use of covenant in the Bible shows a joining of beings, such as the covenant of God with Abraham, the covenant of marriage between husband and wife, the Yom Kippur covenant of God with His people. To take a Greek word which means "agreement" and try to shoehorn it into the meaning of a personal relationship is profoundly dishonest of the translators of the KJV.

Here is my proof, since you seem to think I'm a liar:

Source

Since you used the Last Supper for you "proof text" I supplied the verses dealing with that in the Gospels.

But if you want to get technical, salvation can bee seen in three easy steps:

1. Recognize your a sinner.
2. Repent of your sins.
3. Believe.

If, "you are baptized, you are saved", that makes your point of "salvation being a lifelong process" also moot. For nothing, short of absolute and total apostasy could render your baptism invalid. (But here again, I do not think God would allow any of His sheep to apostatize)

If this is so, then why was this idea not taught in Christianity for 16 centuries until the Anabaptists invented it? You are not an unintelligent man, so why do you think that if this belief in the three steps you outlined is essential for salvation that God would allow 16 centuries to go by before the Christian faith finally "got it?"

Jesus and John the Baptist preached "repentance". Unless you say repentance isn't in the scriptures.

Acts 3:10 calls for you to repent of your sins.

Also in Acts we read that Paul said: "believe on the Lord Jesus."

In Romans he said:

Confess with your mouth, and believe in your heart.

What I said above, three simple steps, is directly from scripture.

And it also states that salvation can be lost because God gave man a free will.

If your salvation is lost, how can that be if "you are baptized, you are saved"?

Because you are approaching salvation from a merely legal and technical standpoint rather than one of a growing relationship. Remember, I was a Fundamentalist for 13 years and then a PCA Calvinist for 12. I am not unaware of the legal basis of Western soteriological understanding. The Church at Rome started this mess and the Protestant Reformation finished it with their ideas of "once saved - always saved."

Now if salvation was merely a matter of having a judge (THE Judge) forgive you in some heavenly court of law and it is a done deal, then you would be correct. But that idea really didn't get a head of steam up until after the Reformation and Luther and Calvin's ideas of "forensic justification" or the idea that once a sinner is legally saved, he is forever okay with God.

This is not how a covenant works at all because a covenant is a personal relationship, not a legal draft. The Bible analogizes our relationship to Christ as a marriage (Christ is the divine Bridegroom and we the Bride). Covenant is the complete giving of yourself to the other, most intimately worked out in the nuptial bed where the intent of the heart becomes the reality of the flesh.

But does such a relationship last forever? Or can the covenant love be destroyed by a philandering husband? You can have all the legal paperwork you want in a relationship, but if the heart and will is not there, it is just paper.

Finally, the goal of salvation is not just getting a legal acquittal in the heavenly law court. God created mankind that we may be gods. St. Peter speaks about our having received the divine nature. Salvation for mankind picks up the broken pieces of man's destiny and puts them back together in Christ so that our divinization can continue. But it is a process of change, not a legal framework, an ontological change of our very being which takes place in each human being at a different pace and time according to our makeup.

OH....and I don't believe in "losing your salvation" either. Mankind has been saved. Those who are saved through faith in Christ are in a relationship which will never end. Covenant principles teach that when we break our covenant relationship, there are consequences. God as Father does what any good father does and chastises the wayward child to being the child back to Himself. I utterly reject any and all of the Romish fantasies of hell that cropped up in the Middle Ages which describe God as Monster rather than as Father. Love does not do such things to the object of its affection. Our relationship can with Christ/God can be either bliss or horror, depending upon how we react to His offer of love, but there is no such thing (technically speaking) as "losing your salvation." Losing your relationship, yes. Salvation - no.

Salvation is not something that I have to work on continuously. Salvation is complete, I am made complete in Christ Jesus.

Sanctification, removing the world from me, removing me from the world, yes, that something we all have to work on.

Finally, the goal of salvation is not just getting a legal acquittal in the heavenly law court...But it is a process of change, not a legal framework

I beg to differ.

Have you ever studied in the Greek the words for "righteous" and "justified"?

Evidently not.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Wrong again. It is used 4 times in the NT. Matt. 26: 28, Mark 14:24, Luke 1:72, & Luke 22:20. As for the verses you gave, the word which is dishonestly translated "covenant" in Matt. 26:15 and Luke 22:5 (syntithemi Pronunciation sun-te-tha-me) means the following according to Strongs:

to put together with, to place together, to join together

1. 
   
   
   • to place in one's mind
     1. to resolve, determine
     2. to make an arrangement, to engage
   • to assent to, to agree to

Wrong!

"τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης τὸ περὶ πολλῶν ἐκχυννόμενον εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν." -Mt. 26:28 (GNT)

"For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." -Mt. 26:28 (KJV)

"καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης τὸ ἐκχυννόμενον ὑπὲρ πολλῶν: " -Mk. 14:24 (GNT)

"And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many." -Mk. 14:24 (KJV)

"καὶ τὸ ποτήριον ὡσαύτως μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι, λέγων, Τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου, τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυννόμενον." -Lk. 22:20 (GNT)

"Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you." -Lk. 22:20 (KJV)

"διαθήκη,n \{dee-ath-ay'-kay}
1) a disposition, arrangement, of any sort, which one wishes to be valid, the last disposition which one makes of his earthly possessions after his death, a testament or will 2) a compact, a covenant, a testament 2a) God's covenant with Noah, etc."

Source

But, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps I quoted wrongly.

"διαθήκη"

"a testamentary, disposition, will, a covenant, Heb. 9:16, 17; Gal.3:15; in N.T., a covenant of God with men, Gal. 3:17, 4:24; Heb. 9:4; Mt. 26:28, et. al., the writings of the Old Covenant, 2 Cor. 3:14"

The New Analytical Greek Lexicon, Wesley J. Perschbacher, Hendrickson Publishing Company, Peabody, Mass., 01962, "διαθήκη", p. 91-92

Now, what did I post earlier?

"Also, as many here know, Greek words often have several meanings. " diaqhkh" (Strongs #1242) is certainly no exception.

"1) a disposition, arrangement, of any sort, which one wishes to be valid, the last disposition which one makes of his earthly possessions after his death, a testament or will
2) a compact, a covenant, a testament
2a) God's covenant with Noah, etc."

Source"

Perhaps the online Greek Lexicon, and The New Analytical Greek Lexicon are wrong, and you are the only one with the correct one.

Fact is, "testament" is as valid a rendering as "covenant".

Didn't you say:

"Jesus said "This is the New Covenant in my Blood."

Like I said, I didn't bother with the other renderings because you cited the Last Supper verse as your "proof text". So that is what I used.

And I will even provide commentary to back up:

"For this is my blood of the new testament.--Better, this is My blood of the Covenant; the best MSS. omitting the word "new" both here and in St. Mark. It was probably introduced into the later MSS. to bring the text into harmony with St. Luke's report."

Source

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Now if you wish to debate every verse in the New Testament that uses "covenant", we'll be at this for months.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

nm

 

[lismore]

especially considering that most I've talked to have very little knowledge of what we actually believe...

I have heard a lot of criticism directed at your church because of it's perceived stance on evolution.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

especially considering that most I've talked to have very little knowledge of what we actually believe...

I think because both are seen to be bound up in traditionalism, particularly the RC church which emphasises its traditions over the Bible (e.g. sacraments, veneration of Mary and saints, specialised priesthood).

 

[Light of the East]

I think because both are seen to be bound up in traditionalism, particularly the RC church which emphasises its traditions over the Bible (e.g. sacraments, veneration of Mary and saints, specialised priesthood).

Your reply shows that you do not understand what Holy Tradition is.

Holy Tradition is simply "the democracy of the dead" as G.K. Chesterton put it. In other words, when the heretic Arias was defending his belief that Jesus was not truly God, but a created being, he appealed to sacred writings alone. The bishops of the council, on the other hand, said, "Well, that is very interesting, but that is not what has been believed from the beginning." They based the proper understanding of Christ's deity on what the Christians who had come before them believed - which is Holy Tradition. It was the tradition of three centuries of the Church to teach that Jesus is God.

Now as for the rest of your rather smarmy response, which also shows that you do not understand the apostolic faith:

1. The writings of the Early Church and the Early Church Fathers show us that things such as the Sacraments, Veneration of Mary and the saints, the priesthood, etc. (i.e.all those things with which Protestantism disagrees) go back to the first centuries of the Church. You need to sit down and ask yourself why this is, especially so close to the time that Christ walked the earth.

2. The Sacraments are found in the Sacred Scriptures. It wasn't until Anabaptist Protestantism came along that these things were questioned.

3. Your interpretation of Sacred Scripture is out of line with 2,000 years of Christianity. That's what this all really boils down to. One can take the Scriptures and make them say just about anything. The existence of numerous cults, and thousands of different Protestant denominations with different beliefs is a testimony to this.

 

[DeaconDean]

Your reply shows that you do not understand what Holy Tradition is.

Holy Tradition is simply "the democracy of the dead" as G.K. Chesterton put it. In other words, when the heretic Arias was defending his belief that Jesus was not truly God, but a created being, he appealed to sacred writings alone. The bishops of the council, on the other hand, said, "Well, that is very interesting, but that is not what has been believed from the beginning." They based the proper understanding of Christ's deity on what the Christians who had come before them believed - which is Holy Tradition. It was the tradition of three centuries of the Church to teach that Jesus is God.

And that bears on this discussion how?

Now as for the rest of your rather smarmy response, which also shows that you do not understand the apostolic faith:

1. The writings of the Early Church and the Early Church Fathers show us that things such as the Sacraments, Veneration of Mary and the saints, the priesthood, etc. (i.e.all those things with which Protestantism disagrees) go back to the first centuries of the Church. You need to sit down and ask yourself why this is, especially so close to the time that Christ walked the earth.

So do the scriptures. So, how does "tradition" bear into this?

2. The Sacraments are found in the Sacred Scriptures. It wasn't until Anabaptist Protestantism came along that these things were questioned.

Your correct. But...where does scriptures say that the "sacraments" are exactly as Catholicism or Orthodoxy teaches?

3. Your interpretation of Sacred Scripture is out of line with 2,000 years of Christianity. That's what this all really boils down to. One can take the Scriptures and make them say just about anything. The existence of numerous cults, and thousands of different Protestant denominations with different beliefs is a testimony to this.

And that is worse than listening to some guy in robes and a crown telling us what this or that means and how to believe?

And unless you can prove 100% that what the church teaches now is exactly, word-for-word what Peter passed down, then "tradition" is no better than the system you condemn.

God Bless

Till all are one.