| Author | Message | ||
| Loneviking Registered user Username: Loneviking Post Number: 705 Registered: 7-2000 |
And all of this because I tried to explain the difference between transubstantiation; consubstanttiation; and real presence, along with the scriptural references. This thread really got rolling because Jim02 had noticed, in reading the writings of the church fathers, that there were big differences in the way the early church believed and practiced Christianity vs. what is done in most circles today. Others of us have noted this and through study we have become convinced of the truths found in such bodies as the EO,the Anglicans, the confessional Lutheran synods and even the RCC. River, you asked not ago on a thread why the forum seemed to be languishing. You wondered why the posting activity was down. Well, I can tell you that I don't post much here anymore because of the animosity on this forum towards anything remotely 'orthodox'. Any hint of sympathy with the beliefs and practices of the ancient church doesn't seem to be welcome here. I don't think I'm alone in this feeling as there are other posters who I know that hold similar beliefs and no longer post here. IMO,these churches (the EO/Lutheran/Anglican) should be just as viable an option for formers as the evangelical/fundy/pentecostal churches. But, that's not I see things around here. So, if anyone wants more info on the confessional Lutheran churches and resources, you can contact me offline at: williammscott@gmail.com | ||
| Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah Post Number: 446 Registered: 1-2004  |
The Eastern Orthodox view of the Eucharist (the bread and wine) is that it is really the body and blood of Christ, but we can't say how. The questions of whether it's a symbol or whether we are re-offering the sacrifice are really the wrong questions, but we would answer "no" to them. Our understanding of the Eucharist in relation to time is that it resides in the eternal kingdom of God, and is therefore outside of time. We believe time was created by God, and God sees all of time at once. Jesus' sacrifice is only at a point in time when approaching from a human perspective. From God's view it always was. So when the Eucharist is celebrated, we get a taste of eternity where time is superceded. In the Orthodox experience the question of whether Jesus is being sacrificed all over again is not even part of the picture. We Orthodox also do not view Jesus' sacrifice as payment of a penalty in the Catholic/Protestant sense. We see the Incarnation of Jesus as a uniting of God with man. We see the death of Jesus as completing his Incarnation, in contrast to most western Christians who would see the Incarnation as an accessory to his more important death. The Eucharist is seen as the method by which each of us can be united in our human nature with Jesus' human nature, so that we can participate in his victory over sin and death. Think of the vine and branches metaphor. Jeremiah | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 662 Registered: 8-2008 |
The early fathers are not a good source for church practices. Numerous early fathers never fully escaped their pagan philosophical upbringing. For instance, Augustine was convinced that sex, even with marriage, was evil, an idea he no doubt got from either the stoics or gnostics. It is an idea that is absolutely and completely at odds with the Old Testament, the New Testament ("the marriage bed is undefiled"), and the Jewish tradition out of which the New Covenant grew. Bibically speaking, the only Biblically-mandated form of local church government is guidance by a plurality of co-equal elders. There is evidence that ecclesiology changed very rapidly after the death of the apostles. For instance, in the early second century one of the early fathers--Ignatius of Antioch--took a single elder, elevated him to head elder, and declared that he was Christ's single special representative to the local congregation. This did away with the co-equality of elders. This gave rise eventually to the anti-New-Covenant clergy-laity division--a denial of God's New Covenant promise that "all shall know Me." Consequently, today you have all kinds of idiots going around claiming people need a pastor as their "covering" to mediate between them and God. The Bible alone is the standard of church practice. | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3134 Registered: 10-2004  |
Loneviking, Cathy, and others, I don't think most of us on this forum have animosity towards the ancient church/faith. In fact, we better be part of the ancient faith, or else we are not part of "the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints." (Jude 1:3 NASB.) What many of us are against, is the corruption and apostasy that has "crept in unnoticed" (Jude 1:4) through the centuries and corrupted the ancient faith (as the apostles predicted would happen, BTW), in churches such as the EO and RCC in particular. One important example would be what River touched on, and that is works righteousness. Both the EO and the RCC make our works a necessary requirement in order to obtain salvation, in addition to faith in Christ. That has to be called what it is, and what the Holy Spirit called it, and that is "another gospel" (Galatians 1:6-9). Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on February 10, 2010) | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3135 Registered: 10-2004 |
By the way, I have to smile about the complaints of the forum being "anti-EO/RCC," since elsewhere people have complained about FAF being too supportive of EO/RCC. Jeremy | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 664 Registered: 8-2008 |
To be fair, probably a sizeable majority of the "evangelical" world does this as well. It's just that the works are defined differently, as "witnessing" or holding a church office or paying tithe or speaking in tongues or ... Truly, works-righteousness is endemic to the sinful flesh. Only the grace of God frees us from such a false and eternally destructive misunderstanding. | ||
| Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah Post Number: 447 Registered: 1-2004 |
Bskillet, I've read the letters of Ignatius many times and I never got the idea he was inventing the office of a singular bishop, but merely preaching about an existing situation. And, Polycarp of Smyrna, who is respected by nearly everyone except Adventists, referred to Ignatius and those with him as "the images of true love." Ignatius wrote to Polycarp, Polycarp wrote about Ignatius, and neither one said anything but good about the other. Besides writing, they met each other in person. To me, saying that there should not be one bishop in a city even though it was agreed by Ignatius and Polycarp is like saying that Paul isn't really with Christ in heaven, even though it was said by the same writers. The Adventists say these guys fell into error and so do you. Basically, you're reading the New Testament through a modern western lense, and saying the church departed from the faith before 100 AD. I go to the Orthodox church and when I read the NT it looks to me like the church stayed on track for 2000 years. There's no gaurantee I see things correctly, but I do find it very comforting to see Christian writers of every century saying the same thing, even from different perspectives. It really makes the promise about the Church always being here seem true. Jeremiah | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 667 Registered: 8-2008 |
So I should accept Ignatius on Polycarp's authority, and Polycarp on Ignatius' authority? I accept a teacher's word only on the authority of the Scriptures. You are making a non-sequitir. You are arguing that because two writers said one thing that the Bible agrees with, then we are to assume everything they say is Biblical. Show me where in the Bible we find a single bishop, separate from the elders. Rather, scholars know that bishop, elder, and pastor are synonyms Biblically, and are used interchangeably in several passages. For instance in Acts 20 Paul refers to men from Ephesus first as elders, then as Overseers (bishops) who "shepherd" (the verb form of pastor) the church of God. Of course, I know the EO does not agree with Sola Scriptura, so this is probably a difference between us. And you'r reading them through the lense of Greeks who grew up in a pagan culture and believed that Greek philosophy could be used to interpret and understand God's word.
Even the latter New Testament epistles recount that already in the late first century some were departing from the faith (for instance, the messages in Revelation to the 7 churches). The gates of hell will not prevail against His church, but that is not the same as saying that some people will teach error, or that many will follow after error while allegedly claiming to be a part of His church. Comparing me to SDA's is fightin' words, so I feel free to turn the tables now: Adventists, Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and the Eastern Orthodox like yoruself all say the Bible has to be interpreted for the Christian by some other human authority. In the EO case, it is interpretation by the church fathers and by church councils that occurred long after the apostles had died. Apparently, Jesus' promise that the Holy Spirit will guide the believer into all truth is not considered good enough by Orthodox believers like yourself. | ||
| Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah Post Number: 448 Registered: 1-2004 |
Bskillet, I agree, as do the EO, that in the beginning of the Church the terms bishop and presbyter were used interchangeably. I happen to think the transition to one bishop per city happened as a result of the growth of the church. I think James, in Jerusalem, is an example of what we now know as a bishop. Basically when the church grew to the point that there were multiple meeting locations on a given day in a city, one of the elders in the city took the lead. I don't mean lordship, but shepherding. I think this happened with the oversight of the Apostles, but was not written in the NT. There were some Greeks in New Testament times who probably heard the gospel from the Apostles themselves. Greek pagan converts aren't all bad. Christianity is an experience that words are sometimes used to describe. The Greeks have their own set of words. They also have a slight advantage in that the New Testament manuscripts were written in their language. If only two writers agreed, and all the other writers thought they were crazy, there'd be a problem. The very fact that you look in vain for a church to associate with says to me that the Holy Spirit isn't getting through to individuals all that well. I am saying the Holy Spirit got through to communities rather than individuals, and thus we have the Orthodox Church. I would say that the Bible requires interpreting. Whether an individual interprets it, or a community remembers an interpretation that has been passed down, makes a difference. Even your writing has to be interpreted by me in order for me to respond. With the Bible, you believe the Holy Spirit guides your interpretation. Jeremiah | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 668 Registered: 8-2008 |
Really? Did you really just say that? I mean, seriously? Blaming the Holy Spirit's inability? The Bible says of the New Covenant: Each and fellow are individual words. If any organization fails to teach the Gospel, it is because those in charge are not the ones to whom the Spirit is speaking. It is not because He is failing to get through to those to whom He is speaking. | ||
| Bobj Registered user Username: Bobj Post Number: 449 Registered: 1-2006  |
Speaking of Ignatius . . . he was a convert of the Apostle John and second Bishop of Antioch. “In the year A.D. 110, Roman soldiers were leading Ignatius to Rome where the lions awaited him. Along the way, he wrote several letters to churches along his route. (Former Adventists have mentioned these letters because of our common sense belief that people on their way to martyrdom aren’t likely to lie about spiritual things.) These letters were regarded so highly by the early Christian community for their witness to the apostolic Faith that they were even held by many to be part of the New Testament, frequently being bound with the apostolic writings. Writing to the church at Smyrna, a major Christian center in Asia Minor, Ignatius condemned heretics who denied that Christ had an actual physical body, likely referring to Docetism. (This was a form of the Gnostic heresy. The Apostle John may have had these same people in mind when he penned 1 John 1:1-4.) To refute them, Ignatius wrote, “They [the heretics] even absent themselves from the Eucharist and the public prayers [cf. Acts 2:42], because they will not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ which suffered for our sins and which the Father in his goodness afterwards raised up again” [7:1]. I believe I nearly suffered cardiac arrest. This was the bishop of Antioch, the city where Jesus’followers were first called Christians (Acts 11:26) and a major center of Christianity. This was a man who had heard the Good News from the lips of the Apostle John himself, the very Apostle who had written that graphic Eucharistic passage in his Gospel (Jn. 6:48-58). Writing merely 10 or 15 years after the death of St. John, Ignatius refers to the “real presence” of Christ in the Eucharist as though it were common knowledge throughout the Christian Church! Indeed, if Christ weren’t really present in the Eucharist, Ignatius’ whole apologetic statement would have come to naught. To the church at Ephesus, Ignatius wrote that they were “to obey [the bishop] and clergy with undivided minds and to share in the one common breaking of the bread—the medicine of immortality and the sovereign remedy by which we escape death and live in Jesus Christ forevermore” (20:3) The reference given is Epistle to the Smymaeans 8:1-2 (whatever that is!) I didn’t write this, and I’m not arguing anything. I copied it for you from Surprised by Truth, edited by Patrick Madrid, which I referred to earlier. May God bless us. | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 5984 Registered: 9-2006  |
Pardon me for leaving that Ladies post unanswered, a friend of our passed away this morning, and I haven't had time to deal with this. Nor been in the mood for that matter. No Maam I am not leaving, I am just getting started, I mean I will leave you alone with whatever suits you. Firstly I kidded with someone about the Lutherans, nothing to get out your claws about. Secondly, I never even mentioned the EO even one time because of Jeremiahs presence on this net. Thirdly the statement was made: Please, allow all of us to be where and what we are in Christ. Your path is yours; Our paths are ours. We do not mock your way of faith... It looks to me like you desired for me not to address you personally in future. I agreed. Fourthly my faith has been mocked by formers. Sixthly, I know what I am talking about, I have been well acquainted with Catholics in the past years and any friendship invariably ends up on the rocks, not because of my any prejudice I had toward them, but because of their prejudice toward me. Also I have been sitting in a bar drinking by Catholics when they left right in the middle of a conversation to attend mass. I have attended their churches with friends (after salvation) and heard the sermons on works, then watched as the people line up, kneel at the railing and get the cracker in their smacker, then go right back to what they were doing in the first place, many of them smelled like a brewery so strong it would knock you over. Drunkeness is has no place in any church, these people, like Adventist, and many others as Brent says, are just being fooled. Seventhly, I wasn't bragging about my old age, I am old and ugly, my face looks like it lost a battle with a tank. What I meant was that in discernment, you are young, mainly because I feel many formers haven't grown in this spiritual discernment area. I didn't say I blamed them, or if I did sound that way, I deeply apologize. Eighthly, I know nothing whatsoever about EO or Lutheran religion, I kid a lttle about them, because of a very good friend (At least I hope we are still friends) who happens to frequent this forum. Marysroses was Catholic, and I kidded with her about it, and that was just us loving each other, thats ALL it was, but I wasn't the one who dogged her off. he one who told her the truth about the RCC was just telling her the truth, I didn't because I knew what would happen and I cared for her, just as I do Jerimiah, and other Lutherans on this forum. Now to say the RCC is not just as bad a mixed up mess as Adventism is really stretching it. Do I need to dial it back? To suit who? If there is a problem, don't draw blood because I've got a way of approach that rubs you wrong, if there isn't, ignore it. Now people are claiming the forum has animosity, I got news for you, every family has spats, but we get over it and go on, we don't stay quit on each other, so if you don't participate because you can't stand the family, what does that tell us here? Now yall want to go off and eat worms and stay scruntched up in your own little world? By all means. Its your forum, provided for you by the Lord himself. So whatever. Meantime I got things I have to take care of. But I'm pretty sure you're going to have a hard sell on this forum with those that know what the RCC really is. The forum, seems to me is of its own necessity about theology. So say on. At least if we're talking, its a pretty good indication we ain't dead yet!  River | ||
| Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah Post Number: 449 Registered: 1-2004 |
River, I do my best to let people disagree with me and still stay friends, so if you want to say things about my theological ideas and you think we might see differently, it's ok. And I still think the Pentecostals are on track with the desire to experience God personally. It's better than thinking knowledge about God is sufficient. Bskillet, I don't fault the Holy Spirit, if individuals rarely respond to Him. Isn't his voice described as "still" and "small"? Perhaps it is hard to hear God when we're spending so much time figuring out what to tell Him. Not to proof text, but did you see Acts 21:18? Paul went in "to James, and all the elders were present". And Acts 12:16, "Go, tell these things to James and the brethren". Also 1 Corinthians 15:7, "After that he was seen by James, then by all the Apostles". It's not a stretch to see James acting as bishop here, just based on phrasing. The early Christian writers almost universally think he is the first bishop of Jerusalem. Jeremiah | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 913 Registered: 5-2007 |
I have only begun the process of reading about the early church's progression through history. It appears to me that once we leave the canon of scripture, and move just beyond the time of the Apostle's, big changes evolved. It appears that the power of Government had a lot of undue influence upon the Church. Interference, persecution, manipulation and finally reverse absorbtion of the Roman power by the church years later. Then as time went on, things were added. Divisions and theological debates occurred throughout the centuries, a major division took place between RC and EO , followed by the Protestant division and on to today. At first , I thought that certainly , there is a continuity and that God's organized church survives. Then I began to suspect that even that assumption (organized church) was also vague. I knew that God is a God of order. Organization makes sense. But that does not mean one Church (as in EO or RC or any other) but that even in Revelation, God wrote to many Churches. The "Catholic" concept (Universal) still applies if Christ is the foundation. The more I study the more I am convinced, NO church is flawless. None have it perfected theologically, no one has it all figured out. But this does not mean I presume to ignore the depths of study great minds in church history have explored. It is so easy to get lost in the forest of details of theology. Ultimately, I keep going back to the basics just to maintain a sense of direction. I find refuge in the Bible itself. After I hear and read all the theories and beliefs, all the arguments and debates, I go back to the pages of scripture to hear the calmness of single thought. Jim | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 1171 Registered: 7-2007 |
This would be a good time for Handmaiden to tell her faith story. I've been asking her, but she hasn't gotten around to it yet. It's interesting to hear her tell of her upbringing in the Roman Catholic church, of her intention of becoming a nun, of how some people kept annoying her by telling her the gospel even though she was convinced she was in the "ONE TRUE CHURCH" (sound familiar?) and how one of them told her that if she could prove from the Bible that Mary was the "mother of God" that he'd become a Catholic. No problem! she thought. The RCC told people not to read the Bible (back then at least - I don't know about nowadays) but Handmaiden figured it was all in a good cause. The first thing she did when she started to read the Bible was to search for the "book of Mary." There was no such book! Handmaiden thought that surely the "mother of God" would have her own book, so she was astonished. She read further and eventually came to Romans 10:9 where it says, "that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." "Where's the list?" she wondered. "Where's the rest of the stuff I have to do?" As she read God's Word, she realized that the Roman Catholic church was not the "one true church." She told the people something like: "okay, you've shown me that the Catholic church isn't true, but you haven't shown me that what you believe IS true! How do I know that in 20 years I won't find out that what you believe is as false as Catholicism?" They told her something that sounded really stupid to her. "You'll know that you'll know, that you'll know it's the truth." Late one night, when she got off her swing shift, the one who'd said he'd become a Catholic if she could prove that Mary was the mother of God invited her to church. (Her part - if she lost that bet, which she did - would be to go to church with him once.) She was shocked that church would still be going at midnight - it was Pentecostal - but she went. They sat down in the back row. About five minutes later the preacher stopped preaching and said: "I really feel the presence of a burdened soul." The whole congregation got down on their knees to pray for the "burdened soul." They prayed for about 20 minutes. Handmaiden was furious at the person she'd come with. She thought it was a set-up. Then after they prayed, the preacher finished preaching and then gave an altar call. Something made Handmaiden want to go forward, but it felt like her feet were glued to the floor. After the service was over and as JoAnne drove back to the base (she was in the Air Force), she yelled at the fellow who'd invited her, because she still thought she'd been set up and she was mad at him. After she'd dropped him off at his barracks, she drove to her own barracks. When she got to her room, she slammed the door and started yelling at God. "ALL I WANT TO KNOW IS THE TRUTH!!!" Suddenly it felt to her like the room filled with light and an overwhelming peace and love filled her. And she knew that she knew that she knew that it was the truth!!! She was so filled with joy and love that she couldn't even get to sleep! She told me that it was indescribable!!! The next day when she went to work, she told the man who had been preaching (he was in her unit - called a "flight" in the Air Force), that she had gotten saved. Everyone on that shift were Christians and they surrounded her and welcomed her into the family of God! (The Lord has used her to bring five Seventh-day Adventists to the gospel!) | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 914 Registered: 5-2007 |
These words have meaning.......... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqp89bkFe8k | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 7917 Registered: 3-2004  |
Thanks Jim, I just went and listened. I will follow Him where ever He may lead. Love those words. Diana L | ||
| Loneviking Registered user Username: Loneviking Post Number: 706 Registered: 7-2000 |
River wrote: Eighthly, I know nothing whatsoever about EO or Lutheran religion, I kid a lttle about them, because of a very good friend (At least I hope we are still friends) who happens to frequent this forum. *****If that's me you're referring too, we're still friends! River wrote: Now people are claiming the forum has animosity, I got news for you, every family has spats, but we get over it and go on, we don't stay quit on each other, so if you don't participate because you can't stand the family, what does that tell us here? Now yall want to go off and eat worms and stay scruntched up in your own little world? *************** No, it's not just a spat, River. It's a knee jerk response against anything over on the 'orthodox' side of things. It's an impossiblity to talk about anything theological without immedietly creating controversy. Can't stand the family? No, but just like many families there are some things that you just don't talk about. | ||
| Bobj Registered user Username: Bobj Post Number: 450 Registered: 1-2006 |
I guess I still need a little help understanding what various churches (and people on this forum) think about the "real presence." I've read all the discussion, but I see a basic conflict between what Colleen is saying about Hebrews and what Ignatius is quoted as saying. Ignatius has the advantage of speaking directly to John, and Ignatius is addressing the topic "almost" directly. The reference in Hebrews is much more general, and I don't argue with that, but there appears to be a real, (and important?) conflict. This gets into the whole sacramental thing, but I guess I need answers. I'm not trying to support EO or RCC, but if Ignatius' testimony is what it appears to be, it is a powerful argument that perhaps we Protestants should rethink the Eucharist. I read what you shared about Raven's experience, and I know that some of the friends here have grown up in the RCC, and I really don't want to grieve anyone by this, but I need to know: Do your churches (whatever they are) recognize the "real presence" or do your churches see it as a symbol? The difference will be obvious, because if your church regards it as the real presence and the host is dropped or spilled, how you regard it would dictate how the spill is handled. Next question, there appears to be a discrepancy between the teachings of Jesus and John and Ignatius vs Hebrews, right? What I'm really getting at is this: leaving all other parts of the discussion aside, are there churches that deny apostolic succession that still hold to the real presence? This will reveal how little I know about other churches, but I need a boost on this. I'm struggling with this, if it isn't obvious. Thanks | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 671 Registered: 8-2008 |
So instead I should demure to the voice of a priest or a church father, whom I also have no way of knowing is actually listening to His Spirit? Yeah, when someone says, "Not to proof-text," and then proof-texts, it is a sure-fire indicator that the argument is based on faulty Scriptural grounds. The Bible never calls him such. As I said, the Bible uses bishop and elder interchangeably, so even if James were called a bishop in the Bible, it would rather mean he was just an elder. Also, Paul refers to him as an apostle in Galatians 1:19, so that in 1 Cor. 15:7 Paul means Jesus appeared to the apostle James alone, then to all of the apostles together. The church fathers could refer to him as the first Chancellor of the Klingon High Council, and it still would not mean that this is a Biblical office. As a Protestant, I do not consider the church fathers authoritative, nor do I set them up as God's chosen interpreters of the Bible for me. Even in the day of the church fathers, people had the sinful human tendency to read back their own incorrect doctrine or practice into the text in order to try to justify themselves. But you are using reverse logic, creating a concept of a bishop from your own experience, and then trying to find evidence of it in the Bible. That is why you say the phrasing points to the office of the bishop. But that idea is another non-sequitir. I could just as easily argue it proved evidence that James was the first Grand Poobah of the Eternal Order of Water Buffaloes. You can't simply insert something in Scripture that isn't there in order to justify a previously held opinion. But you also earlier admitted that the bishop is used in Acts 20 interchangeably with elder, but then all of a sudden in Acts 21 it is a totally new and separate office? So which is it, Jeremiah? |
