Key: 
= Posted Today and Yesterday
'Theology Discussion Group'
Travel to the Highway home page and read our many fine articles and view the links to other sites by clicking on the blue The Highway logo in the upper right hand corner of this page.
« Forum Guidelines »
Total Messages Loaded: 679
a monitor -:- Perspective
-:- Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 07:02:39 (PST)
laz -:- Veneration
-:- Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 06:18:56 (PST)
Vernon -:- Take your Time and read -:- Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 04:10:23 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: Take your Time and read -:- Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 07:32:00 (PST)
eikke -:- Early Protestants and the Orthodox -:- Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 03:32:23 (PST)
eikke -:- For those who value sola scriptura -:- Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 03:13:22 (PST)
eikke -:- How the Early Church Saw Itself -:- Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 03:01:04 (PST)
Christopher -:- 'novelty' of concillar authority -:- Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 19:12:28 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: 'novelty' of concillar authority -:- Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 21:02:48 (PST)
__ Christopher -:- Re:
'novelty' of concillar authority -:-
Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 21:07:43 (PST)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re:
'novelty' of concillar authority -:-
Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 07:38:15 (PST)
Sunshine -:- Double Predestination -:- Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 13:19:33 (PST)
_ monitor -:- Re: Double Predestination -:- Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 13:27:01 (PST)
Rod -:- God's 'mistake'
-:- Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 06:16:16 (PST)
_ Berean7 -:- Re: God's 'mistake'
-:- Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 18:53:16 (PST)
__ john hampshire -:- Re: God's 'mistake' -:- Thurs,
Mar 30, 2000 at 23:46:21 (PST)
Vernon -:- Pilgrim's reply to Mary -:- Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 03:16:15 (PST)
_ a monitor -:- Re: Pilgrim's reply to Mary -:- Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 07:03:38 (PST)
_ john hampshire -:- Re: Pilgrim's reply to Mary
-:- Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 05:23:28 (PST)
__ Eric -:- For
john -:- Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 09:28:37
(PST)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re:
For john -:- Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 13:14:14
(PST)
____ Eric -:- Re:
For john -:- Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 14:33:58
(PST)
__ mary -:- Re:
Pilgrim's reply to Mary -:- Thurs, Mar
30, 2000 at 06:39:34 (PST)
___ john hampshire -:- Re: Pilgrim's reply to Mary
-:- Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 23:18:13 (PST)
____ mary -:- Re:
Pilgrim's reply to Mary -:- Fri, Mar
31, 2000 at 05:12:22 (PST)
_____ Brother Bret -:- Re: Pilgrim's reply to Mary
-:- Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 18:33:44 (PST)
______ mary -:- Re:
Pilgrim's reply to Mary -:- Fri, Mar
31, 2000 at 20:22:58 (PST)
_______ laz -:- Re:
Pilgrim's reply to Mary -:- Sat, Apr
01, 2000 at 06:13:02 (PST)
_____ a monitor -:- Re:
Pilgrim's reply to Mary -:- Fri, Mar
31, 2000 at 09:57:00 (PST)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Pilgrim's reply to Mary -:- Thurs, Mar
30, 2000 at 09:27:44 (PST)
___ Eric -:- You
are on the right track -:- Thurs, Mar
30, 2000 at 07:59:14 (PST)
____ a monitor -:- Re:
You are on the right track -:- Thurs,
Mar 30, 2000 at 10:06:33 (PST)
eikke -:- Holy Orthodoxy
-:- Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 21:16:27 (PST)
_ laz -:- Re: Holy Orthodoxy
-:- Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 21:31:39 (PST)
__ eikke -:- Re:
Holy Orthodoxy -:- Wed, Mar 29, 2000
at 21:14:24 (PST)
___ john hampshire -:- Re: Holy Orthodoxy -:- Thurs,
Mar 30, 2000 at 04:41:32 (PST)
____ Christopher -:- Eucharistic Scriptures -:-
Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 12:27:03 (PST)
_____ john hampshire -:- Re: Eucharistic Scriptures
-:- Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 00:36:51 (PST)
______ Christopher -:- Re: Eucharistic Scriptures
-:- Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 12:03:50 (PST)
_______ john hampshire -:- Re: Eucharistic Scriptures
-:- Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 19:53:35 (PST)
_______ Christopher -:- Ah, yes, Zwingli... -:- Fri,
Mar 31, 2000 at 13:38:14 (PST)
________ Tom -:- Re:
Ah, yes, Zwingli... -:- Fri, Mar 31,
2000 at 14:03:18 (PST)
_________ laz -:- Re:
Ah, yes, Zwingli... -:- Fri, Mar 31,
2000 at 14:08:58 (PST)
__________ Tom -:- Re:
Ah, yes, Zwingli... -:- Sat, Apr 01,
2000 at 07:25:31 (PST)
________ laz -:- Re:
Ah, yes, Zwingli... -:- Fri, Mar 31,
2000 at 13:50:33 (PST)
_________ Christopher -:- Re: Ah, yes, Zwingli... -:-
Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 14:35:43 (PST)
_______ laz -:- Re:
Eucharistic Scriptures -:- Fri, Mar 31,
2000 at 13:37:18 (PST)
_______ Pilgrim -:- Re: Eucharistic Scriptures
-:- Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 13:34:29 (PST)
________ Christopher -:- Re: Eucharistic Scriptures
-:- Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 15:21:12 (PST)
________ Christopher -:- Re: Eucharistic Scriptures
-:- Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 14:11:24 (PST)
_____ Christopher -:- The veneration of the Mother of God and the saints -:- Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 12:43:36 (PST)
______ john hampshire -:- Re: The veneration of the Mother of God and the saints -:- Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 06:34:16 (PST)
_______ eikke -:- Re:
The veneration of the Mother of God and the saints -:- Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 12:09:35 (PST)
________ john hampshire -:- Re: The veneration of the Mother of God and the saints -:- Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 20:28:31 (PST)
_________ eikke -:- Re:
The veneration of the Mother of God and the saints -:- Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 02:41:19 (PST)
_________ Christopher -:- Re: The veneration of the Mother of God and the saints -:- Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 21:13:26 (PST)
_______ Christopher -:- Nestorian? -:- Fri, Mar 31,
2000 at 09:54:50 (PST)
______ Christopher -:- The belief in the One, Visible Church -:- Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 13:05:54 (PST)
_______ laz -:- Re:
The belief in the One, Visible Church
-:- Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 14:38:05 (PST)
________ eikke -:- Re:
The belief in the One, Visible Church
-:- Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 18:32:04 (PST)
_________ a monitor -:- Re: The belief in the One, Visible Church -:- Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 12:08:49 (PST)
__________ eikke -:- Re:
The belief in the One, Visible Church
-:- Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 20:04:41 (PST)
___________ Pilgrim -:- Re: The belief in the One, Visible Church -:- Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 20:55:44 (PST)
____________ eikke -:- Re: The belief in the One, Visible Church -:- Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 02:48:29 (PST)
_____________ Pilgrim -:- Re: The belief in the One, Visible Church -:- Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 07:57:18 (PST)
__________ eikke -:- Re:
The belief in the One, Visible Church
-:- Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 19:59:47 (PST)
Christopher -:- An invitation
-:- Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 19:40:14 (PST)
_ laz -:- Re: An invitation
-:- Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 21:27:36 (PST)
__ eikke -:- Re:
An invitation -:- Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at
12:23:48 (PST)
___ laz -:- Re:
An invitation -:- Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at
14:39:00 (PST)
____ eikke -:- Ah. -:- Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 20:37:27 (PST)
__ Christopher -:- Re:
An invitation -:- Tues, Mar 28, 2000
at 22:06:30 (PST)
___ eikke -:- Re:
An invitation -:- Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at
21:21:05 (PST)
Vernon -:- A great and humble Calvinist -:- Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 16:33:16 (PST)
_ Tom -:- Re: A great and humble Calvinist -:- Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 23:30:44 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re:
A great and humble Calvinist -:- Tues,
Mar 28, 2000 at 19:55:42 (PST)
Berean7 -:- Talking Religion
-:- Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 12:32:21 (PST)
_ laz -:- Re: Talking Religion
-:- Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 17:46:01 (PST)
_ Eric -:- Re:
Talking Religion -:- Tues, Mar 28, 2000
at 13:59:51 (PST)
__ Proginowsko -:- Re:
Talking Religion -:- Tues, Mar 28, 2000
at 16:09:13 (PST)
Eric -:- Sheol/Geenna/Hades/Tartaroo -:- Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 07:22:13 (PST)
_ mebaser -:- Off the top of my head
-:- Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 14:10:19 (PST)
__ Eric -:- Thanks,
mebaser -:- Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 09:37:37
(PST)
_ Christopher -:- For
Eric -:- Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 08:54:58
(PST)
__ Eric -:- Thanks -:- Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 14:21:36 (PST)
___ a monitor -:- just
curious -:- Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 20:28:58
(PST)
____ Eric -:- Re:
just curious -:- Thurs, Mar 30, 2000
at 07:52:33 (PST)
_____ kevin -:- Re:
just curious -:- Thurs, Mar 30, 2000
at 17:09:24 (PST)
___ Christopher -:- Re:
Thanks -:- Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 14:31:46
(PST)
laz -:- Who's Authority?
-:- Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 14:13:02 (PST)
_ Christopher -:- Re: Who's Authority?
-:- Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 14:27:46 (PST)
freegrace -:- Thorn in the flesh - water baptism -:- Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 09:33:43 (PST)
_ Prestor John -:- Re: Thorn in the flesh - water baptism -:- Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 22:26:19 (PST)
__ freegrace -:- Re:
Thorn in the flesh - water baptism -:-
Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 08:17:59 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Thorn in the flesh - water baptism -:-
Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 11:34:43 (PST)
Berean7 -:- What is mans Responsibility? -:- Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 09:06:17 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: What is mans Responsibility?? -:- Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 11:26:58 (PST)
_ Apostle Paul said: -:- Re: What is mans Responsibility??
-:- Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 09:34:12 (PST)
freegrace -:- God is to be praised..! -:- Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 08:40:57 (PST)
TDT -:- Angels
-:- Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 19:48:30 (PST)
_ laz -:- Re: Angels -:-
Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 11:22:27 (PST)
__ Christopher -:- Re:
Angels -:- Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 11:49:02
(PST)
___ john hampshire -:- Re: Angels -:- Mon, Mar 27,
2000 at 23:39:54 (PST)
freegrace -:- The True Children of God -:- Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 12:00:15 (PST)
Pilgrim -:- Re: Pilgrim, aren't you a Calvinist? -:- Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 14:53:22 (PST)
__ ShowMe -:- Re: Pilgrim, aren't you a Calvinist? -:- Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 15:39:25 (PST)
___ Brother Bret -:- Re: Pilgrim, aren't you a Calvinist?
-:- Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 20:47:26 (PST)
_ laz -:- Re:
Pilgrim, aren't you a Calvinist?? -:-
Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 14:35:53 (PST)
__ ShowMe -:- Re:
Pilgrim, aren't you a Calvinist? -:-
Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 15:57:01 (PST)
___ john hampshire -:- Re: Pilgrim, aren't you a Calvinist?
-:- Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 19:24:04 (PST)
____ ShowMe -:- Re:
Pilgrim, aren't you a Calvinist??? -:-
Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 22:07:46 (PST)
_____ john hampshire -:- Re: Pilgrim, aren't you a Calvinist?
-:- Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 00:12:27 (PST)
_____ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Pilgrim, aren't you a Calvinist??? -:-
Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 22:57:56 (PST)
__ freegrace -:- Re:
Pilgrim, aren't you a Calvinist? -:-
Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 15:38:11 (PST)
Tom -:- Calvin on Baptism -:- Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 23:35:57 (PST)
_ Shelly -:- Re: Calvin on Baptism
-:- Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 12:10:25 (PST)
_ john hampshire -:- Re:
Calvin on Baptism -:- Sun, Mar 26, 2000
at 19:46:25 (PST)
__ Tom -:- Re:
Calvin on Baptism -:- Sun, Mar 26, 2000
at 21:42:07 (PST)
_ Gene -:- Re:
Calvin on Baptism -:- Sun, Mar 26, 2000
at 03:42:17 (PST)
__ Prestor John -:- Re:
Calvin on Baptism -:- Sun, Mar 26, 2000
at 17:01:46 (PST)
___ Tom -:- Re:
Calvin on Baptism -:- Sun, Mar 26, 2000
at 20:47:37 (PST)
____ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Calvin on Baptism -:- Sun, Mar 26, 2000
at 21:52:29 (PST)
_____ Tom -:- Re:
Calvin on Baptism -:- Mon, Mar 27, 2000
at 08:02:11 (PST)
_____ john hampshire -:- Re: Calvin on Baptism -books
-:- Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 04:46:25 (PST)
___ Gene -:- Re:
Calvin on Baptism -:- Sun, Mar 26, 2000
at 20:38:04 (PST)
____ Prestor John -:- Re: Calvin on Baptism -:- Mon,
Mar 27, 2000 at 00:27:30 (PST)
mary -:- grieved in spirit -:- Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 13:11:06 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: grieved in spirit
-:- Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 22:24:07 (PST)
__ mary -:- Re:
grieved in spirit -:- Sun, Mar 26, 2000
at 09:56:28 (PST)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re:
grieved in spirit -:- Sun, Mar 26, 2000
at 10:30:52 (PST)
____ mary -:- Re:
grieved in spirit -:- Sun, Mar 26, 2000
at 11:25:38 (PST)
_____ Pilgrim -:- Re:
grieved in spirit -:- Sun, Mar 26, 2000
at 14:34:48 (PST)
becky -:- isn't Grace for everyone? -:- Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 08:36:47 (PST)
_ Old Faith -:- Re: Yes, Grace is for everyone! -:- Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 06:52:00 (PST)
_ CMB 19 -:- Re:
isn't Grace for everyone? -:- Sun, Mar
26, 2000 at 21:02:07 (PST)
__ laz -:- Re:
isn't Grace for everyone? -:- Mon, Mar
27, 2000 at 08:38:54 (PST)
_ freegrace -:- Re:
isn't Grace for everyone? -:- Sat, Mar
25, 2000 at 08:48:06 (PST)
_ David Teh -:- Re:
isn't Grace for everyone? -:- Sat, Mar
25, 2000 at 06:16:41 (PST)
_ john hampshire -:- Re: isn't Grace for everyone?
-:- Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 03:43:52 (PST)
__ ShowMe -:- Re:
isn't Grace for everyone? -:- Sat, Mar
25, 2000 at 10:38:49 (PST)
___ Rod -:- Re:
isn't Grace for everyone? -:- Sun, Mar
26, 2000 at 02:19:48 (PST)
___ laz -:- Re:
isn't Grace for everyone? -:- Sat, Mar
25, 2000 at 10:54:34 (PST)
____ ShowMe -:- Way
Off Base! -:- Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 11:04:40
(PST)
_____ laz -:- No,
right on target! -:- Sat, Mar 25, 2000
at 12:04:13 (PST)
______ ShowMe -:- Junk! -:- Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 12:31:49 (PST)
_______ CMB 19 -:- Remember
this -:- Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 21:10:08
(PST)
_______ Joel H -:- An
object with 'purpose' is not junk! -:-
Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 15:26:33 (PST)
________ ShowMe -:- Re:
An object with 'purpose' is not junk!
-:- Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 16:37:47 (PST)
_________ Tom -:- Re:
An object with 'purpose' is not junk!
-:- Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 08:52:20 (PST)
__________ ShowMe -:- Missed Your Point -:- Sun,
Mar 26, 2000 at 09:06:04 (PST)
___________ Tom -:- Re:
Missed Your Point -:- Sun, Mar 26, 2000
at 13:33:17 (PST)
_________ Joel H -:- Re: An object with 'purpose' is not junk! -:- Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 18:43:51 (PST)
__________ ShowMe -:- No
Objections :o) -:- Sat, Mar 25, 2000
at 19:24:27 (PST)
_______ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Junk! -:- Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 15:17:29
(PST)
________ ShowMe -:- Re:
Junk! -:- Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 16:39:53
(PST)
_________ Pilgrim -:- Re: Junk! -:- Sat, Mar 25,
2000 at 22:01:30 (PST)
__________ ShowMe -:- Re: Junk! -:- Sun, Mar 26,
2000 at 09:08:01 (PST)
___________ CMB 19 -:- Re: Junk! -:- Tues, Mar 28,
2000 at 22:11:32 (PST)
___________ Pilgrim -:- Re: Junk! -:- Sun, Mar 26,
2000 at 09:55:49 (PST)
_______ kevin -:- all
junk goes to gehenna nt -:- Sat, Mar
25, 2000 at 14:40:29 (PST)
_ Anne -:- Re:
isn't Grace for everyone? -:- Fri, Mar
24, 2000 at 09:10:59 (PST)
ShowMe -:- Heaven and Hell, where are they? -:- Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 07:57:17 (PST)
_ kevin -:- Re: Heaven and Hell, where are they? -:- Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 15:00:26 (PST)
__ ShowMe -:- Re:
Heaven and Hell, where are they? -:-
Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 17:25:52 (PST)
___ Gene -:- Re:
Heaven and Hell, where are they? -:-
Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 18:52:22 (PST)
____ ShowMe -:- Re:
Heaven and Hell, where are they? -:-
Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 19:49:24 (PST)
_____ Gene -:- Re:
Heaven and Hell, where are they? -:-
Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 04:10:32 (PST)
_____ john hampshire -:- Re: Heaven and Hell, where are they?
-:- Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 01:10:43 (PST)
______ ShowMe -:- Re:
Heaven and Hell, where are they?? -:-
Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 09:48:54 (PST)
_______ CMB 19 -:- Think
about it -:- Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 22:51:53
(PST)
_______ kevin -:- Re:
Heaven and Hell, where are they? -:-
Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 11:51:06 (PST)
________ ShowMe -:- Re:
Heaven and Hell, where are they? -:-
Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 12:44:05 (PST)
_________ Pilgrim -:- Re: Heaven and Hell, where are they?
-:- Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 10:04:57 (PST)
__________ ShowMe -:- Another Dimension? -:- Sun,
Mar 26, 2000 at 12:45:18 (PST)
___________ Pilgrim -:- Re: Another Dimension? -:-
Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 15:02:08 (PST)
____________ ShowMe -:- What about His Body??? -:-
Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 15:59:29 (PST)
_________ kevin -:- Re:
Heaven and Hell, where are they? -:-
Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 13:19:15 (PST)
laz -:- WELCOME BACK, ROD -:- Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 07:01:12 (PST)
_ Anne -:- Indeed, yes! -:-
Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 08:45:03 (PST)
_ Rod -:- Re:
WELCOME BACK, ROD -:- Fri, Mar 24, 2000
at 08:43:17 (PST)
__ Pilgrim -:- Re:
WELCOME BACK, ROD -:- Fri, Mar 24, 2000
at 17:10:30 (PST)
Vernon -:- What is The Reform View?? -:- Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 03:49:52 (PST)
_ laz -:- Re: What is The Reform View? -:- Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 06:58:47 (PST)
__ Vernon -:- Re:
What is The Reform View? -:- Fri, Mar
24, 2000 at 07:47:27 (PST)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re:
What is The Reform View? -:- Fri, Mar
24, 2000 at 17:39:58 (PST)
____ Vernon -:- You
May Disagree,Pilgrim -:- Sat, Mar 25,
2000 at 03:01:49 (PST)
_____ Pilgrim -:- Vernon:
Please answer the questions! -:- Sat,
Mar 25, 2000 at 08:58:37 (PST)
______ Vernon -:- Re:
Vernon: Please answer the questions!
-:- Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 11:09:12 (PST)
_______ Tom -:- Re:
Vernon: Please answer the questions!
-:- Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 12:53:19 (PST)
________ Vernon -:- Hey Tom -:- Sat, Mar 25, 2000
at 17:30:54 (PST)
_________ laz -:- Re:
Hey Tom -:- Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 19:18:21
(PST)
__________ Vernon -:- Re: Hey Laz -:- Sun, Mar 26,
2000 at 04:42:41 (PST)
___________ laz -:- Re:
Hey Laz -:- Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 05:52:03
(PST)
____________ Vernon -:- Re: Hello Laz -:- Sun, Mar
26, 2000 at 10:07:55 (PST)
_____________ Pilgrim -:- Re: Hello? Vernon!! -:- Sun,
Mar 26, 2000 at 22:41:49 (PST)
______________ laz -:- Dear Vernon -:- Mon, Mar 27,
2000 at 08:54:20 (PST)
_____________ laz -:- Re: Hello Laz -:- Sun, Mar
26, 2000 at 13:11:31 (PST)
___ Vernon -:- Re:
What is The Reform View? -:- Fri, Mar
24, 2000 at 17:13:20 (PST)
____ Vernon -:- Re:
What is The Reform View? -:- Fri, Mar
24, 2000 at 17:17:06 (PST)
Christopher -:- Fasting
-:- Thurs, Mar 23, 2000 at 22:40:15 (PST)
_ john hampshire -:- Re: Fasting -:-
Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 02:04:20 (PST)
__ Christopher -:- Re:
Fasting -:- Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 09:34:20
(PST)
_ kevin -:- Re:
Fasting -:- Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 15:08:44
(PST)
__ Christopher -:- Re:
Fasting -:- Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 20:27:41
(PST)
_ Eric -:- Hey
Christopher -:- Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at
07:30:13 (PST)
__ Christopher -:- Re:
Hey Christopher -:- Fri, Mar 24, 2000
at 08:23:51 (PST)
Christopher -:- laz
-:- Thurs, Mar 23, 2000 at 08:53:24 (PST)
_ laz -:- Re: laz -:- Thurs,
Mar 23, 2000 at 08:58:48 (PST)
__ Christopher -:- Re:
laz -:- Thurs, Mar 23, 2000 at 09:24:05
(PST)
Tom -:- Two Natures
-:- Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 19:05:09 (PST)
_ john hampshire -:- Re: Two Natures
-:- Thurs, Mar 23, 2000 at 10:36:11 (PST)
__ Christopher -:- Re:
Two Natures -:- Thurs, Mar 23, 2000 at
10:44:56 (PST)
___ john hampshire -:- Re: Two Natures -:- Thurs,
Mar 23, 2000 at 15:13:04 (PST)
____ Christopher -:- Re: Two Natures -:- Thurs,
Mar 23, 2000 at 20:41:02 (PST)
Highway Monitor -:- Rudeness
-:- Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 18:28:19 (PST)
_ Vernon -:- Re: Rudeness -:-
Thurs, Mar 23, 2000 at 04:13:00 (PST)
__ Chris -:- Re:
Rudeness -:- Thurs, Mar 23, 2000 at 04:28:07
(PST)
Pilgrim -:- Papal Pardon?
-:- Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 17:46:00 (PST)
_ john hampshire -:- Re: Papal Pardon?
-:- Thurs, Mar 23, 2000 at 10:08:20 (PST)
_ Christopher -:- Re:
Papal Pardon? -:- Thurs, Mar 23, 2000
at 09:22:18 (PST)
Brother Bret -:- Pilgrim and Baptist Churches/Below -:- Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 10:28:50 (PST)
john hampshire -:- Mandate for Water Baptism/? -:- Tues, Mar 21, 2000 at 23:13:23 (PST)
_ Tom -:- Re: Mandate for Water Baptism/? -:- Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 16:32:47 (PST)
__ john hampshire -:- Re:
Mandate for Water Baptism/? -:- Sat,
Mar 25, 2000 at 00:28:11 (PST)
___ Tom -:- Re:
Mandate for Water Baptism/? -:- Sat,
Mar 25, 2000 at 13:59:35 (PST)
_ freegrace -:- Re:
Mandate for Water Baptism/? -:- Thurs,
Mar 23, 2000 at 06:57:10 (PST)
__ Chris -:- Re:
Mandate for Water Baptism/? -:- Fri,
Mar 24, 2000 at 04:49:44 (PST)
__ Prestor John -:- Re:
Mandate for Water Baptism/? -:- Thurs,
Mar 23, 2000 at 21:08:47 (PST)
_ Prestor John -:- Re:
Mandate for Water Baptism/? -:- Wed,
Mar 22, 2000 at 20:56:38 (PST)
_ Tom -:- Re:
Mandate for Water Baptism/? -:- Tues,
Mar 21, 2000 at 23:36:56 (PST)
__ john hampshire -:- Re: Mandate for Water Baptism/?
-:- Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 00:05:44 (PST)
___ Gene -:- Re:
Mandate for Water Baptism/? -:- Wed,
Mar 22, 2000 at 02:48:36 (PST)
____ Vernon -:- Re:
Mandate for Water Baptism/?? -:- Thurs,
Mar 23, 2000 at 03:48:57 (PST)
_____ Chris -:- Re:
Mandate for Water Baptism/? -:- Thurs,
Mar 23, 2000 at 04:27:20 (PST)
____ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Mandate for Water Baptism/? -:- Wed,
Mar 22, 2000 at 08:28:43 (PST)
_____ Chris -:- Re:
Mandate for Water Baptism/? -:- Wed,
Mar 22, 2000 at 09:36:54 (PST)
______ Tom -:- Re:
Mandate for Water Baptism/? -:- Wed,
Mar 22, 2000 at 16:24:03 (PST)
_______ Chris -:- Re:
Mandate for Water Baptism/? -:- Wed,
Mar 22, 2000 at 18:39:35 (PST)
________ Tom -:- Re:
Mandate for Water Baptism/? -:- Thurs,
Mar 23, 2000 at 16:12:56 (PST)
______ a stuckee monitor -:- Re: Mandate for Water Baptism/????
-:- Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 13:39:03 (PST)
______ Joel H -:- Re:
Please use caution before judging ;)
-:- Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 12:56:40 (PST)
_______ Chris -:- Re:
Please use caution before judging ;)
-:- Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 18:44:27 (PST)
______ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Mandate for Water Baptism/? -:- Wed,
Mar 22, 2000 at 12:34:53 (PST)
____ Chris -:- Re:
Mandate for Water Baptism/? -:- Wed,
Mar 22, 2000 at 06:54:30 (PST)
cousin Earl -:- Kingdom Theology
-:- Tues, Mar 21, 2000 at 19:08:44 (PST)
_ laz -:- Re: Kingdom Theology
-:- Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 06:49:39 (PST)
freegrace -:- Not Guilty in Christ -:- Tues, Mar 21, 2000 at 17:21:16 (PST)
_ freegrace -:- Re: Not Guilty in Christ -:- Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 07:50:18 (PST)
__ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Not Guilty in Christ -:- Wed, Mar 22,
2000 at 08:31:15 (PST)
___ freegrace -:- Re:
Not Guilty in Christ -:- Wed, Mar 22,
2000 at 10:15:08 (PST)
____ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Not Guilty in Christ -:- Wed, Mar 22,
2000 at 13:36:10 (PST)
_____ freegrace -:- Re:
Not Guilty in Christ -:- Thurs, Mar 23,
2000 at 12:26:58 (PST)
______ Rod -:- Re:
Not Guilty in Christ -:- Fri, Mar 24,
2000 at 01:10:08 (PST)
_______ freegrace -:- Re: Not Guilty in Christ -:-
Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 08:30:49 (PST)
Vernon -:- Who Are We
-:- Tues, Mar 21, 2000 at 02:58:02 (PST)
_ laz -:- Re: Who Are We
-:- Tues, Mar 21, 2000 at 05:22:21 (PST)
__ Vernon -:- Re:
Who Are We -:- Tues, Mar 21, 2000 at
09:12:22 (PST)
___ laz -:- Re:
Who Are We -:- Tues, Mar 21, 2000 at
13:11:18 (PST)
Delta Boy -:- Could Jesus sin?
-:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 09:48:54 (PST)
_ CMB 19 -:- For the Bible tells me so. -:- Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 13:50:45 (PST)
_ David Teh -:- Re:
Could Jesus sin? -:- Tues, Mar 21, 2000
at 05:23:27 (PST)
_ john hampshire -:- Re:
Could Jesus sin? -:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000
at 22:28:33 (PST)
__ laz -:- Re:
Could Jesus sin? -:- Wed, Mar 22, 2000
at 07:05:22 (PST)
Eric -:- A response to Pilgrim, from below -:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 08:08:52 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: A response to Pilgrim, from below -:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 09:04:48 (PST)
__ freegrace -:- Re:
A response to Pilgrim, from below -:-
Tues, Mar 21, 2000 at 09:57:09 (PST)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Found Guilty in Him! -:- Tues, Mar 21,
2000 at 16:40:29 (PST)
__ Eric -:- Re:
A response to Pilgrim, from below -:-
Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 13:52:35 (PST)
___ Christopher -:- Re:
A response to Pilgrim, from below -:-
Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 20:29:21 (PST)
____ laz -:- Re:
A response to Pilgrim, from below -:-
Tues, Mar 21, 2000 at 05:01:21 (PST)
_____ Christopher -:- Re: A response to Pilgrim, from below -:- Tues, Mar 21, 2000 at 11:14:29 (PST)
______ laz -:- Re:
A response to Pilgrim, from below -:-
Tues, Mar 21, 2000 at 13:17:54 (PST)
_______ Christopher -:- Re: A response to Pilgrim, from below -:- Tues, Mar 21, 2000 at 13:59:50 (PST)
___ kevin -:- Re:
A response to Pilgrim, from below -:-
Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 16:41:43 (PST)
____ Eric -:- a
reply to kevin -:- Tues, Mar 21, 2000
at 08:08:04 (PST)
_____ laz -:- Re:
a reply to kevin -:- Tues, Mar 21, 2000
at 13:47:09 (PST)
______ Eric -:- You
make my point -:- Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at
08:10:45 (PST)
_______ laz -:- don't
flatter yourself, ;-) -:- Wed, Mar 22,
2000 at 21:31:43 (PST)
________ Eric -:- What
could be plainer? -:- Thurs, Mar 23,
2000 at 09:30:23 (PST)
_________ Pilgrim -:- Re: What could be plainer?
-:- Thurs, Mar 23, 2000 at 13:10:41 (PST)
__________ Eric -:- Universalism-NO! -:- Thurs, Mar 23, 2000 at 13:46:07 (PST)
_________ laz -:- Re:
What could be plainer?? -:- Thurs, Mar
23, 2000 at 12:37:27 (PST)
__________ Eric -:- okay -:- Thurs, Mar 23, 2000
at 13:51:50 (PST)
_______ kevin -:- Re:
You make my point -:- Wed, Mar 22, 2000
at 19:33:16 (PST)
________ Eric -:- Answers
to kevin -:- Thurs, Mar 23, 2000 at 09:15:56
(PST)
_________ Pilgrim -:- Re: Answers to kevin -:- Thurs,
Mar 23, 2000 at 13:23:21 (PST)
__________ Eric -:- Last
Post -:- Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 05:13:07
(PST)
___________ Pilgrim -:- Re: Last Post -:- Fri, Mar
24, 2000 at 07:44:42 (PST)
____________ Eric -:- Hopefully the last post -:-
Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 09:10:41 (PST)
_________ kevin -:- Re:
Answers to kevin -:- Thurs, Mar 23, 2000
at 10:49:02 (PST)
__________ Eric -:- More
answers to kevin... -:- Thurs, Mar 23,
2000 at 13:12:32 (PST)
___________ kevin -:- Re: More answers to kevin...
-:- Thurs, Mar 23, 2000 at 19:42:29 (PST)
____________ Eric -:- Last post on the subject -:-
Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 05:01:52 (PST)
_____________ kevin -:- Re: Last post on the subject
-:- Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 14:48:41 (PST)
_____________ Pilgrim -:- Re: Last post on the subject
-:- Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 08:10:39 (PST)
_____________ laz -:- Re: Last post on the subject
-:- Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 06:08:19 (PST)
_____ kevin -:- Re:
a reply to kevin -:- Tues, Mar 21, 2000
at 08:51:16 (PST)
______ Eric -:- Re:
a reply to kevin -:- Tues, Mar 21, 2000
at 09:56:17 (PST)
_______ Pilgrim -:- Re:
a reply to kevin -:- Tues, Mar 21, 2000
at 10:21:01 (PST)
Chris -:- Sharing the Gospel -:- Sun, Mar 19, 2000 at 14:21:31 (PST)
_ Vernon -:- Re: Sharing the Gospel
-:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 03:03:00 (PST)
__ Chris -:- Re:
Sharing the Gospel -:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000
at 04:47:30 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Sharing the Gospel -:- Sun, Mar 19, 2000
at 15:20:04 (PST)
__ PesterBrat -:- Re:
Sharing the Gospel -:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000
at 16:02:26 (PST)
___ laz -:- Re:
Sharing the Gospel -:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000
at 19:44:00 (PST)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Sharing the Gospel -:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000
at 19:40:19 (PST)
__ Vern -:- Re:
Sharing the Gospel -:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000
at 03:07:35 (PST)
___ Chris -:- Re:
Sharing the Gospel -:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000
at 10:55:07 (PST)
____ laz -:- Re:
Sharing the Gospel -:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000
at 13:35:28 (PST)
_____ Chris -:- Re:
Sharing the Gospel -:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000
at 14:39:04 (PST)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Sharing the Gospel -:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000
at 08:09:11 (PST)
____ PesterBrat -:- Re:
Sharing the Gospel -:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000
at 16:16:51 (PST)
_____ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Sharing the Gospel -:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000
at 19:56:50 (PST)
______ Tom -:- Re:
Sharing the Gospel -:- Tues, Mar 21,
2000 at 16:50:37 (PST)
_______ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Sharing the Gospel -:- Tues, Mar 21,
2000 at 22:29:08 (PST)
________ Tom -:- Re:
Sharing the Gospel -:- Tues, Mar 21,
2000 at 23:18:02 (PST)
_________ Brother Bret -:- Re: Sharing the Gospel -:-
Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 10:32:44 (PST)
_________ Pilgrim -:- Re: Sharing the Gospel -:-
Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 08:17:24 (PST)
______ Chris -:- Re:
Sharing the Gospel -:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000
at 20:15:30 (PST)
_______ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Sharing the Gospel -:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000
at 21:25:32 (PST)
____ Chris -:- Pilgrim -:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 14:44:15 (PST)
____ Five Sola -:- Re:
Sharing the Gospel -:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000
at 10:32:49 (PST)
__ Prestor John -:- Re:
Sharing the Gospel -:- Sun, Mar 19, 2000
at 15:30:17 (PST)
___ Chris -:- Re:
Sharing the Gospel -:- Sun, Mar 19, 2000
at 18:45:39 (PST)
____ Prestor John -:- Re: Sharing the Gospel -:-
Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 22:57:28 (PST)
_____ Chris -:- Prestor
John -:- Tues, Mar 21, 2000 at 15:47:16
(PST)
____ Gene -:- Keep
preaching! -:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 02:49:40
(PST)
____ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Sharing the Gospel -:- Sun, Mar 19, 2000
at 20:21:20 (PST)
_____ Chris -:- Re:
Sharing the Gospel -:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000
at 04:27:43 (PST)
______ Anne -:- Re:
Sharing the Gospel -:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000
at 06:33:08 (PST)
_______ Chris -:- Re:
Sharing the Gospel -:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000
at 10:49:40 (PST)
________ Anne -:- I
love the book of Job! ;-> -:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 13:20:20 (PST)
_________ Chris -:- Re: I love the book of Job! ;-> -:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 14:37:10
(PST)
__________ Anne -:- Mea culpa! -:- Mon, Mar 20,
2000 at 15:15:23 (PST)
___________ Chris -:- Re: Mea culpa! -:- Mon, Mar
20, 2000 at 20:18:02 (PST)
____________ Tom -:- Re: Mea culpa! -:- Tues, Mar
21, 2000 at 17:36:40 (PST)
_____________ Chris -:- Re: Mea culpa! -:- Tues, Mar
21, 2000 at 20:15:21 (PST)
Tom -:- Eastern Orthodox Trinitarian? -:- Sun, Mar 19, 2000 at 14:11:16 (PST)
_ Christopher -:- Re: Eastern Orthodox Trinitarian? -:- Sun, Mar 19, 2000 at 21:15:40 (PST)
__ Tom -:- Re:
Eastern Orthodox Trinitarian? -:- Mon,
Mar 20, 2000 at 14:42:32 (PST)
___ Christopher -:- Re: Eastern Orthodox Trinitarian?
-:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 18:26:28 (PST)
____ Tom -:- Re:
Eastern Orthodox Trinitarian? -:- Tues,
Mar 21, 2000 at 22:44:17 (PST)
_____ Christopher -:- Re: Eastern Orthodox Trinitarian?
-:- Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 08:20:01 (PST)
Gary Griffith -:- John Brown Sermons -:- Sat, Mar 18, 2000 at 12:32:39 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: John Brown Sermons
-:- Sat, Mar 18, 2000 at 18:14:00 (PST)
__ laz -:- Re:
John Brown Sermons -:- Sat, Mar 18, 2000
at 18:18:46 (PST)
Chris -:- Witnessing on the Job -:- Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 04:14:26 (PST)
_ Vernon -:- Re: Witnessing on the Job -:- Sun, Mar 19, 2000 at 11:10:29 (PST)
__ Vernon -:- Witnessing/John -:- Sun, Mar 19, 2000 at 19:10:44 (PST)
___ laz -:- Re:
Witnessing/John -:- Sun, Mar 19, 2000
at 21:10:12 (PST)
____ Vern -:- Re:
Witnessing/John -:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000
at 02:48:41 (PST)
____ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Witnessing/John -:- Sun, Mar 19, 2000
at 23:07:04 (PST)
_____ laz -:- Re:
Witnessing/John -:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000
at 09:12:06 (PST)
______ Vernon -:- Re:
Witnessing/John -:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000
at 15:10:22 (PST)
_______ Pilgrim -:- Vernon -:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 20:03:57 (PST)
________ Vernon -:- Re:
Vernon -:- Tues, Mar 21, 2000 at 02:32:36
(PST)
_____ Vern -:- Re:
Witnessing/John -:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000
at 02:51:41 (PST)
__ Prestor John -:- Re:
Witnessing on the Job -:- Sun, Mar 19,
2000 at 15:54:37 (PST)
_ john hampshire -:- Re:
Witnessing on the Job -:- Fri, Mar 17,
2000 at 05:12:06 (PST)
__ Gene -:- Re:
Witnessing on the Job -:- Fri, Mar 17,
2000 at 17:25:22 (PST)
__ Brother Bret -:- Re:
Witnessing on the Job -:- Fri, Mar 17,
2000 at 15:07:09 (PST)
___ john hampshire -:- Re: Witnessing on the Job -:-
Sat, Mar 18, 2000 at 03:47:18 (PST)
____ Chris -:- Re:
Witnessing on the Job -:- Sat, Mar 18,
2000 at 04:26:48 (PST)
_____ laz -:- Re:
Witnessing on the Job -:- Sat, Mar 18,
2000 at 09:16:14 (PST)
______ lindell -:- Re:
Witnessing on the Job,laz -:- Sun, Mar
19, 2000 at 03:14:45 (PST)
_______ laz -:- Re:
Witnessing on the Job,laz -:- Sun, Mar
19, 2000 at 05:46:00 (PST)
________ lindell -:- Re: Witnessing on the Job,laz
-:- Thurs, Mar 23, 2000 at 05:22:58 (PST)
_________ laz -:- Re:
Witnessing on the Job,laz -:- Thurs,
Mar 23, 2000 at 06:59:41 (PST)
__________ lindell -:- Re: Witnessing on the Job,laz
-:- Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 14:10:21 (PST)
___________ laz -:- Re:
Witnessing on the Job,laz -:- Sun, Mar
26, 2000 at 17:44:23 (PST)
____________ Christopher -:- Re: Witnessing on the Job,laz
-:- Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 10:31:22 (PST)
_____________ laz -:- Chris/Berean -:- Mon, Mar 27,
2000 at 10:59:59 (PST)
______________ Christopher -:- Re: Chris/Berean -:- Mon, Mar
27, 2000 at 11:46:10 (PST)
____________ Berean7 -:- Re: Witnessing on the Job,laz
-:- Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 10:08:59 (PST)
______ john hampshire -:- Re: Witnessing on the Job -:-
Sat, Mar 18, 2000 at 23:11:15 (PST)
_______ Brother Bret -:- Re: Witnessing on the Job -:-
Sun, Mar 19, 2000 at 12:46:47 (PST)
_______ chris -:- Re:
Witnessing on the Job -:- Sun, Mar 19,
2000 at 06:25:54 (PST)
______ Chris -:- Re:
Witnessing on the Job -:- Sat, Mar 18,
2000 at 13:33:16 (PST)
Brother Bret/PesterBrat -:- Circumcision To Baptism -:- Thurs, Mar 16, 2000 at 21:57:48 (PST)
_ john hampshire -:- Re: Circumcision To Baptism -:- Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 00:09:28 (PST)
__ Joel H -:- Re:
Circumcision To Baptism -:- Fri, Mar
17, 2000 at 07:25:45 (PST)
___ john hampshire -:- Re: Circumcision To Baptism
-:- Sat, Mar 18, 2000 at 04:43:33 (PST)
____ laz -:- Re:
Circumcision To Baptism -:- Sat, Mar
18, 2000 at 09:27:26 (PST)
____ Pilgrim -:- Calling
all BAPTISTS! :-) -:- Sat, Mar 18, 2000
at 08:07:27 (PST)
_____ Prestor John -:- Re: Calling all BAPTISTS! :-)
-:- Sun, Mar 19, 2000 at 16:13:23 (PST)
______ mebaser -:- Re:
Calling all BAPTISTS! :-) -:- Sun, Mar
19, 2000 at 22:51:24 (PST)
_______ Prestor John -:- Re: Calling all BAPTISTS! :-)
-:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 06:18:34 (PST)
________ mebaser -:- i
see, thanks -:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at
22:17:35 (PST)
______ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Calling all BAPTISTS! :-) -:- Sun, Mar
19, 2000 at 20:28:09 (PST)
_______ scott lewis -:- Re: Calling all BAPTISTS! :-)
-:- Sun, Mar 19, 2000 at 21:24:02 (PST)
________ Prestor John -:- Re: Calling all BAPTISTS! :-)
-:- Sun, Mar 19, 2000 at 21:40:25 (PST)
_________ scott lewis -:- Re: Calling all BAPTISTS! :-)
-:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 12:46:29 (PST)
__________ Pilgrim -:- Re: Calling all BAPTISTS! :-)
-:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 15:47:18 (PST)
_____ stan -:- Re:
Calling all BAPTISTS! :-) -:- Sat, Mar
18, 2000 at 15:28:05 (PST)
__ Gene -:- Re:
Circumcision To Baptism -:- Fri, Mar
17, 2000 at 03:04:13 (PST)
___ john hampshire -:- Re: Circumcision To Baptism
-:- Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 04:51:40 (PST)
_ Joel H -:- Re:
Circumcision To Baptism -:- Thurs, Mar
16, 2000 at 23:01:00 (PST)
__ freegrace -:- Re:
Circumcision To Baptism -:- Tues, Mar
21, 2000 at 10:41:35 (PST)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Circumcision To Baptism -:- Tues, Mar
21, 2000 at 13:00:12 (PST)
____ freegrace -:- Re:
Circumcision To Baptism -:- Tues, Mar
21, 2000 at 17:31:32 (PST)
Brother Bret/PesterBrat -:- Christian Liberty (from below) -:- Thurs, Mar 16, 2000 at 21:51:03 (PST)
_ laz -:- Re: Christian Liberty (from below) -:- Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 13:45:45 (PST)
_ Tom -:- Re:
Christian Liberty (from below) -:- Fri,
Mar 17, 2000 at 00:03:01 (PST)
kevin -:- where do babies go when they die? -:- Thurs, Mar 16, 2000 at 17:58:13 (PST)
_ Eric -:- Why would a baby...
-:- Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 07:19:16 (PST)
__ Tom -:- Re:
Why would a baby... -:- Fri, Mar 17,
2000 at 12:13:18 (PST)
__ Joel H -:- Re:
Why? Original Sin That's Why! -:- Fri,
Mar 17, 2000 at 09:35:57 (PST)
___ Eric -:- Re:
Why? Original Sin That's Why! -:- Fri,
Mar 17, 2000 at 12:35:52 (PST)
____ john hampshire -:- Re: Why? Original Sin That's Why!
-:- Sat, Mar 18, 2000 at 05:27:57 (PST)
_____ laz -:- Re:
Why? Original Sin That's Why! -:- Sat,
Mar 18, 2000 at 09:05:11 (PST)
____ laz -:- Re:
Why? Original Sin That's Why! -:- Fri,
Mar 17, 2000 at 14:25:42 (PST)
_____ Eric -:- A
joint reply to laz and john -:- Sat,
Mar 18, 2000 at 09:20:54 (PST)
______ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Questions to Eric -:- Sat, Mar 18, 2000
at 11:19:18 (PST)
______ laz -:- Re:
A joint reply to laz and john -:- Sat,
Mar 18, 2000 at 09:46:46 (PST)
_ Gene -:- Re:
where do babies go when they die? -:-
Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 02:56:20 (PST)
__ kevin -:- Re:
where do babies go when they die? -:-
Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 14:52:55 (PST)
___ Gene -:- Re:
where do babies go when they die? -:-
Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 17:29:24 (PST)
__ john hampshire -:- Re: where do babies go when they die? -:- Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 05:03:01 (PST)
_ john hampshire -:- Re: where do babies go when they die? -:- Thurs, Mar 16, 2000 at 23:49:07 (PST)
__ kevin -:- Re:
where do babies go when they die? -:-
Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 15:04:01 (PST)
__ Tom -:- Re:
where do babies go when they die? -:-
Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 00:20:08 (PST)
___ Hail -:- Re:
where do babies go when they die? -:-
Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 05:24:00 (PST)
____ kevin -:- Re:
where do babies go when they die? -:-
Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 15:07:54 (PST)
_____ Hail -:- Re:
where do babies go when they die? -:-
Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 17:57:20 (PST)
______ kevin -:- Re:
where do babies go when they die? -:-
Sat, Mar 18, 2000 at 12:35:26 (PST)
____ laz -:- Re:
where do babies go when they die? -:-
Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 07:42:44 (PST)
_____ Hail -:- Re:
where do babies go when they die? -:-
Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 17:41:19 (PST)
______ laz -:- Re:
where do babies go when they die? -:-
Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 20:19:47 (PST)
_______ Hail -:- Re:
where do babies go when they die? -:-
Sat, Mar 18, 2000 at 18:36:44 (PST)
________ laz -:- Re:
where do babies go when they die??????
-:- Sun, Mar 19, 2000 at 05:53:40 (PST)
_ freegrace -:- Re:
where do babies go when they die? -:-
Thurs, Mar 16, 2000 at 20:28:34 (PST)
_ laz -:- Re:
where do babies go when they die? -:-
Thurs, Mar 16, 2000 at 18:56:08 (PST)
__ kevin -:- laz
& freegrace -:- Fri, Mar 17, 2000
at 15:15:03 (PST)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re:
laz & freegrace -:- Sat, Mar 18,
2000 at 11:33:18 (PST)
____ kevin -:- thank
you -:- Sat, Mar 18, 2000 at 12:37:06
(PST)
Matthew Leroe -:- Need help understanding diff. verse -:- Thurs, Mar 16, 2000 at 12:11:00 (PST)
_ john hampshire -:- Re: Need help understanding diff. verse -:- Thurs, Mar 16, 2000 at 23:56:50 (PST)
Tom -:- Re-Comments Please -:- Thurs, Mar 16, 2000 at 11:48:10 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: Re-Comments Please
-:- Thurs, Mar 16, 2000 at 12:44:09 (PST)
kevin -:- Dr. David Jeremiah -:- Thurs, Mar 16, 2000 at 09:03:04 (PST)
_ freegrace -:- Re: Dr. David Jeremiah
-:- Thurs, Mar 16, 2000 at 13:45:39 (PST)
__ Brother Bret -:- Re:
Dr. David Jeremiah -:- Thurs, Mar 16,
2000 at 21:04:35 (PST)
_ laz -:- Re:
Dr. David Jeremiah -:- Thurs, Mar 16,
2000 at 13:01:02 (PST)
__ Prestor John -:- Re:
Dr. David Jeremiah -:- Thurs, Mar 16,
2000 at 22:29:08 (PST)
___ laz -:- Re:
Dr. David Jeremiah -:- Fri, Mar 17, 2000
at 07:20:15 (PST)
___ Tom -:- Re:
Dr. David Jeremiah -:- Thurs, Mar 16,
2000 at 23:40:12 (PST)
freegrace -:- Founding Fathers Christian? -:- Thurs, Mar 16, 2000 at 08:58:53 (PST)
freegrace -:- Arianism still here today? -:- Thurs, Mar 16, 2000 at 08:29:04 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: Arianism still here today? -:- Thurs, Mar 16, 2000 at 12:36:39 (PST)
__ freegrace -:- Re:
Arianism still here today? -:- Thurs,
Mar 16, 2000 at 20:37:35 (PST)
_ kevin -:- Re:
Arianism still here today? -:- Thurs,
Mar 16, 2000 at 08:54:16 (PST)
Chris -:- Faith
-:- Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 08:56:09 (PST)
_ john hampshire -:- Re: Faith -:-
Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 23:01:54 (PST)
__ Tom -:- Re:
Faith -:- Thurs, Mar 16, 2000 at 13:17:21
(PST)
___ Chris -:- Re:
Faith -:- Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 05:26:48
(PST)
____ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Faith -:- Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 11:07:28
(PST)
__ Chris -:- Re:
Faith -:- Thurs, Mar 16, 2000 at 04:17:14
(PST)
_ laz -:- Re:
Faith -:- Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 11:56:47
(PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Faith -:- Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 09:08:57
(PST)
Prestor John -:- Christian Liberty/Holy living -:- Tues, Mar 14, 2000 at 20:44:37 (PST)
Matthew Leroe -:- Hebrews 12:17 HELP!!!! -:- Tues, Mar 14, 2000 at 19:57:39 (PST)
_ laz -:- Re: Hebrews 12:17 HELP!!!! -:- Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 07:07:15 (PST)
_ Anne -:- Re:
Hebrews 12:17 HELP!!!! -:- Wed, Mar 15,
2000 at 06:12:21 (PST)
Matthew Leroe -:- Unpardonable Sin Matt.12/Lk12/Mk3 -:- Tues, Mar 14, 2000 at 14:10:32 (PST)
_ john hampshire -:- Re: Unpardonable Sin Matt.12/Lk12/Mk3 -:- Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 23:29:16 (PST)
_ laz -:- Re:
Unpardonable Sin Matt.12/Lk12/Mk3 -:-
Tues, Mar 14, 2000 at 17:27:21 (PST)
laz -:- Corporate Worship -:- Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 13:10:39 (PST)
_ wcf -:- ****izing a simple, sound/historic doctrine -:- Tues, Mar 14, 2000 at 17:37:51 (PST)
_ brakel -:- Re:
Corporate Worship -:- Tues, Mar 14, 2000
at 17:11:21 (PST)
_ Guess who -:- Re:
Corporate Worship -:- Tues, Mar 14, 2000
at 13:48:38 (PST)
__ lj -:- Re:
Corporate Worship -:- Tues, Mar 14, 2000
at 17:42:55 (PST)
__ laz -:- Re:
Corporate Worship -:- Tues, Mar 14, 2000
at 14:21:10 (PST)
___ Gene -:- Re:
Corporate Worship -:- Tues, Mar 14, 2000
at 14:32:47 (PST)
_ Brother Bret -:- Re:
Corporate Worship -:- Mon, Mar 13, 2000
at 17:36:47 (PST)
Tom -:- Comments Please
-:- Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 16:56:29 (PST)
_ Prestor John -:- Re: Comments Please
-:- Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 19:44:43 (PST)
_ mebaser -:- Re:
Comments Please -:- Sun, Mar 12, 2000
at 21:30:15 (PST)
__ Tom -:- Re:
Comments Please -:- Mon, Mar 13, 2000
at 11:06:00 (PST)
___ mebaser -:- Re:
Comments Please -:- Mon, Mar 13, 2000
at 18:22:19 (PST)
____ Brother Bret -:- Re: Comments Please -:- Mon,
Mar 13, 2000 at 18:45:08 (PST)
_____ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Comments Please -:- Tues, Mar 14, 2000
at 09:17:15 (PST)
______ Tom -:- Re:
Comments Please -:- Tues, Mar 14, 2000
at 14:38:28 (PST)
_______ mebaser -:- Re: Comments Please -:- Tues,
Mar 14, 2000 at 22:37:18 (PST)
________ Tom -:- Re:
Comments Please -:- Tues, Mar 14, 2000
at 23:47:15 (PST)
_________ Pilgrim -:- Re: Comments Please -:- Wed,
Mar 15, 2000 at 12:27:28 (PST)
__________ Tom -:- Re:
Comments Please -:- Wed, Mar 15, 2000
at 23:17:16 (PST)
___________ Pilgrim -:- Re: Comments Please -:- Thurs,
Mar 16, 2000 at 12:27:17 (PST)
__________ mebaser -:- Thanks -:- Wed, Mar 15, 2000
at 18:29:42 (PST)
__________ laz -:- Re:
Comments Please -:- Wed, Mar 15, 2000
at 14:03:15 (PST)
___________ Pilgrim -:- Re: Comments Please -:- Wed,
Mar 15, 2000 at 17:39:24 (PST)
____________ mebaser -:- Re: Comments Please -:- Wed,
Mar 15, 2000 at 18:27:24 (PST)
_____________ Pilgrim -:- Re: Comments Please -:- Wed,
Mar 15, 2000 at 21:23:34 (PST)
_______ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Comments Please -:- Tues, Mar 14, 2000
at 19:35:48 (PST)
Gene -:- Is there a difference? -:- Thurs, Mar 09, 2000 at 10:10:08 (PST)
_ mebaser -:- semantics -:-
Thurs, Mar 09, 2000 at 19:33:00 (PST)
__ Gene -:- Re:
semantics -:- Thurs, Mar 09, 2000 at
19:38:08 (PST)
___ Diaconeo -:- Re:
semantics (perhaps) -:- Sat, Mar 11,
2000 at 07:45:29 (PST)
____ john hampshire -:- Re: semantics (perhaps) -:-
Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 16:54:18 (PST)
_____ Diaconeo -:- Re:
semantics (perhaps) -:- Sun, Mar 12,
2000 at 09:51:01 (PST)
_____ Pilgrim -:- Re:
semantics (perhaps) -:- Sun, Mar 12,
2000 at 07:29:04 (PST)
______ john hampshire -:- Re: semantics (perhaps) -:-
Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 02:46:49 (PST)
_______ Pilgrim -:- Re:
semantics (perhaps) -:- Mon, Mar 13,
2000 at 07:08:08 (PST)
________ laz -:- Re:
semantics (perhaps) -:- Mon, Mar 13,
2000 at 12:38:45 (PST)
_________ Pilgrim -:- Re: semantics (perhaps) -:-
Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 16:44:04 (PST)
_________ Brother Bret -:- Re: semantics (perhaps) -:-
Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 15:20:46 (PST)
__________ laz -:- What
Defiles a Man? -:- Mon, Mar 13, 2000
at 22:59:07 (PST)
___________ Brother Bret -:- Re: What Defiles a Man? -:-
Tues, Mar 14, 2000 at 15:39:26 (PST)
____________ laz -:- Re: What Defiles a Man? -:-
Tues, Mar 14, 2000 at 16:12:36 (PST)
___________ Tom -:- Re: What Defiles a Man? -:-
Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 23:30:39 (PST)
__________ laz -:- Re:
semantics (perhaps) -:- Mon, Mar 13,
2000 at 22:18:21 (PST)
__________ Pilgrim -:- Re: semantics (not likely)
-:- Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 21:03:06 (PST)
__________ Prestor John -:- Re: semantics (perhaps) -:-
Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 19:33:42 (PST)
___________ Brother Bret -:- Re: semantics (perhaps) -:-
Tues, Mar 14, 2000 at 15:10:36 (PST)
____________ Pilgrim -:- Re: semantics (perhaps) -:-
Tues, Mar 14, 2000 at 20:39:55 (PST)
___________ laz -:- Re: semantics (perhaps) -:-
Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 21:25:42 (PST)
____________ john hampshire -:- Tiz amazing -:- Wed, Mar 15,
2000 at 06:34:18 (PST)
_____________ lj -:- Re:
Tiz amazing -:- Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at
07:19:50 (PST)
_____________ laz -:- Re: Tiz amazing -:- Wed, Mar
15, 2000 at 07:14:58 (PST)
______________ john hampshire -:- Re: Tiz amazing
-:- Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 22:44:19 (PST)
_______________ laz -:- Please enlighten me, John?
-:- Thurs, Mar 16, 2000 at 13:30:38 (PST)
OrthoPres -:- Spurgeon arminian? -:- Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at 12:00:54 (PST)
_ stan -:- Re: KJV only also ...... -:- Thurs, Mar 09, 2000 at 18:28:42 (PST)
_ Prestor John -:- Re:
Spurgeon arminian? -:- Wed, Mar 08, 2000
at 16:30:47 (PST)
__ Gene -:- Re:
Spurgeon arminian? -:- Thurs, Mar 09,
2000 at 04:40:33 (PST)
___ Prestor John -:- Re: Spurgeon arminian?? -:-
Thurs, Mar 09, 2000 at 10:50:51 (PST)
___ David Teh -:- Re:
Spurgeon arminian? -:- Thurs, Mar 09,
2000 at 08:25:40 (PST)
_ Brother Bret -:- Re:
Spurgeon arminian? -:- Wed, Mar 08, 2000
at 14:41:34 (PST)
Anne -:- Rod
-:- Mon, Mar 06, 2000 at 18:34:19 (PST)
_ Tom -:- Re: Rod -:- Tues,
Mar 07, 2000 at 01:07:37 (PST)
Gene -:- True Worship
-:- Sun, Mar 05, 2000 at 13:39:42 (PST)
_ kevin -:- Re: True Worship
-:- Fri, Mar 10, 2000 at 12:43:20 (PST)
_ mebaser -:- Re:
True Worship -:- Tues, Mar 07, 2000 at
14:53:37 (PST)
__ Gene -:- Re:
True Worship -:- Tues, Mar 07, 2000 at
15:44:06 (PST)
___ mebaser -:- Pilgrim's
post is right on -:- Tues, Mar 07, 2000
at 23:01:32 (PST)
____ Gene -:- Re:
Pilgrim's post is right on -:- Wed, Mar
08, 2000 at 03:56:43 (PST)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re:
True Worship -:- Tues, Mar 07, 2000 at
19:30:23 (PST)
____ Gene -:- Re:
True Worship -:- Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at
05:00:17 (PST)
_____ Pilgrim -:- Re:
True Worship -:- Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at
07:55:13 (PST)
______ Gene -:- Re:
True Worship -:- Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at
18:49:51 (PST)
_______ Pilgrim -:- Re:
True Worship -:- Thurs, Mar 09, 2000
at 07:41:22 (PST)
________ Gene -:- Re:
True Worship -:- Thurs, Mar 09, 2000
at 13:07:48 (PST)
_________ monitor -:- yeah right -:- Thurs, Mar 09,
2000 at 18:56:05 (PST)
__________ Gene -:- religious? -:- Thurs, Mar 09, 2000 at 19:51:36 (PST)
___________ monitor -:- Re: religious? -:- Fri, Mar
10, 2000 at 17:42:44 (PST)
___________ kevin -:- 3 simple statements -:- Fri,
Mar 10, 2000 at 11:35:20 (PST)
____________ Gene -:- It should be 1! -:- Fri, Mar
10, 2000 at 11:56:43 (PST)
_____________ kevin -:- Reason -:- Fri, Mar 10, 2000
at 12:39:50 (PST)
______________ Gene -:- Re: Reason -:- Fri, Mar 10,
2000 at 15:40:39 (PST)
_______________ Pilgrim -:- Re: Reason -:- Fri, Mar 10,
2000 at 21:32:09 (PST)
________________ Gene -:- I am not alone here. -:- Sat,
Mar 11, 2000 at 04:20:27 (PST)
______________ Tom -:- Re: Reason -:- Fri, Mar 10,
2000 at 13:11:27 (PST)
_______________ Gene -:- Re: Reason -:- Fri, Mar 10,
2000 at 15:44:30 (PST)
________________ kevin -:- Re: Reason -:- Fri, Mar 10,
2000 at 15:55:46 (PST)
_________________ john hampshire -:- Re: Reason -:-
Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 03:10:48 (PST)
__________________ Tom -:- Re: Reason -:- Sat, Mar 11,
2000 at 07:26:42 (PST)
__________________ kevin -:- Re: Reason -:- Sat, Mar 11,
2000 at 03:57:01 (PST)
_ laz -:- Re:
True Worship -:- Sun, Mar 05, 2000 at
14:41:25 (PST)
__ Gene -:- Re:
True Worship -:- Sun, Mar 05, 2000 at
15:24:44 (PST)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re:
True Worship -:- Sun, Mar 05, 2000 at
17:17:15 (PST)
___ Linda -:- Re:
True Worship -:- Sun, Mar 05, 2000 at
17:15:31 (PST)
____ Gene -:- Re:
True Worship -:- Sun, Mar 05, 2000 at
17:57:16 (PST)
_____ Pilgrim -:- Re:
True Worship -:- Sun, Mar 05, 2000 at
20:49:56 (PST)
______ Gene -:- Re:
True Worship -:- Mon, Mar 06, 2000 at
02:45:16 (PST)
_______ lazarus -:- Re:
True Worship -:- Mon, Mar 06, 2000 at
11:18:56 (PST)
________ Gene -:- Re:
True Worship -:- Mon, Mar 06, 2000 at
12:34:20 (PST)
_________ kevin -:- HEY GENE -:- Tues, Mar 07,
2000 at 06:33:48 (PST)
__________ Gene -:- Re:
HEY GENE -:- Tues, Mar 07, 2000 at 15:35:42
(PST)
___________ kevin -:- Re: HEY GENE -:- Tues, Mar
07, 2000 at 16:13:33 (PST)
____________ Gene -:- Re: HEY GENE -:- Tues, Mar
07, 2000 at 19:14:23 (PST)
_____________ mebaser -:- Acts 2:42 again -:- Tues, Mar
07, 2000 at 23:26:58 (PST)
______________ Gene -:- Re: Acts 2:42 again -:- Wed,
Mar 08, 2000 at 03:54:29 (PST)
_______________ mebaser -:- you missed my point -:- Wed,
Mar 08, 2000 at 22:00:01 (PST)
________________ Gene -:- Re: you missed my point -:-
Thurs, Mar 09, 2000 at 03:37:12 (PST)
_________________ mebaser -:- Re: you missed my point -:-
Thurs, Mar 09, 2000 at 19:12:51 (PST)
__________________ mebsaer -:- another way of saying it -:-
Thurs, Mar 09, 2000 at 19:24:15 (PST)
___________________ Gene -:- Re: another way of saying it
-:- Thurs, Mar 09, 2000 at 19:35:36 (PST)
_________________ kevin -:- help me out here -:- Thurs,
Mar 09, 2000 at 09:55:16 (PST)
__________________ Gene -:- Re: help me out here -:- Thurs,
Mar 09, 2000 at 10:18:04 (PST)
_______________ kevin -:- a little light that goes with my other posting -:- Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at 05:37:49 (PST)
_______________ kevin -:- a word study for you -:- Wed,
Mar 08, 2000 at 05:29:56 (PST)
_________ Christopher -:- Re: True Worship -:- Mon, Mar
06, 2000 at 12:40:43 (PST)
________ Christopher -:- Hi laz -:- Mon, Mar 06, 2000
at 11:46:41 (PST)
_________ laz -:- Re:
Hi laz -:- Mon, Mar 06, 2000 at 12:22:36
(PST)
__________ Christopher -:- Re: Hi laz -:- Mon, Mar 06,
2000 at 12:27:01 (PST)
_______ laz -:- Re:
True Worship -:- Mon, Mar 06, 2000 at
05:34:06 (PST)
________ Gene -:- Re:
True Worship -:- Mon, Mar 06, 2000 at
12:37:27 (PST)
_________ laz -:- Re:
True Worship -:- Mon, Mar 06, 2000 at
20:54:27 (PST)
__________ Gene -:- Re:
True Worship -:- Tues, Mar 07, 2000 at
03:30:41 (PST)
___________ Robert -:- Re: True Worship -:- Wed, Mar
08, 2000 at 08:22:41 (PST)
____________ Gene -:- My soul -:- Wed, Mar 08, 2000
at 13:59:57 (PST)
_____________ Prestor John -:- Re: My soul -:- Wed, Mar 08,
2000 at 16:19:48 (PST)
______________ Tom -:- Here is a thought -:- Wed,
Mar 08, 2000 at 23:46:13 (PST)
_______________ Gene -:- Re: Here is a thought -:- Thurs,
Mar 09, 2000 at 03:31:57 (PST)
______________ Gene -:- Re: My soul -:- Wed, Mar 08,
2000 at 18:41:24 (PST)
_______________ Pilgrim -:- Re: My soul -:- Thurs, Mar
09, 2000 at 07:57:54 (PST)
________________ Gene -:- Re: My soul -:- Thurs, Mar
09, 2000 at 10:35:41 (PST)
_________________ Pilgrim -:- Re: My soul -:- Thurs, Mar
09, 2000 at 12:46:26 (PST)
__________________ Gene -:- Re: My soul -:- Thurs, Mar
09, 2000 at 19:40:19 (PST)
Dean -:- Calvin and Nicaea -:- Sat, Mar 04, 2000 at 23:56:08 (PST)
Brother Bret -:- Covenant Theology -:- Sat, Mar 04, 2000 at 17:57:00 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: Covenant Theology
-:- Sat, Mar 04, 2000 at 21:23:50 (PST)
_ laz -:- Re:
Covenant Theology -:- Sat, Mar 04, 2000
at 19:36:12 (PST)
__ Christopher -:- Re:
Covenant Theology -:- Sat, Mar 04, 2000
at 22:01:33 (PST)
___ laz -:- Re:
Covenant Theology -:- Sun, Mar 05, 2000
at 08:25:11 (PST)
____ Christopher -:- Re:
Covenant Theology -:- Sun, Mar 05, 2000
at 15:23:20 (PST)
_____ laz -:- Re:
Covenant Theology -:- Mon, Mar 06, 2000
at 06:06:00 (PST)
______ Christopher -:- Thank you, laz. (nt) -:- Mon,
Mar 06, 2000 at 07:57:44 (PST)
____ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Covenant Theology -:- Sun, Mar 05, 2000
at 11:04:33 (PST)
_____ Tom -:- Egalitarianisnism -:- Sun, Mar 05, 2000 at 21:56:03 (PST)
______ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Egalitarianism -:- Mon, Mar 06, 2000
at 07:23:28 (PST)
_____ laz -:- Re:
Covenant Theology -:- Sun, Mar 05, 2000
at 14:19:18 (PST)
______ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Covenant Theology -:- Sun, Mar 05, 2000
at 17:06:58 (PST)
Kenneth -:- prophesy
-:- Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 15:58:53 (PST)
_ mebaser -:- Re: prophesy -:-
Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 16:50:12 (PST)
__ john hampshire -:- Re: prophesy -:- Sat, Mar 04,
2000 at 03:12:22 (PST)
___ Diaconeo -:- Re:
prophesy -:- Sat, Mar 04, 2000 at 10:20:20
(PST)
____ David McKay -:- Re: prophesy -:- Sun, Mar 05,
2000 at 03:17:08 (PST)
_____ Diaconeo -:- Re:
prophesy -:- Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 07:35:07
(PST)
AMOG -:- Third use of 'The Law' -:- Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 10:53:55 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: Third use of 'The Law' -:- Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 16:30:54 (PST)
_ laz -:- Re:
Third use of 'The Law' -:- Fri, Mar 03,
2000 at 13:14:56 (PST)
laz -:- Interracial Dating/Marriage -:- Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 09:17:49 (PST)
_ kevin -:- Re: Interracial Dating/Marriage -:- Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 10:49:32 (PST)
_ Christopher -:- From
their response -:- Fri, Mar 03, 2000
at 10:40:33 (PST)
__ mebaser -:- Interracial
dating/marriage and the Bible -:- Fri,
Mar 03, 2000 at 16:30:49 (PST)
___ Gene -:- An
old Jewish story -:- Fri, Mar 03, 2000
at 19:58:54 (PST)
___ Christopher -:- Most
definitely... -:- Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at
17:24:08 (PST)
____ mebaser -:- AMEN!!
(nt) -:- Sat, Mar 04, 2000 at 01:05:16
(PST)
_____ Christoper -:- Be careful, mebaser... -:-
Sat, Mar 04, 2000 at 08:04:50 (PST)
______ mebaser -:- Oh
Boy!! -:- Sat, Mar 04, 2000 at 12:19:32
(PST)
_______ Christopher -:- Re: Oh Boy!! -:- Sat, Mar 04,
2000 at 14:45:30 (PST)
__ kevin -:- Re:
From their response -:- Fri, Mar 03,
2000 at 10:54:08 (PST)
___ Tom -:- Re:
From their response -:- Fri, Mar 03,
2000 at 12:40:47 (PST)
____ stan -:- Re:
From their response -:- Fri, Mar 03,
2000 at 14:19:32 (PST)
_____ kevin -:- Re:
From their response -:- Fri, Mar 03,
2000 at 14:51:23 (PST)
______ Prestor John -:- Re: From their response -:-
Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 17:21:25 (PST)
_______ kevin -:- such
false accusations should not be allowed
-:- Sat, Mar 04, 2000 at 04:48:53 (PST)
________ Prestor John -:- Re: such false accusations should not be allowed -:- Sat, Mar 04, 2000 at 09:28:27 (PST)
_________ kevin -:- Re: such false accusations should not be allowed -:- Mon, Mar 06, 2000 at 14:56:11 (PST)
__________ Prestor John -:- Re: such false accusations should not be allowed -:- Mon, Mar 06, 2000 at 23:06:12 (PST)
___________ kevin -:- you need to get over some things
-:- Tues, Mar 07, 2000 at 05:55:32 (PST)
_______ stan -:- Re:
FYI -:- Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 17:35:00
(PST)
________ kevin -:- Re:
FYI -:- Sat, Mar 04, 2000 at 04:54:22
(PST)
_________ stan -:- Re:
Just sharing info -- NT -:- Sat, Mar
04, 2000 at 14:54:41 (PST)
________ scott -:- BJU
Buckles -:- Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 21:00:37
(PST)
_________ john hampshire -:- Re: BJU Buckles -:- Sat, Mar
04, 2000 at 03:34:47 (PST)
__________ Gene -:- Re:
BJU Buckles -:- Sat, Mar 04, 2000 at
17:36:44 (PST)
_________ Christopher -:- Ya got that right... -:- Fri,
Mar 03, 2000 at 22:44:56 (PST)
stan -:- AntiChrist identified. -:- Thurs, Mar 02, 2000 at 18:47:18 (PST)
_ Prestor John -:- Re: AntiChrist identified. -:- Thurs, Mar 02, 2000 at 20:16:24 (PST)
__ stan -:- Re:
-:- Thurs, Mar 02, 2000 at 21:05:58 (PST)
___ kevin -:- you
two have too much time on your hands n/t
-:- Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 11:00:07 (PST)
____ Prestor John -:- Re: you two have too much time on your hands n/t -:- Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 16:25:29 (PST)
_____ stan -:- Re:
AAAAGGGGGGGHHH!!!!!!! -:- Sat, Mar 04,
2000 at 15:00:02 (PST)
____ stan -:- Re:
That's the pure joy of ......... -:-
Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 14:08:43 (PST)
_____ kevin -:- Re:
That's the pure joy of ......... -:-
Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 14:52:53 (PST)
Lurker Jr. -:- Federal Headship and Animals -:- Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 18:15:19 (PST)
_ stan -:- Re: Rom. 8.22 maybe relate NT -:- Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 18:22:53 (PST)
__ lj -:- Re:
Rom. 8.22 maybe relate NT -:- Wed, Mar
01, 2000 at 18:58:46 (PST)
___ Prestor John -:- Re:
Rom. 8.22 maybe relate NT -:- Thurs,
Mar 02, 2000 at 10:24:41 (PST)
___ john hampshire -:- Re: Rom. 8.22 maybe relate NT
-:- Thurs, Mar 02, 2000 at 00:10:41 (PST)
____ lj -:- Re:
Rom. 8.22 maybe relate NT -:- Thurs,
Mar 02, 2000 at 10:33:21 (PST)
_____ stan -:- Re:
Well now ......... -:- Thurs, Mar 02,
2000 at 14:24:58 (PST)
______ Gene -:- Adam
cursed? -:- Thurs, Mar 02, 2000 at 14:30:29
(PST)
_______ stan -:- Re:
SO SOLLY ...... -:- Thurs, Mar 02, 2000
at 14:34:10 (PST)
________ Gene -:- Re:
SO SOLLY ...... -:- Fri, Mar 03, 2000
at 15:07:47 (PST)
_________ stan -:- Re:
So sorry you are sorry .......... -:-
Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 17:24:58 (PST)
__________ Gene -:- Re:
So sorry you are sorry .......... -:-
Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 19:55:44 (PST)
Tom -:- Ministry to First Nations People -:- Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 13:31:27 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: Ministry to First Nations People -:- Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 22:16:11 (PST)
__ Tom -:- Re:
Ministry to First Nations People -:-
Thurs, Mar 02, 2000 at 00:35:30 (PST)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Ministry to First Nations People -:-
Thurs, Mar 02, 2000 at 07:19:40 (PST)
____ Tom -:- Re:
Ministry to First Nations People -:-
Thurs, Mar 02, 2000 at 14:35:52 (PST)
Linda -:- Everett Harrison
-:- Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 08:56:49 (PST)
_ laz -:- Re: Everett Harrison
-:- Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 18:52:16 (PST)
__ Linda -:- Re:
Everett Harrison -:- Thurs, Mar 02, 2000
at 15:50:05 (PST)
Pilgrim -:- Article of the Month for March -:- Tues, Feb 29, 2000 at 21:02:51 (PST)
_ Rod -:- Re: Article of the Month for March -:- Tues, Feb 29, 2000 at 22:00:27 (PST)
Pilgrim -:- The Highway UPDATE! -:- Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 10:15:18 (PST)
Powerforum Plus+
Paradise
Web Enhancements
Copyright 1997,1998
Subject: Perspective
From: a monitor
To: All
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 07:02:39 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
I think it's ironic how we are accused by our Messianic bretheren
of 'missing the mark' on account of our failure to understand the
second century temple mentality. We ain't Jewish enough. Now we
have some who say we lack a hellenistic perspective....we ain't
greek enough. I'd like to see our Messianic folks go toe to toe
with our Greek folks over which 'tradition' is the true tradition.
a monitor Mark 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through
your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things
do ye. Ga 1:13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past
in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the
church of God, and wasted it: 14 And profited in the Jews' religion
above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly
zealous of the traditions of my fathers. No one ever regreted sticking
too closely to God's Word...but traditions on the otherhand....
|
Subject: Veneration
From: laz
To: All
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 06:18:56 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Do we have any instances where the OT saints, prophets, etc ever
venerated the dearly departed? laz
|
Subject: Take your Time and read
From: Vernon
To: All
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 04:10:23 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Hello, Pilgrim,,,,,,You have painted me as being a heretical and
really unknowing of God's word. Well sir, I must agree in many ways
with you. I only claim that which I do understand as the truth of
God word and when I know it to be truth, I thank God for the Holy
Spirit who leads me into truth. Sir, You ask me one time why I 'cut
and paste' I suppose you have answered your question.....You have
said that I need to learn the deeper things of God and I agree....In
otherwords, I am telling you that I agree with you. I have learned
much from this site and I thank you and others who have spent hours
debating my faith...So, I paste with other views so that I in my
unknowing views can discuss with you and others with a view that
disagrees in an intelligent respectful way. It has never been my
notion to offend or make mad anyone. But I do not agree in all you
said to me and others. You have said we are far apart in our beliefs
and theology. This may be true,but I find the point that we disagree
...Is'Predestination and Election. I do have a different view than
the one you teach. However, I do believe in 'Predestionation and
Election.' Elect, Election. The elect are those called by God to
salvation. This election occurs before the foundation of the world
(Eph. 1:4) and is according to God's will not man's (Rom. 8:29-30;
9:6-23) because God is sovereign (Rom. 9:11-16). As for Predestination:
The doctrine that God has foreordained all things which will come
to pass yet He is not the author of sin. He does, however, use sinful
things for His glory and purpose. For example, the crucifixion was
brought about by sinful men who unrighteously put Jesus to death
(Acts 4:27); yet, in that death, we are reconciled to God (Rom.
5:10). Predestination maintains that God is the one who decides
who will be saved (Rom. 9:16) and that it is not up to the desire
of the person (John 1:13). God is the one who ordains the Christian
into forgiveness, '...and as many as had been appointed to eternal
life believed' (Acts 13:48). Also, 'For whom He foreknew, He also
predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He
might be the first-born among many brethren; and whom He predestined,
these He also called; and who He called, these He also justified;
and whom He justified, these He also glorified' (Rom. 8:29-30).
Further verses to examine are Eph. 1:4,11; Rom. 9. Sir, It really
hurt me when you told Mary that I was full of venom. I suppose we
both have been full of venom. Pilgrim more than once I have ask
that you forgive me for anything I have said that was personal and
offence to you. In all cases, you have never answered or replied
except in the ways of your reply to Mary. I am a "Born Again"
child of God and this makes me a Brother in Christ......"HOW
SHOULD WE BE TREATING EACH OTHER?" Thanks to Bro Bret in his
respect and the way he agrees or disgrees with me. "Thank You
Brother" Laz, Thank you." I know you do not agree in all
that I have said and this is ok.....If I am wrong, Then, pray for
me and allow God to bring into His truth. Regeneration ...is the
theological term for the Christian's 'new' or 'second' birth in
Christ. By definition, regeneration is the act of God by which He
imparts divine life to man upon the single condition of faith in
Jesus Christ as personal Savior. Several words and phrases in the
Bible express the concept of regeneration. The following passages
show how frequently the doctrine of regeneration is found in the
Bible. * In John 3:7 the words 'born again' express regeneration.
* In Eph. 2:5, the words 'made alive' refer to regeneration, the
new life * In 2 Cor. 5:17, the words 'new creation' speak of the
new birth * In 1 John 3:1,2, the expression 'children of God' refers
to regeneration. * In Titus 3:5, the word 'regeneration' itself
is used. There are several aspects about regeneration which are
important to give attention to. All People Need Regeneration Our
condition demands it. Eph. 2:1 declares us to be 'dead' in sins.
Death is a condition for which 'life' (regeneration) is the only
solution. Out family connection demands it. Rom. 5:12 indicates
that we are dead because of a family relationship. Therefore, we
need a new birth, a new family, a new Father, all of which are provided
by regeneration. The Author of Regeneration: GOD John 1:12 informs
us that we must be 'born of God.' The word 'of' points to the source
and origin of the new life - God is the origin and source of regeneration.
John 1:13 eliminates all human aspects of regeneration. The phrase
'not of blood' shows that regeneration cannot be inherited. The
phrase 'not of the will of the flesh' shows that God's life is not
the fruit of a man's search for God. 'Not of the will of man' -
man cannot generate eternal life. The Means of Regeneration - The
Word 1 Pet. 1:23 makes it clear that the written word of God is
the means of the new birth, because the written word is actually
the living Word (see also Heb. 4:12; John 6:63; Acts 7:38) Remember,
the gospel is preached after sin is made known. Because the sinner
cannot come to God on his own, he must be convicted of his sin,
and thus be made aware of his need for salvation. The conviction
of sin is beyond our control. It is the work of the Holy Spirit
(John 16:8). The Power of Regeneration - The Resurrection We are
'born again...by the resurrection of Jesus Christ', 1 Pet. 1:3.
This shows us the kind of power needed for regeneration. According
to Eph. 1:19,20 the power that raised Christ from the dead is the
greatest power ever displayed. This same power is applied in bringing
regeneration to us. The Instrument of Regeneration - Faith Gal.
3:26 explains that faith is the hand by which we receive the gift
of eternal life. The Basis of Regeneration - Blood Those who call
on the Father, 1 Pet. 1:1719, the family concept of regeneration.
It is the blood of Christ that makes this possible (v. 19). The
Agent of Regeneration - The Holy Spirit John 3:5,6, the necessity
of birth through the agency of the Holy Spirit. 'Flesh' begets 'flesh',
'spirit' begets 'spirit'. Divine life requires divine parents. John
1:12 '...to them gave He power to become the children of God' In
Christ Vernon
|
Subject: Re: Take your Time and read
From: Pilgrim
To: Vernon
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 07:32:00 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Vernon,
What I have at this point is pity
and sorrow for you are hard of head and hard of heart when it comes
to the Scriptures. Yes, I am totally aware that you are caught between
a rock and a hard place, where your personal convictions are constantly
being challenged here and if you should ever change your mind, then
all your friends, your position at church, etc., etc., would probably
all come crashing to the ground. Pride is a horrible thing to waste
eh? How many times have people answered the heresy posted in this
'cut/paste' repeat article of yours? three, four, five times? It
is your constant and repetitive posts which bring about the 'wrath'
of this forum. Either accept the Scriptural teaching set forth by
the apostles and prophets and taught by the Reformers and Puritans
and the vast majority of the Protestant Church or find some other
means of recreation other than coming in here and posting the same
old Arminian/Semi-Pelagian heresy and then crying 'foul' when someone
points out all your errors. Here's a great example:
You wrote: Regeneration ...is the theological term for the
Christian's 'new' or 'second' birth in Christ. By definition,
regeneration is the act of God by which He imparts divine life
to man upon the single condition
of faith in Jesus Christ as personal Savior.
Not only is that statement heretical,
it is irrational. John Hampshire recently dealt with this very same
statement in a reply to you. Not only is there not one statement
or even HINT that regeneration is the fruit/result of one's believing
on the Lord Christ. Secondly, the Bible says ALL MEN are born DEAD in trespasses and sins
and can't even 'see' the kingdom of God never mind recognize its
King and believe on Him. Vernon, DEAD MEN don't believe... they
are DEAD! They must first be MADE ALIVE! And God alone is capable
of calling men out of their spiritual tombs. And He does so, NOT
BECAUSE some dead person asks God to do it! Did Lazarus secretly
whisper in the Lord Jesus' ear that he believed on Him, trusted
in Him and wanted to live again? Which then moved the great Creator-Redeemer
to fulfill this lowly request and recognize the faith of a dead
man? GET SERIOUS!
Vernon, many of your beliefs ARE HERETICAL according to what the Protestant Church has believed
the Scriptures to teach and has itself taught for centuries. You
are not even a Protestant by strict definition, but a Roman Catholic
without all the trappings. You hold to a 'Faith-Works' gospel and
a 'Synergistic' salvation. The historic Protestant Church and the
Church of the first century apostles rejected this and Paul cursed
all those who held it as truth. Why should we today allow Vernon
or anyone else to teach and preach this heresy and further, extend
a right hand of fellowship to those whom Paul wished would castrate
themselves and pronounced ANATHEMA upon?? Unless Paul was unloving
to his 'brothers in Christ', I am in no wise guilty of chiding you
for your false gospel and man-centered theology. I rest my case
and will continue to do what God Himself requires of me and all
those who follow Him by faith. . . Expose the works of darkness
and to cast out heretics from among us, with the hope that God will
convict them of the seriousness of their error and give them repentance
unto life. This has been the churches' practice for a couple of
thousand years and I am not about to do otherwise because a bunch
of modern moronic 'flower children' say to do so is 'unloving'!
In His Sovereign Grace, Pilgrim |
Subject: Early Protestants and the Orthodox
From: eikke
To: All
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 03:32:23 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
See? Protestant/Orthodox relations do have a long history. Luther
Had His Chance It was inevitable that, sooner or later, the Protestant
Churches, protesting against Roman autocracy, should seek to find
out about a Church which had made such a protest from the earliest
times. Martin Luther's chief interest in the Eastern Question lay
in the belief, which he shared with many of his evangelical contemporaries,
and with many of the Greeks themselves before the fall of Constantinople,
that the end of the world was near and that the Grand Turk was Antichrist:
though he had an alternative candidate in the person of the Pope
... Luther himself was a reactionary in temperament, disliking the
spirit of the Renaissance. But his leading disciples were children
of the Renaissance. The most distinguished of them, Philip Melanchthon,
had been professor of Greek at Wittenberg and was deeply interested
in Hellenism. His interest extended to the contemporary Greeks;
and he thought that it would be valuable to establish a friendly
understanding with the Greek Church.1 The difficulty was to find
out how to make contact with the Greeks. The only European powers
in diplomatic relations with the Ottoman Empire were Catholic: Venice,
France, and the Habsburg dominions. It was, he thought, through
Venice, with its colony of Greek scholars, its Greek possessions
and its lack of religious intolerance that an approach could best
be made, particularly if a Greek scholar could be found there who
was in touch with the East and had not joined the Roman faith ...
But rather more than a year earlier he had received at Wittenberg
an elderly cleric from Montenegro called Demetrius, who came with
an introduction from James Basilicus. Nothing is known of Demetrius'
early history. He was already an old man when he met James in Moldavia
in 1558. Demetrius made an excellent impression in Lutheran circles.
Melanchthon liked him; and Nicholas Hemmingius wrote in a letter
that he was an old man of exemplary piety and admirable morals,
whose claim to be a deacon was undoubtedly genuine, though the Lutherans
could not check up on this; he was certainly full of erudition about
his Church. Here was a heaven-sent agent for achieving the desired
contact with Constantinople. In order that the Orthodox might be
properly informed about the Reformed religion, the Confession of
Augsburg, which summarized Lutheran belief, was hastily but ably
translated into Greek by a learned Hellenist, Paul Dolscius of Plauen,
and a copy was given to Demetrius to deliver to the Patriarch together
with a personal letter from Melanchthon, which barely touched upon
doctrine but suggested that the Lutheran and Greek Churches had
much in common.2 Demetrius left on his journey late in 1559. Melanchthon
died before an answer could have easily been returned, but his fellow-divines
waited for many more months for news from Constantinople. At last
they decided that Demetrius could not have delivered the letter.
In fact he arrived at Constantinople at the end of 1559 and was
received by the Patriarch, but the documents that he brought embarrassed
Joasaph and the Holy Synod. A brief glance at the Confession of
Augsburg showed that much of its doctrine was frankly heretical,
but it would be undesirable to spoil relations with a potential
friend. The Patriarch and his advisers took refuge in the favorite
device of oriental diplomacy. They behaved as if they had never
received the communication, which they carefully mislaid.3 Demetrius
waited for two or three months for a reply to carry back to Wittenberg.
When none was forthcoming he did not venture to return to Germany.
He moved to Transylvania, where he spent three years trying to introduce
Lutheranism into its villages, encouraged by James Basilicus. After
James' fall he carried on his propaganda in the Slav dominions of
the Habsburg Emperor. The date of his death is unknown.4 The subsequent
events in Moldavia must have confirmed Joasaph in his suspicion
of the Lutherans. Some fifteen years later the atmosphere improved.
The Habsburg Emperors employed a number of Lutheran officials. In
about 1570 an Imperial Ambassador arrived at Constantinople who
was a Protestant, David von Ungnad; and he brought with him as chaplain
an eminent Lutheran scholar, Stephen Gerlach, who was in close touch
with the Lutheran universities in Germany. Gerlach soon made friends
with the learned Protonotary of the Great Church, Theodore Zygomalas,
who introduced him to the Patriarch Jeremias II, then in his first
term of office. In return he put Zygomalas into touch with the leading
professor of Greek in Germany, Martin Kraus, or Crusius, of Tubingen,
a man interested not only in Classical Greek but also in the Greek
world of his time. Through Zygomalas, Crucius entered into correspondence
with the Patriarch Jeremias, whom he greatly admired.5 When such
friendships were established it was natural for the Lutherans to
press again for closer ecclesiastical relations with the Greeks.
In 1574 Ungnad was prompted by Gerlach to write to Germany to ask
for fresh copies of the Confession of Augsburg. In reply six copies
were sent out by Crusius and Jacob Andreae, Chancellor of the University
of Tubingen. One was to be given to the Patriarch, one to Zygomalas,
one to Metrophanes, Metropolitan of Berrhoea, one to the scholar
Gabriel Severus, and one to the rich layman, Michael Cantacuzenus,
who had promised to have it translated into vernacular Greek. A
copy translated into Georgian was dispatched a little later, for
transmission to the Orthodox Church of Georgia in the Caucasus.
To the Patriarch's copy the Lutheran divines added a letter, in
which they said that, though because of the distance between their
countries there was some difference in their ceremonies, the Patriarch
would acknowledge that they had introduced no innovation into the
principal things necessary for salvation; and that they embraced
and preserved, as far as their understanding went, the faith that
had been taught to them by the Apostles, the Prophets and the Holy
Fathers, and was inspired by the Holy Spirit, the Seven Councils
and the Holy Scriptures.6 What the Georgians thought of the Confession
of Augsburg, if their copy ever reached them, is unrecorded. To
the Greeks it was as embarrassing as it had been fifteen years previously.
Cantacuzenus did nothing about its translation into the vernacular.
But Jeremias could not ignore the Confession as Joasaph had done.
Von Ungnad and Gerlach were close at hand, pressing for an answer.
After a little hesitation Jeremias wrote a polite letter of thanks
to Tubingnen, promising to send a statement on doctrinal points
a little later. These delaying tactics were in vain; Gerlach continued
to ask for his views. At last, after consulting with the Holy Synod,
the Patriarch, with the help of Zygomalas and his father, John,
composed a full answer to the various points in the Confession.
The letter was dated 15 May 1576. The Confession of Augsburg contains
twenty-one articles. Jeremias replied to each in turn, stating wherein
he agreed or disagreed with the doctrines contained in them. His
comments are valuable, as they add up to a compendium of Orthodox
theology at this date. The first article states the Nicene Creed
to be the basis of the true faith. The Patriarch naturally concurred,
but pointed out that the Creed should be accepted in its correct
form, omitting the Dual Procession of the Holy Ghost, an addition
which, as he explains at length, was canonically illegal and doctrinally
unsound. In the original Confession the second article proclaims
original sin, the third is a summary of the Apostles' Creed and
the fourth declares that man is justified by faith alone. In the
Greek version the second and third articles change place; which
is more logical. The Patriarch's second chapter therefore deals
with the Creed. While approving of the Germans' summary he adds
for their benefit twelve amplifying articles which, he says, contain
the traditional doctrine of the Church. Three concern the Trinity,
six the Incarnation, the Crucifixion and the Redemption, and three
the life hereafter. He gives further glosses to these and appends
a list of the seven cardinal virtues-he actually gives eight-and
the seven deadly sins. On original sin, the Patriarch takes the
opportunity of pointing out that baptism should be by triple immersion
and not by aspersion, and should be followed by chrismation. The
baptismal practice of the Latins is, he says, incorrect. In his
fourth chapter, on justification by faith alone, the Patriarch points
out, quoting Basil, that grace will not be given to those who do
not live virtuous lives. He amplifies his views in his fifth and
sixth chapters. In the Confession, the fifth article says that faith
must be fed with the help of the Holy Scriptures and the Sacraments,
and the sixth that faith must bear fruit in good works, though it
repeats that good works alone will not bring salvation. Jeremias
takes for granted the doctrine given in the fifth article, and uses
the chapter to continue his previous argument. The Sermon on the
Mount lists virtues that will bring salvation without any reference
to faith. Faith without works is not true faith. In the sixth article
he warns the Germans not to presume on grace nor despair of it.
He makes it clear that he disapproves of anything that might suggest
predestined election. The seventh article of the Confession declares
that the Church is one and eternal, and the sign of its unity is
that the Gospel shall be rightly taught and the Sacraments rightly
administered. So long as this is fulfilled, differences in ritual
and ceremonial do not impair its unity. Jeremias agrees; but he
goes on to talk about the Sacraments. Suspecting that the Lutherans
held baptism and the Eucharist to be the only Sacraments, he insists
that there are at least seven Sacraments. Jeremias concurred with
the eighth and ninth articles in the Confession. The former says
that Sacraments do not lose their validity even when administered
by evil priests. The latter recommends infant baptism, so that the
child may be at once qualified to receive grace. The tenth article
was more controversial. It says that the body and blood of Christ
are truly present at the Lord's Supper and are distributed to those
who participate in it; and those who teach otherwise are condemned.
So far the Patriarch could agree. But he may have learned that the
original German version of the Confession added the words 'in the
form of the bread and the wine,' words omitted in the Latin and
Greek versions. He asks for further details, saying: 'for we have
heard of certain things about your views, of which it is impossible
for us to approve.' The doctrine of the Holy Church, he maintains,
is that at the Lord's Supper the bread is changed into the very
body of Christ and the wine into His very blood. He adds that the
bread must be leavened, not unleavened. He points out that Christ
did not say 'This is bread,' or even 'This is the figure of my body,'
but 'This is My body.' It would indeed be blasphemy to say that
the Lord gave to His disciples the flesh that He bore to eat or
the blood in His veins to drink, or that He descends physically
from heaven when the mysteries are celebrated. It is, he says, by
the grace and invocation of the Holy Spirit, which operates and
consummates the change, and by our sacred prayers and by the Lord's
own words that the bread and wine are transformed and transmuted
into the very flesh and blood of Christ. Jeremias is here making
three points. In two of them he considered that the Lutherans were
following the errors of the Latins. The Greeks, faithful to the
traditions of the early Church, had long disapproved of the Latin
use of unleavened bread, which seemed to them to mar the symbolism
of the Sacrament; for the leaven symbolizes the new dispensation.
Then Jeremias touches delicately on the Epiklesis, the invocation
of the Holy Ghost which to the Greeks completed the change in the
elements. They could not condone the Latin omission of the Epiklesis.
On the actual question of the change in the elements Jeremias is
cautious. He avoids the word which is the exact Greek translation
of 'transubstantiation.' The words that he uses do not necessarily
imply material change. He does not explain the exact nature of the
change, leaving it, rather, as a divine mystery. But the Lutheran
view that though Christ's body and blood were present at the Sacrament
there was no change in the elements seemed to him inadequate. The
eleventh article of the Confession advocates the use of private
confession, though it is not absolutely necessary; nor can one enumerate
all one's petty sins. The Patriarch agrees but thinks that more
should be said about the value of confession as spiritual medicine
and as leading to true acts of penitence. It must be remembered
that to him the act of penitence ranked as a sacrament. The twelfth
article teaches that sinners who have lapsed from grace can receive
it again if they repent. It disavows both the Anabaptist view that
the saved can never fall from grace and the Novatian view that the
lapsed can never recover it. The Patriarch concurs but adds that
repentance must be shown by works. The thirteenth article declares
the Sacraments to be proofs of God's love for men and should be
used to stimulate and confirm faith. This seems a little crude to
Jeremias, who stresses the need for the Liturgy as providing the
necessary framework for the Sacraments, the whole divine drama which
gives them their spiritual value. To the fourteenth, which states
that only ordained priests should preach or administer the Sacraments,
the Patriarch agrees, so long as the ordination has been correctly
performed and the hierarchy canonically organized. He clearly doubted
whether this was the case with the Lutheran Church. The fifteenth
article pleased him less. It approves of such rites and festivals
as are conducive to giving peace and order to the Church but denies
that any of them are necessary for salvation or provide the means
for acquiring grace. To the Greek Church, with its full calendar
of feasts and fasts, such teaching was distressing. The Patriarch,
quoting at length from the early Fathers, emphasizes that these
holy days and the ceremonies attached to them are lasting reminders
of the life of Christ on earth and of the witness of the saints.
To deny them any spiritual value is narrow-minded and wrong. He
concurs with the sixteenth article, which says that it is not contrary
to the Gospel to obey civil magistrates or to engage in warfare
if they should order it. He adds that one should remember, all the
same, that obedience to the laws of God and to His ministers is
a higher duty, and that no true Christian seeks for worldly power.
He concurs also with the seventeenth article, which foretells the
coming of Christ to judge the world and to reward the faithful with
eternal life and punish the wicked with eternal torment. He seems
to have been unperturbed by the implied denial of the doctrine of
Purgatory. The eighteenth article deals with free will. The Lutherans
maintained that, while a man may by the exercise of free will lead
a good life, it will avail him nothing unless God gives him grace.
This is too close to the doctrine of complete predestination for
the Patriarch, who points out, with long quotations from John Chrysostom,
that only those freely willing to be saved can be saved. Good deeds
conform with the grace of God, but that grace is withdrawn concurrently
with an evil deed. The nineteenth article, declaring that God is
not the cause of evil in this world, is perfectly acceptable. The
twentieth returns to the problem of faith and works, repeating that,
though good works are necessary and indispensable, and it is a libel
to say that the Lutherans ignore them, yet they cannot purchase
the remission of sins without faith and its accompanying grace.
The Patriarch agrees about the dual need for faith and works; but
why, he asks, if the Lutherans really value good works, do they
censure feasts and fasts, brotherhoods and monasteries? Are these
not good deeds done in honor of God and in obedience to His commands?
Is a fast not an act of self-discipline? Is not a monastic fraternity
an expression of fellowship? Above all, is not the taking of monastic
vows an attempt to carry out Christ's demand that we should rid
ourselves of our worldly entanglements? The Patriarch was especially
shocked by the twenty-first and last article, which says that, while
congregations should be told of the lives of the saints as examples
to be followed, it is contrary to the Scriptures to invoke the saints
as mediators before God. Jeremias, after citing the special powers
given by Christ to the disciples, answers that true worship should
indeed be given to God alone, but that the saints, and above all,
the Mother of God, who by their holiness have been raised to heaven,
may lawfully and helpfully be invoked. We can ask the Mother of
God, owing to her special relationship, to intercede for us and
the archangels and angels to pray for us; and all the saints may
be asked for their mediation. It is a sign of humility that we sinners
should be shy of making a direct approach to God and should seek
the intervention of mortal men and women who have earned salvation.
Jeremias ended his letter with a supplementary chapter, stressing
five points. First, he insists again that leavened bread should
be used at the Eucharist. Secondly, while he approves of the marriage
of secular clergy, the regular clergy should take vows of celibacy
and should keep to them. Thirdly, he emphasized once more the importance
of the Liturgy. Fourthly, he repeats that the remission of sin cannot
be attained except through confession and the act of penitence,
to which he attaches sacramental importance. Finally, and at great
length, he gives arguments in support of the institution of monasteries
and the taking of monastic vows. Many mortals, he admits, are unfitted
to bind themselves to a life of asceticism; and if they lead good
lives according to their abilities, they too can reach salvation.
But it is, he thinks, a better thing to be ready to forswear the
world and to devote one's life to the disciplined service of God;
and for this end monasticism provides the proper means. His final
paragraph is written in a mixture of humility and condescension.
'And so, most learned Germans,' he writes, 'most beloved sons in
Christ of Our Mediocrity, as you desire with wisdom and after great
counsel and with your whole minds to join yourselves with us to
what is the most holy Church of Christ, we, speaking like parents
who love their children, gladly receive your charity and humanity
into the bosom of our Mediocrity, if you are willing to follow with
us the apostolic and synodical traditions and to subject yourselves
to them. Then at last truly and sincerely one house will be built
with us ... and so out of two Churches God's benevolence will make
as it were one, and together we shall live until we are transferred
to the heavenly fatherland.'7 his reply reached Germany in the summer
of 1576. The German divines detected in it a certain lack of enthusiasm.
Crusius arranged a meeting with the theologian Lucius Osiander;
and together they composed an answer in which the points to which
the Patriarch seemed to object were elucidated and justified. They
confined themselves to doctrines mentioned in the Confession of
Augsburg and therefore did not touch on matters such as leavened
bread, the Liturgy or even monasticism. They attempted to show that
their view on justification by faith was not really so very different
from the Patriarch's; and they repeated at some length the Lutheran
view that, though Christ's flesh and blood were present at the Lord's
Supper, there was no material change in the elements. They made
it clear that they believed in only two Sacraments and that they
could not admit the propriety of invoking the saints. Their letter
was written in June 1577, but it probably only reached Constantinople
in the course of the following year. Once again Jeremias tried to
avoid sending an answer, but Gerlach was still in Constantinople,
pressing for one. Gerlach left to return to Germany in the spring
of 1579. In May, Jeremias sent off at last a further statement of
his views. His tone was now a little less conciliatory. He pointed
out clearly and at greater length the doctrines which the Orthodox
Church could not accept. It could not admit the Dual Procession
of the Holy Ghost. In spite of what the Lutherans claimed, their
views on free will and on justification by faith were not Orthodox
and were in the Patriarch's opinion too crude. While admitting that
the Sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist ranked above the others,
the Patriarch insisted that there were sacraments. He repeated that
it was correct to invoke the saints and added that respect should
be paid to holy images and relics. A committee of Lutheran divines,
including Crusius, Andreae, Osiander and Gerlach, met at Wurttemberg
to compose a further reply, which was dispatched in June 1580. Its
tone was very conciliatory. When not yielding on any points, it
tried to suggest that the doctrinal differences between the Churches
on justification by faith, on free will and on the change in the
elements at the Lord's Supper were only matters of terminology,
and that other differences could perhaps be treated as differences
in ritual and usage. The Germans had to wait for an answer. Jeremias
had been deposed in November 1579, and did not return to office
till September 1580. Some months elapsed before he could settle
down to compose an answer. It was eventually sent in the summer
of 1581. He briefly recapitulated the points of disagreement, then
begged for the correspondence to cease. 'Go your own way,' he wrote,
'and do not send us further letters on doctrine but only letters
written for the sake of friendship.' In spite of this, the Lutheran
committee sent one more letter, almost identical with their last.
The Patriarch did not reply to it. 1 For Melanchthon's attitude
towards the Greeks see E. Benz, Die Ostkirche im Lichte der Protestantischen
Geschichtsschreibung, pp. 17-20. 2 Benz, Wittenberg und Byzanz,
pp. 94ff., giving the text of Melanchthon's letter. 3 Ibid. pp.
71-2: J. N. Karmiris, GET TRANSLATION, p. 36. 4 Benz, Wittenberg
und Byzanz, pp. 73ff. 5 For Ungnad and Gerlach see E. Benz, Die
Ostkirche im Licht der Protestantischen Geschichtsschreibung , pp.
24-9. Gerlach's very discursive Tagebuch was not published until
after his death; but Crusius in his Turco-Graecia frequently cites
Gerlach as the sources of information. Jeremias II spoke no Western
European language. When Phillippe Du Fresne visited him in 1573,
Theodore Zygomalas and his father were present to act as interpreters.
P. du Fresne Canaye, Voyage du Levant (ed. M. H. Hauser). pp. 106-8.
6 Benz, Wittenberg und Byzanz, pp. 94ff. 7 It was this letter which
gives Jeremias II's fullest statement on doctrine together with
the Lutheran arguments that he was answering, that the Jesuit Sokolowski
published in 1582, thus obliging the Lutherans to publish the whole
correspondence. Taken from Stephen Runciman's The Great Church in
Captivity (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1968).
|
Subject: For those who value sola scriptura
From: eikke
To: All
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 03:13:22 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
...with some discussion of Reformed liturgy and thought. Let's take
the debate from another angle, shall we? Holy Tradition vs. Sola
Scriptura The Witness of the Liturgy by Pedro O. Vega Since the
Reformation, the polemics between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism
have centered on the role of the Bible as the only rule of faith
for the Church over and against any notion of Bible and Tradition
as being the normative rule of faith. In recent years, the debate
has taken the same popular note that it once had during the Reformation.
Roman Catholic apologists such as Karl Keating (director of Catholic
Answers) and Patrick Madrid frequently square off against Reformed
Protestant apologist James White (director of Alpha & Omega
Ministries) in a battle for the mind, the heart, and, ultimately,
the soul of their listeners and readers. Orthodox Christians may
assume that Roman Catholic apologists represent the Orthodox position
in Western polemics. This is due, in part, to the absence of Orthodox
Christian apologists from this debate. The purpose of this article
is to provide an Orthodox perspective on the matter of Sola Scriptura,
that is, the Protestant tenet that the Bible alone is sufficient
as the rule of faith of the Church. At the same time, we will seek
to restate the Patristic framework Orthodoxy assumes when speaking
of Holy Tradition, which is not normally present within Roman Catholic
apologetics. This framework is provided by the Divine Liturgy of
the Church. This framework centers on the role of the Liturgy as
the 'container' of Tradition, as something that owes its very existence
to Tradition. In other words, the Liturgy—the Eucharist in its core
actions—is the proof for the existence of an extrabiblical Christian
belief that was binding for all the Churches which called themselves
Christian, Orthodox, and Catholic, and which assert a historical
continuity with the New Testament Church. We will discuss the important
implications the Liturgy has on the Protestant claims of the sufficiency
of the Bible. Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi Lex orandi, lex credendi
is a tenet of the early Church that nowadays is often used as a
cliché. But what did it mean then? What does it mean to say
that the law (or rule) of prayer is the law (or rule) of belief?
The answer lies in what Orthodox Christians call the Divine Liturgy.
First, we will define what liturgy means, what is its origin, and
what its basic form, or shape, consists of. Once we organize and
briefly analyze the data, we will then proceed to formulate some
conclusions and, hopefully, state a definition of Holy Tradition
from the Orthodox perspective. From there we will examine the theological
implications of our findings upon doctrine and the notion of Sola
Scriptura. Liturgy Defined Etymology Liturgy is derived from the
Latin liturgia and the Greek leitourgia (a compound word: leitos
+ ergon), meaning 'public duty' or 'public worship.' The word and
its cognates can be found in the New Testament (cf. Acts 13:2).
Working Definition Dom Gregory Dix,1 perhaps the foremost liturgist
of this century, defines liturgy as follows: ‘Liturgy’ is the name
given ever since the days of the apostles (Acts 13:2) to the act
of taking part in the solemn corporate worship of God by the ‘priestly’
society (1 Peter 2:5) of Christians, who are ‘the Body of Christ,
the church’ (Ephesians 1: 22-23). ‘The Liturgy’ is the term which
covers generally all that worship which is officially organised
by the church, and which is open to and offered by, or in the name
of, all who are members of the church. It distinguishes this from
the personal prayers of the individual Christians who make up the
church, and even from the common prayer of selected or voluntary
groups within the church, e.g. guilds or societies. In the course
of time the term the Liturgy has come to be particularly applied
to the performance of that rite which was instituted by our Lord
Jesus Christ Himself to be the peculiar and distinctive worship
of those who should be ‘His own’ (John 13:1); and which has ever
since been the heart and core of Christian worship and Christian
living—the Eucharist or Breaking of Bread.2 Thus, whenever we speak
of liturgy and liturgical in this essay, we do so under the light
of the above definition. Nature of the Protestant Problem We all
participate in corporate prayer. Every Sunday we go to our respective
houses of worship to do just that: worship. Yet, very seldom do
we stop to think of the origin and the meaning of the actions we
perform within the context of public, corporate worship. This is
especially true of so-called low church Protestant Christians. There
is little or no connection between the way that these Christians
worship every Sunday (or every quarter) and the way the early Church
worshipped and prayed. If the question occurs to them at all, they
might answer that it is the spirit that matters in their current
worship circumstance. Ancient ritual can be safely dismissed, without
further thought, as dead letter and empty tradition. It is at this
spiritual and, ultimately, individual level, however, that Protestant
Christians experience their affinity with the worship of the early
Christians. John Calvin represented the faction of the Reformation
which most rapidly did away with Catholic liturgical trappings (cf.
The Second Helvetic Confession, chapter XXVII, Of Rites, Ceremonies,
and Things Indifferent). Calvin’s liturgy itself was a modification
of another Reformed order of worship previously created by Martin
Bucer. Calvin published his order of worship in French at Strasbourg.
He titled the work La Forme des Prières Ecclésiastiques.
It is said that Calvin’s Institutes created the most international
form of Protestantism; due credit should also be given to his order
of worship, which is essentially preserved in every low church Protestant
community to this day. It also heavily influenced other Protestant
traditions, particularly that of the Church of England. Much can
be said of the Protestant break with the Roman Catholic past. The
liturgical and moral excesses of the medieval Church are well known
and do not need to be revisited in this article. It can also be
argued that the medieval Roman innovations were themselves real
breaks from the faith and practice of the early Church. That is
another subject unto itself. Suffice to say that the Reformers felt
justified in making the changes they did to the order of Christian
worship. Influenced by the humanist battle cry Ad fontes! and permeated
with the spirit of Nominalism, the Reformers set out on a quest
to restore the authentic faith, worship, and practice of the early
Church. However, Protestant worship services have much in common
with the Latin Mass against which they reacted. Dix, in fact, sees
the Protestant worship services as a subdivision of the Western
Catholic liturgical rite. Dix writes: Elsewhere in the West, as
a consequence of the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century,
there has arisen what from our point of view must be considered
the ‘fourth crop’ of local variants of the basic Western type, in
the rites of the Reformed bodies. It is true that those who use
them do not, as a rule, think of them in this way. Their compilers
were far more concerned to follow what they regarded as ‘scriptural
warrant’ than anything in the liturgical tradition against which
they were in revolt. But the Reformers themselves thought largely
in terms of the Western tradition within which they had been trained.
In consequence, their rites all reveal under technical analysis
not ‘primitive’ characteristics at all, nor anything akin to the
special Eastern tradition, but a marked dependence on the basic
Western liturgical tradition at a particular stage late in its development.3
The Reformed Protestant problem is this: Though the Reformers set
out to restructure their worship ritual according to what they perceived
had scriptural warrant, their final product resembled more a truncated
late medieval Latin Mass than anything else that could be called
primitive Christian corporate worship. Proof of this discrepancy
is found by way of contrasting the Reformed orders of worship with
the ancient texts of the earliest Christian liturgies available
to us. Low church evangelical Protestantism, especially that American
Protestantism still struggling to remain faithful to the insight
of the classical Reformers, faces a dilemma. The dilemma is, ironically,
the Reformers’ own creation. Let us not forget the Reformers lived
at the dawn of critical historiography as a scientific discipline.
Much of the Protestant critique was based upon the work of the Roman
Catholic philosopher and humanist, Erasmus of Rotterdam. It was
he who advocated a full critical reading of the ancient sources.
He also produced the first critical Greek edition of the New Testament.
By using comparative analysis, he debunked the historicity of long
authoritative pro-papal documents such as the Gratian Decretals.
The Reformers used these developments to their advantage. Luther’s
discovery that the New Testament said, 'Repent, change your hearts,
change your ways!' versus the Latin Vulgate’s rendition 'Do Penance!'
is a classic example of the superior scholarship inaugurated by
Erasmus under the motto Ad Fontes! Yet, we fail to see a similar
Protestant advance in the field of Liturgics. This is due to four
things: (1) Protestantism’s lack of interest in ascertaining the
existence of the historical Liturgy; (2) the lack of manuscript
tradition in which to work at the time; (3) the belief that an appeal
to Sola Scriptura superseded any other appeal to Liturgy as a doctrinal
medium; and (4) just plain apathy. The Reformers felt free to recast
public worship according their particular view of scriptural warrant.
Curiously, when it came to the Liturgy, the Reformers fell short
of the Ad Fontes! ideal. This takes us back to the Protestant problem:
Their worship is, in one way or the other, a modified version of
the late medieval Latin Mass. Only the Quakers carried the Protestant
recasting of the Liturgy to its logical end: Their worship was devoid
of any outer form and relied solely on the illumination of the individual
worshipper. If the rest of Protestantism failed to reach this logical
end, they did so because of a vague feeling of the very human (and
Christian) need for communal worship. Ad Fontes! To say that the
Orthodox Church holds the Liturgy in the highest esteem is an understatement.
The Liturgy is the basis for Orthodox theologizing when it comes
to Christology, soteriology, ecclesiology, and almost every ancillary
-ology in the Church. Theology without Liturgy is falsely so-called,
according to Orthodox Christian teaching. Orthodox Christianity’s
high regard for the Liturgy does not derive from a merely antiquarian
interest. Nor is it an attempt by the Church to establish a historical
continuity with the past by mere imitation of ritual or gestures.
The Orthodox Church holds the Liturgy in the highest esteem because
the New Testament Church and the Church of the Fathers held the
Liturgy in the highest esteem. And the New Testament Church and
the Church of the Fathers held the Liturgy in the highest esteem
on account of its origin, its purpose, and its function. The Liturgy
in the Bible That the Christians in the New Testament Church worshipped
together, no one denies. Thus in Acts 2:42,46 we find: And they
devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to
the breaking of bread and the prayers…And day by day, attending
the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook
of food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor
with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day
those who were being saved. (RSV) The verse does not tell us much
about the how of New Testament Christian worship, but it does give
us two tantalizing hints: (1) there is something Jewish about it
(Temple worship), and (2) there is something Christian about it
(the Breaking of the Bread).4 The closest that the New Testament
gets to talk about the actions involved during Christian worship
(and the earliest reference) is in St. Paul’s first letter to the
Corinthians, chapter 11, verses 23 to 26: 'For I received from the
Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night
when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he
broke it, and said, 'This is my body which is for you. Do this in
remembrance of me.' In the same way also the cup, after supper,
saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often
as you drink it, in remembrance of me.' For as often as you eat
this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until
he comes.' C.P.M. Jones5 endeavored to sketch the Corinthian liturgy
from an in-depth study of St. Paul’s epistle to the Corinthians:
'It is a plenary session and may not begin until all are assembled.
It is a real meal, to which (or at least the well off) all contribute
food and drink. It opens with the customary Jewish blessing of God
over the bread, which is then broken in pieces and distributed to
all, probably with words of interpretation or distribution identifying
the bread as the Body of Christ.…By this the gathering is constituted
as the Body of Christ. The meal continues, and at the end the ‘cup
of the blessing’ is produced and thanksgiving is said before all
drink of it. It would seem that during that thanksgiving the death
of the Lord , the risen, victorious ever-present Lord of the community,
is proclaimed ‘until he come.’' Post-Apostolic Development Again,
it is not the purpose of this essay to provide a detailed narrative
of the development of the Orthodox Christian liturgy. Such a task
would be, of itself, a very lengthy one. Instead, we shall briefly
sketch the development of the liturgy up until the fourth century,
highlighting certain common themes constantly present during this
development. We will do so by looking at a few representative early
Church documents: • The Teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles through
the Twelve Apostles, commonly known as The Didache. There are many
theories about the origin and purpose of this early work. Paragraphs
9 and 10 are relevant to our discussion. Their primitive character
is attested by their lack of the Words of Institution (Take , eat.
. . . Take, drink.) and by the wording of its Thanksgiving prayer,
which is very close to that of Jewish forms of grace at table. •
The Letter of St. Clement of Rome to the Corinthians. St. Clement
deals with issues of order and procedure (cf. paragraphs 40 and
41). He already models the Eucharist on the pattern of Temple worship.
• The Letter of St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans. St. Ignatius’s
reference to the Eucharist as the body,6 or flesh,7 of our Savior
may indicate that the Words of Institution, as they are known in
the Gospels, were already in use (cf. paragraphs 7 and 8). • The
Apostolic Tradition of Hyppolitus, a third-century document, is
the most important source of information we possess on the liturgy
of the pre-Nicene church.8 It contains an undeveloped form of the
Eucharistic prayer and reflects the liturgical tradition of the
local Church of Rome. It makes direct use of the Words of Institution.
• The Mystagogical Catecheses of St. Cyril of Jerusalem. The Catecheses
were instructional lectures, first delivered orally but written
down in shorthand. The form we have today is that of a transcript
made by someone in the audience, and it is not St. Cyril’s original
manuscript.9 These lectures were delivered to Christians in various
states of instruction. It contains a full description of the Liturgy
in Jerusalem in the fourth century. The Form of the Early Liturgy
Several other liturgical traditions existed at the time; for example,
that of the Churches at Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Edessa. Though
the petitions and emphases of these early liturgies varied somewhat,
they all shared in common a central core, or form. This form, or
shape, is distinguished by a four-step scheme in the Eucharistic
action: (1) The Offertory. Bread and wine are taken and placed on
the table together; (2) The Thanksgiving or Eucharistic Prayer.
The president, or celebrant, gives thanks to God over the bread
and wine together; (3) The Fraction. The Bread is broken; (4) Communion.
The Bread and Wine are distributed together.10 This four-step action
is somewhat different from the scheme we find in the New Testament.
There we find a seven-step scheme within the inauguration narrative.
There we read that Our Lord: (1) took bread; (2) gave thanks over
it; (3) broke it; (4) and distributed it, saying certain words.
Later, He: (5) took a cup; (6) gave thanks over it; (7) and handed
it to His disciples, saying certain words.11 The central question
facing us is: why? Why is there a discrepancy between the actions
of Jesus, as narrated in the Synoptic Gospels, and in St. Paul’s
letter to the Corinthians and the Liturgical actions of the early
Church? The answers lies, paradoxically, at the origin of the Eucharist
itself: the Last Supper. The Last Supper, the Eucharist, and the
Jewish Milieu The obvious answer to our question is this: The last
supper of our Lord with His disciples is the source of the Liturgical
Eucharist, but not the model for its performance.12 Let us refocus
our answer: The actions which transpired during the Last Supper
and preserved in the canonical Gospels and in the First Letter of
St. Paul to the Corinthians are not the model for the performance
of the historical Eucharist. As it will be demonstrated, the New
Testament narratives influenced the Liturgy at a relatively late
period of its development. The traditions from which the New Testament
and the Eucharist developed had a common origin. They progressively
influenced each other’s growth and canonicity up until the doctrinal
settlement of the fourth century. To arrive at this conclusion we
examine the source of the Liturgical Eucharist: the Last Supper.
The Jewish Chabûrah Meal The Last Supper should be seen within
the historical context from which both the New Testament narratives
and the Liturgical Eucharist evolved. To do that, the following
hypothesis is in order: According to St. John’s Gospel, our Lord
instituted the Eucharist at a supper with His disciples, which was
probably not the Passover supper of that year but the evening meal
twenty-four hours before the actual Passover.13 The Last Supper,
then, belonged to another formal category of meals for which there
were also exacting preparations and rituals known as chabûrah
(from Heb. chaber=friend).14 Dix uses quite a bit of ink to support
his claim that the Last Supper was a chabûrah meal. We will
limit ourselves to reading one of Dix’s conclusions that is relevant
to our inquiry. Reconstructing the primitive Eucharist, Dix finds
the origin of the four-action shape of the Liturgy in this meal:
(1) The Offertory. Each communicant brings for himself or herself
a little bread and wine, and also frequently, other small offerings
in kind of different sorts, oil, cheese. . . . This is simply a
survival of the custom or providing the chabûrah supper out
of the contributions in kind by its members, though in the case
of the bread and wine, another meaning was given to the offering
by the church before the end of the first century. (2) The prayer.
The long Thanksgiving at the end of the meal was always regarded
as and called in Jewish practice ‘the Blessing’ for all that had
preceded it. It was also specifically the blessing of the ‘cup of
blessing’ itself (which did not receive the ordinary wine blessing).
Accordingly, it now becomes 'the Blessing' or 'the Prayer' of the
Eucharist, said over the bread and wine together. . . . That this
was so can be seen from its special name. 'The Eucharist' (-ic Prayer),
he eucharistia, 'The Thanksgiving,' which is simply the direct translation
into Greek of its ordinary rabbinic name, berakah. (3) The fraction.
The bread was originally—at the chabûrah meal and the Last
Supper—broken simply for distribution and not for symbolic purposes
immediately after it had been blessed. So, in the liturgical 'four-action'
shape of the rite, it is broken at once after the blessing (by the
eucharistia, along with the wine) for Communion, which follows immediately.
(4) The Communion. It appears to have been the universal tradition
in the pre-Nicene Church that all should receive Communion standing.
This was the posture in which the cup of blessing was received at
the chabûrah meal, though the broken bread was received sitting
or reclining at table. Presumably the change in posture for receiving
the bread was made when the meal was separated from the Eucharist.
The Jews stood for the recitation of the berakah and to receive
the cup of blessing, and this affected the bread, too, when its
distribution came to be placed between the end of the berakah and
the handing of the cup.15 The Liturgy as Oral Tradition Thus far,
we have seen how the four-action shape of the Liturgy differs in
form with the series of actions narrated and preserved in the Institution
narratives contained in the New Testament. We have also seen how
this shape had as its origins the Jewish ritual meal called chabûrah.
Once again, the question we now face is: why? Why has a nonscriptural,
Jewish religious meal provided the framework for Christian worship
for over 1500 years? Before we attempt to answer this question,
we will backtrack a little to the period preceding the writing of
the canonical Gospels. We should agree, as a matter of principle,
to the following tenets: • Jesus wrote no book; He taught by word
of mouth and personal example. • Some of his followers taught in
writing as well as orally. • Often, indeed, their writing was a
second-best substitute for the spoken word.16 There is nothing unlikely
about this fact. In an era when reading and writing were skills
mastered by a relative few, oral tradition was the necessary vehicle
to preserve and hand down practical and religious knowledge from
father to son, and from teacher to student. Nor were the Jews unique
in this respect, either at this time, or in that region of the world.
Most, if not all, of the cultures in the world at that time were,
fundamentally, oral cultures. The scholarly consensus is that the
Synoptic Gospels were written near or before 70 A.D. This is also
true of the Pauline corpus. It would take some years before they
would become authoritative and, as a result of this, canonical.
Yet, even before St. Paul put in writing 'that which [he had] received'
(cf. 1 Cor. 11:23-24), the shape of the Liturgy already existed.
For now, we will refer to this tradition as the liturgical tradition.
The evidence also warrants the following conclusion: this liturgical
tradition existed independently from, yet shared a common origin
with, the oral tradition from which the New Testament evolved. That
it was held in the highest esteem is proven by the fact that the
four-action shape of the Liturgy was not affected by the Gospels
or First Corinthians. Apparently, the Church had very grave reasons
to hold to the shape even if it meant ignoring the New Testament
in this one point. Let us also remember that the first written hint
of the New Testament having an effect on the prayers of the Liturgy
is found in the letters of St. Ignatius.17 By that time, the Church
had been celebrating the chabûrah of the Lord for about 80
years. Again, in a culture such as the Jewish one, where oral tradition
was held in the highest esteem, the staying power of the shape is
not unexpected. What is unexpected and relevant to the Sola Scriptura
controversy is that it had such an authority, such a binding power
over and beyond the New Testament through subsequent generations
of Christians, most of them not even Jewish. The Liturgy As Foundational,
Binding Tradition Once again, Dix seems to say it best: 'It is important
for the understanding of the whole future history of the Liturgy
to grasp the fact that the Eucharistic worship from the outset was
not based on Scripture at all, Old or New Testament, but solely
on tradition. The authority for its celebration was the historical
tradition that it had been instituted by Jesus, cited incidentally
by St. Paul in 1 Cor. 11, and attested in the second Christian generation
by the written Gospels.'18 Thus, the Liturgy is: • An oral tradition,
originating with Jesus Himself; • Parallel to the traditions that
originated the New Testament; • Handed down, as it were, in the
very act of its celebration; • Handed down from one generation of
Christians to the next by those who participate in it in different
capacities. We can then speak of the Liturgical tradition as a foundational
tradition, as one of the traditions that established the Church
as a chabûrah of the Lord, as a community of Thanksgiving,
and as something upon which the subsequent doctrinal and disciplinary
structure of the Church was to be built. For Christians, a foundational
tradition is a binding tradition. The concept of binding was one
that the Apostles and the first Jewish-Christian generation were
familiar with. The celebrated verses in Matthew 16, for example,
use the terms binding and loosing, no doubt, because its intended
recipients, converts from Judaism, were familiar with the terminology.
To bind is, in fact, a legal term often used by the rabbis to define
who belongs to the Elect (i.e. Israel) and who does not. What is
bound is the believer’s conscience, who must respond in love and
obedience to the authority of the God who reveals Himself. The Liturgical
tradition, being foundational and binding, is then considered holy.
It is holy on account of its founder, Our Lord Jesus Christ, Himself.
The very fact that the liturgical tradition is foundational makes
it holy. It is holy on account of its purpose, which is to define
the identity of the Christian Church against the unbelieving world,
to set the Church apart (i.e., to sanctify her, to make her holy)
from the world and for God as His chabûrah.19 The liturgical
tradition is also holy on account of its end, the glorification
of God in the Person of His Anointed Son, whose saving deeds are
made present anew within the worshipping community. It is also within
this community, joined in holy Liturgy, where the hope of His coming
again in glory is preserved. Though we can now speak of the Liturgy
as a holy tradition, we cannot still refer to it as Holy Tradition,
in capital letters, as a proper name. We will refrain from doing
so until we define the Liturgy’s pedagogical character, its relationship
with the New Testament, and its ultimate scope. Once again, we return
to the period before the writing of the New Testament. The Liturgy
as Pedagogical Tradition The Liturgy preserves Apostolic, Christian
teaching that predates the writing of the canonical New Testament
and parallels the foundational, binding, oral traditions that originated
the New Testament. This teaching communicates real, historical knowledge
about the Person, the deeds, and the teachings of Jesus. What is
this teaching? The teaching is the kerygma: the proclamation of
Jesus as crucified and risen Lord, who was, is, and is to come;
the teaching and retention of the idea of monotheism, a tenet not
contradicted by the proclamation of Jesus as Lord. Another object
of teaching is about the nature of God and the anamnesis (a memorial
in the sense of re-actualization) of His saving deeds contained
in the berakah, the Jewish prayer of thanksgiving. This prayer will
retain its basic structure in the Christian Liturgies. It becomes
now a prayer to the Father of Jesus, 'King of All Creation.' But
most important for our inquiry is the fact that the Liturgy probably
served as the crucible for the New Testament’s formation, its trigger
and preserver. The Liturgical Tradition and the Formation of the
New Testament20 As the Church developed from the day of Pentecost,
so did her public worship. The Church borrowed many things from
Judaism: the usage of reading from the Scriptures and singing of
psalms being one of many. This carryover became the Synaxis (Gr.
meeting). The Synaxis became fixed in Christian worship in the decade
after the Passion.21 The Christian Synaxis had its own unchanging
outline everywhere. It is as follows: (1) Opening greeting by the
officiant, and the reply of the Church; (2) Lesson; (3) Psalmody;
(4) Lesson (or Lessons, separated by psalmody); (5) Dismissal of
those who did not belong to the Church; (6) Prayers; (7) Dismissal
of the Church.22 The Lessons, or readings, were at first from the
Old Testament, as this was the immediate Jewish custom that the
first generations of Christians gave to the Church. It is within
this context of worship that the words and deeds of Jesus were first
remembered. First, quite informally, the Apostles or the surviving
witnesses would relate the words of Jesus, his sayings, his actions,
or the main events in the life of the Savior. This possibly took
place after the reading from the Hebrew Scriptures, to which the
given pre-Gospel narrative would be related in some way. The faithful
remembered these words with varied degrees of clarity. Other hearers
would take notes of these extemporaneous, kerygmatic narratives,
centered on the words and deeds of Christ. As the Apostles and the
first Christian generation started to pass on, the attempts to preserve
the Memories of the Apostles became more and more formal, culminating
in the writing of the canonical New Testament. Clues to this scenario
can be found in the New Testament itself. The Gospel according to
St. Mark, for example, preserves the simplicity and the directness
of something that was primarily proclaimed orally, rather than in
a written form. We can also find another clue in the existence of
hymns in the New Testament, which were later adapted to support
points of doctrine. We can see those hymns in the first chapter
of the Gospel according to St. John, for example, or in the letter
of St. Paul to the Philippians 2:5-11. These hymns (and there are
others) were more than likely composed by now unknown believers
and then sung in the early Christian Liturgies. They were significant
enough in doctrinal content to be included in the New Testament.
Thus, the Liturgy had a direct impact on the formation of the New
Testament. First, the Eucharist, the Christian chabûrah, preserved
the knowledge, nay, the experience of the risen Lord as Messiah
and Savior sent by the Father; now it fostered the thirst of the
community for more knowledge about the Messiah. The Liturgy, then,
attracted the foundational, binding, and oral traditions that were
later collated and redacted into the canonical Gospels. As this
relationship developed, these traditions influenced the evolution
of the Liturgy more and more. These traditions gave the Liturgy
new modes of expression, prayer, and song. The pre-Gospel oral traditions
received from the Liturgy their legitimacy, format, and focus. Once
this mutual relationship started, it never stopped. The Christian
Scriptures received their constitution from the independent, foundational,
and binding liturgical tradition. They formed a continuum, a unity.
They both disclose, in exactly the same way, the God revealed in
Jesus Christ. Each of the liturgical and the Gospel traditions only
becomes intelligible with the help of the other. Together they form
the rule of faith, the Holy Tradition of the Church, as Orthodox
Christianity understands it. Holy Tradition Defined We can now attempt
to compose a definition of Holy Tradition: Holy Tradition is the
totality of God’s self-disclosure in Jesus Christ, granted through
the Lord Jesus Christ Himself and preserved by the Holy Spirit for
the benefit of the worshipping, liturgizing Church, which is given
for the purpose of revealing to that very same Church God’s hidden
designs regarding the salvation and sanctification of the human
race. The above definition enjoys the following advantages: • It
sets the origin of Holy Tradition in God Himself. We have seen that
the Old Testament, the holy traditions that became the New Testament,
and the Liturgy all originate in the Person of the Logos, be that
in His eternal existence with the Father, or during His earthly
ministry; • It is set in God’s disclosure in Jesus Christ; it is
Christian Holy Tradition; • It is preserved by the Holy Spirit,
not only in its outer form, but also in its inner interpretation,
be it of the Bible, or of the Divine Liturgy; • It is given to the
Church, and to that Church that maintains the Apostolic rule of
worship; it is given to a Church that offers the Divine Liturgy.
Other Christian bodies which do not liturgize lack the Holy Tradition.
It is also within the liturgical context where the Word (to quote
Luther) is rightly preached and the sacraments rightly administered.
Finally, this aspect of the definition sets forth the constitution
of the Church as the Body of Christ, bound by the mysteries of God’s
revelation, the Eucharist, and the Apostolic Preaching. It sets
the Church of Jesus Christ apart from rival claimants; • It is given
for the salvation of the Church, which is granted within the Liturgical
Church. Those who are in the Church are granted the full knowledge
and benefit of God’s revelation in Jesus Christ for the sanctification
and salvation of their souls. Holy Tradition as Doctrine Dr. Jaroslav
Pelikan defined doctrine as that which is believed, taught, and
confessed.23 For this definition to be complete, from the Orthodox
Christian perspective, we need to again recall the ancient standard
of belief: Lex orandi, lex credendi. The law (rule, or standard)
of prayer is the law (rule, or standard) of belief. How and when
did they pray as a Church? They did so in the Liturgy. What is believed
is then taught. What is taught is then confessed by the Church.
Where do we find this confession? We find it primarily in the Divine
Liturgy, where the primitive confession first took its shape and
found its earliest expression. We find it in the New Testament,
the first inspired, written confession of the Church. Finally, we
find it in the more formal declarations of faith that we call creeds.
The Orthodox approach to doctrine is holistic. By maintaining the
liturgical context within which Christian revelation first came
to be, Orthodox doctrine is more organic, more attuned, to the entire
continuum of Christian revelation.24 Because it encompasses the
rule of prayer as the rule of belief, and the sources or instruments
of Revelation within itself, together with proper exegesis and interpretation
of the Bible, Holy Tradition is the source of doctrine for the Orthodox
Church. What, then, of Sola Scriptura? The Protestant failure to
establish, reform, or restore the ancient standard of Christian
worship stands as a symbol of the failure of Sola Scriptura. The
Bible alone was not sufficient for the Reformers to reestablish
the ancient understanding and shape of the Liturgy and the Eucharist.
They only succeeded on rehashing the medieval Latin rite in accordance
to their notion of Scriptural warrant. Conventional wisdom suggests
that the Protestant preference for Sola Scriptura preceded and justified
the rejection of anything smacking of Catholic forms of worship.
This is especially true of Reformed Protestantism in its multiple
manifestations. Perhaps we have placed the cart before the horse
here. Protestantism’s birth was due, in part, to a reaction to medieval
abuses that have crept into the Latin rite and deformed it, obscuring
its underlying, original shape. The tenet of Sola Scriptura is the
only logical remnant of Apostolic teaching after the rejection of
the historical Liturgy in all of its forms. Once Reformed Protestantism
rejected the revelational and salvific value of the Divine Liturgy,
it became necessary to hold on to, and further develop, the notion
of Sola Scriptura. There was no other alternative. Conclusion Sympathetic
as we might be to the Protestant quandary, and to its underlying
causes, we need to understand the inadequacy of the Bible being
the only and sufficient source for Christian faith and morals and
the sole container of Divine Revelation, especially in the light
of the evidence presented above. The Protestant believer needs to
face the Orthodox challenge to Sola Scriptura, a challenge which
forms the basis for our conclusion: The existence and divine origin
of the Liturgy or Eucharist, specifically, of its shape, and of
its role in creating, forging the belief, teaching, and the confession
of Christian doctrine obviates the need for the Protestant tenet
of Sola Scriptura. It is not Scripture Alone, but Holy Tradition,
in its all encompassing nature, that forms the basis of Christian
doctrine. Protestantism has failed in its mission of reforming the
Church to its original intent through its ignorance and failure
to understand the Eucharistic nature of the Church and the Liturgical
context of Christian Revelation. This failure is the fatal flaw
of Protestantism. Notes 1. Dom Gregory Dix was a British Anglican
Benedictine. Vital dates unavailable. 1901 -1952 2. Dix, The Shape
of the Liturgy, p. 1. 3. Dix, 10. 4. This author does not deny the
Jewishness of the bread-breaking ritual itself. However, the Breaking
of the Bread was, by Luke’s time, already a Christian action, a
uniquely Christian function (cf. Jerome Biblical Commentary, 45:24).
John Calvin himself understood it as a uniquely Christian function,
too. He refers to it as the breaking of the mystical bread in his
discussion on the fourth commandment (cf. Institutio, 2.8.32). 5.
The Rev. Canon C.P.M. Jones, was, at the time of the writing of
this article, Principal of Pusey House, Oxford University (cf. Jones
et al, eds, The Study of Liturgy, New York: Oxford University Press,
1978, 'The New Testament,' p. 150). 6. Staniforth et al, Early Christian
Writings, p. 103. 7. Jurgens, William A., The Faith of the Early
Fathers, vol. 1, p. 25. 8. Dix, p.157. 9. Jurgens, vol. 1, p.347.
10. Dix, p.48. 11. Ibid. 12. Ibid., p.50. 13. Ibid. Dix quotes another
work by Dr. W.O.E. Oesterly, Jewish Background of the Christian
Liturgy, as his authority to assert the Johannine priority upon
the development of the Liturgy. Dix is also aware of the (for him)
recent challenges to that Johannine priority. The Reverend R. T.
Beckwith, in his article for The Study of Liturgy ('The Jewish Background
to Christian Worship,' p. 48) takes the opposite view: Jesus and
His disciples took part of a Passover meal as the Synoptic Gospels
seem to tell us. Both authors agree that the Jewish prayers contained
in the Talmud (Jer. Berakoth 7.2; Bab. Berakoth 48b) form the model
of the Christian Eucharistic prayer. The Orthodox Church has traditionally
held the Johannine priority. It also sees confirmation of the fact
that the Last Supper was not a Passover meal because of the use
in all the New Testament sources of the word artoz (leavened bread)
to designate the bread that Our Lord took and broke, and not axumoz
(unleavened bread), which is essential in the Jewish Passover rite.
14. This is not to deny the Paschal character of the Lord’s Last
Supper. After all, the New Testament belabors the connection between
the Lord’s death as 'the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of
the world' and the institution of the New Covenant with the Paschal
Lamb and the institution of the Old. Our purpose is to categorize
the type of meal that the Last Supper was, not to deny its obvious
antitypical significance. 15. Dix, 78. I disagree with Dix when
he states that the breaking of the bread had no symbolic meaning
in the Last Supper, just as it does not during the chabûrah
meal. The Lord was quite free to invest the elements of the ritual
with new meaning, and He, in fact, did so with the main purpose
of the meal. 16. F.F. Bruce. The Canon of Scripture, p. 118. Bruce
is known worldwide as the dean of evangelical biblical scholars
(from the inside cover of his book). 17. It is also significant
that these letters also offer the first written testimony of the
knowledge of, and the extent of, the fledgling New Testament in
the post-Apostolic Church. 18. Dix, 2. Emphasis mine. 19. 'Set apart'
is the primitive meaning of the verb sanctify or make holy. 20.
The following scenario is based upon what we know of the development
of the pre-Gospel oral traditions as determined by form criticism.
21. Dix, 36. 22. Dix, 38. The transition to the Eucharist proper
developed later. 23. Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Christian Tradition:
A History of the Development of Doctrine. Vol. 1: The Emergence
of the Catholic Tradition, p.3. 24. Orthodoxy avoids drawing any
doctrine solely from one individual source, be that the Bible alone,
or the magisterium as the regula próxima fidei. Works Cited
Beckwith, R.T. The Jewish Background to Christian Worship. The Study
of Liturgy. Ed. Cheslyn Jones et al. New York: Oxford University
Press, 1978. Brown, Raymond E., et al. The Jerome Biblical Commentary.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1968. Bruce, F.F. The
Canon of Scripture. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press,
1988. Calvin, John. Ed. John T. McNeill. 'How far does the Fourth
Commandment go beyond external regulation?' Institutes of the Christian
Religion. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960. 2 vols. Dix,
Gregory. The Shape of the Liturgy. London: Dacre Press, 1945. Jones,
C.P.M. The New Testament. The Study of Liturgy. Ed. Cheslyn Jones
et al. New York: Oxford University Press, 1978. Jurgens, William
A. The Faith of the Early Fathers. Collegeville, Minnesota: The
Liturgical Press, 1970. 3 vols. Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Christian
Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine. Vol.1. The
Emergence of the Catholic Tradition. Chicago and London: The University
of Chicago Press, 1971. Staniforth, Maxwell, and Andrew Louth. 'The
Epistle to the Smyrnaeans.' Early Christian Writings: The Apostolic
Fathers. Great Britain: Penguin Books, 1968, 1987.
|
Subject: How the Early Church Saw Itself
From: eikke
To: All
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 03:01:04 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
For those rare and admirable individuals who actually read about
religions other than their own. Enjoy! The Structure and Worship
of the Early Church By Clark Carlton
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
-- The cup of blessing
which we bless, is it not the communion of the Blood of Christ?
The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the Body of
Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are
all partakers of that one bread (1 Cor. 10:16-17). The reason why
different denominations, with very different forms of church government,
can all claim to be based on the 'New Testament model' is that the
New Testament is not very specific about how the Church is to be
organized or how services are to be conducted. It would be a grave
mistake, however, to infer from this that the early Church had no
definite structure or patterns of worship. The New Testament does
not give a detailed plan of Church government, because the Church
already existed when the books of the New Testament were written.
As we pointed out above, the epistles were not written to be an
'owner's manual.' Because of this, if we want to know more about
the early Church, we must look beyond the pages of the Scriptures
to the earliest documents of the post-apostolic Church. This is
not to suggest that these other documents are more important-or
even as important-as the Divine Scriptures; they certainly are not.
Their importance lies in the fact that they tell us how the earliest
Christians interpreted the Bible and applied those interpretations
to their lives. In doing so, they answer many of the questions that
modern Protestants have about Church life. In Chapter Five, we examined
how the description of Baptism in the Didache shed light on the
biblical passages relating to the practice of Baptism. Let us now
turn our attention to a more systematic study of life in the early
Church, focusing in particular on Church government and worship.
In addition to the Didache, four other documents from the first
two centuries help us understand how the early Church was organized
and how She worshipped: I Clement , the Letters of St. Ignatios
of Antioch, the Apologies of St. Justin the Philosopher, and Against
Heresies by St. Irenaios of Lyons. To be sure, we have many other
documents from the second century, but these contain the most specific
information about Church life. I Clement is a letter that was sent
from the Church in Rome to the Church in Corinth around A.D. 95-96.
Although St. Clement is not mentioned by name in the letter, early
tradition is unanimous in assigning it to Clement. There is now
no serious scholarly challenge to this attribution. St. Irenaios
of Lyons, writing in the latter half of the second century, tells
us that Clement was the third bishop of Rome and that he personally
knew Ss. Peter and Paul. He has also been connected with the Clement
mentioned in Phil. 4:3. This letter, therefore, stands as a bridge
between the apostolic and post-apostolic ages.1 Around A.D. 107,
St. Ignatios, the bishop of Antioch, was sent, under arrest, to
Rome for execution. During his sojourn, he wrote letters to several
Churches. Seven of those letters are extant. They provide an invaluable
insight into Church life at the beginning of the second century.
2 The Apologies of St. Justin the Philosopher are somewhat unique
in that they are addressed not to fellow Christians, but to the
pagan emperor. Dating from the middle of the second century, their
value for our purpose lies in the fact that Justin describes Church
life to the emperor in order to dispel various myths that were circulating
through the Roman world. I Clement and the Letters of Ignatios are
similar to the epistles of the New Testament in that they are occasional
letters. Justin, however, describes in some detail things that these
letters only hint at. 3 One could say that St. Irenaios is the theologian
par excellence of the second century. His Against Heresies is a
gold mine of information. This work dates from the second half of
the second century. Though he is known as the bishop of Lyons in
Gaul (France), he was originally from Asia Minor and knew St. Polycarp
of Smyrna, who was himself a disciple of St. John the Apostle. Thus,
Irenaios was a spiritual grand-child of the Apostles. 4 From these
documents we learn that the Church of the first two centuries had
a definite governing structure, consisting of four principle offices:
the bishop, the presbyters, the deacons, and the laity. The Church
worshipped according to a pattern based upon types set forth in
the Old Testament. Furthermore, both Church government and worship
were firmly rooted in the doctrine of the Incarnation‹that is, in
the belief that God had truly become man so that man might be able
to truly share in the life of God. What is most important about
this, however, is the way in which all of these elements of Church
life were integrated with one another, forming a seamless whole.
As we shall see below, episcopal government is tied directly to
the nature of the Church as a Eucharistic community. At the same
time, the Eucharist is the ultimate manifestation of the Church's
belief that Her life is nothing less than life in Christ: He that
eateth My Flesh, and drinketh My Blood, dwelleth in Me, and I in
him (John 6:56). Bishops and Presbyters In the New Testament, the
terms bishop and presbyter are used interchangeably. 5 This is evident
from the following passage from Titus: For this cause left I thee
in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting,
and ordain elders [ lit. presbyters] in every city, as I had appointed
thee: If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful
children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless,
as the steward of God; not self-willed, not soon angry, not given
to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre (Titus 1:5-7). We
can quote many similar passages from the literature of the early
Church where these terms are also used interchangeably: Our Apostles
also knew through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife
over the title of bishop. For this reason, therefore, since they
had perfect foreknowledge, they appointed the aforementioned persons
and later made further provision that if they should fall asleep,
other approved men should succeed to their ministry.... For it will
be no trivial sin on our part if we depose from the bishop's office
those who have in a blameless and holy manner offered the gifts.
Happy the presbyters who have gone on their way before this, for
they obtained a ripe and fruitful departure; since they need not
fear that anyone should remove them from their appointed place (I
Clement 44 ), 6 But when on our side we challenge them [that is,
the Gnostics] by an appeal to that tradition which derives from
the Apostles, and which is preserved in the churches by the successions
of the presbyters, then they oppose tradition claiming to be wiser
not only than the presbyters but even than the Apostles, and to
have discovered the truth undefiled.... This tradition the church
has from the Apostles, and this faith has been proclaimed to all
men, and has come down to our own day through the successions of
bishops (Against Heresies III:2:2; III:3:2). There is one writer
from the second century, however, who did not employ bishop and
presbyter as interchangeable terms: St. Ignatios of Antioch. In
his Letters, St. Ignatios makes it clear that in a given local Church,
there is one bishop, a council of presbyters, and the deacons: All
of you follow the bishop, as Jesus Christ followed the Father, and
the presbytery as the Apostles; respect the deacons as the ordinance
of God (Smyrnaeans 8 ). It is commonly asserted by Protestant scholars
that St. Ignatios' view of Church government was unusual in the
early Church - even revolutionary. Indeed, the authenticity of the
Ignatian Letters was hotly contested by many Protestants, based
upon their a priori conviction that the episcopal form of Church
government was impossible in the first decade of the second century.
7 Today, however, there is little doubt among scholars as to the
genuineness of the seven Letters in the current collection. It cannot
be denied that St. Ignatios' clearly defined use of bishop and presbyter
is highly unusual for this point in Church history. Nor can it be
denied that he places a much greater emphasis on the role of bishop
than do the other authors we are considering. However, this does
not mean that the actual Church structure he describes was unique
to Antioch. On the contrary, an examination of the other documents
under consideration will demonstrate that they evince a similar
understanding of Church government. 8 Although St. Clement uses
bishop and presbyter interchangeably, there is considerable evidence
that he has in mind the same kind of Church structure as described
by St. Ignatios. This letter was occasioned by dissent within the
Corinthian Church. In particular, there was a revolt against the
current presbytery. In arguing that the Corinthians should submit
to their appointed leaders, St. Clement speaks of the proper order
in the Church in terms of the Old Testament ministers of the altar:
Since then these things are manifest to us, and we have looked into
the depths of the divine knowledge, we ought to do in order all
things which the Master commanded us to perform at appointed times.
He commanded us to celebrate sacrifices and services, and that it
should not be thoughtless or disorderly, but at fixed times and
hours. He has himself fixed by His supreme will the places and persons
whom He desires for these celebrations, in order that all things
may be done piously according to His good pleasure, and be acceptable
to His will. So then those who offer their oblations at the appointed
seasons are acceptable and blessed, for they follow the laws of
the Master and do no sin. For to the high priest his proper ministrations
are allotted, and to the priests the proper place has been appointed,
and on the Levites their proper services have been imposed. The
layman is bound by the ordinances for the laity. Here, St. Clement
is describing the proper order of the Church, but he does so using
the imagery of the Old Testament. The high priest represents the
bishop. 9 The priests represent the presbytery, and the Levites
represent the deacons. Notice also that St. Clement specifically
mentions the role of the laity. Thus, for St. Clement, the Church
has a four-fold structure: bishop, presbyters, deacons, and laity.
Notice also that St. Clement uses specifically cultic imagery. That
is, the structure of the Church is presented within the framework
of Israel as a worshipping community. In other words, the structure
of the Church is directly related to the way She worships God. This
point is of the utmost importance, and we shall return to it below.
In Against Heresies, St. Irenaios uses the succession of bishops
in the various local Churches as an argument against the Gnostics'
claims to have special knowledge handed down secretly from the Apostles.
As we saw above, St. Irenaios speaks of the succession of both presbyters
and bishops. However, when he gets around to actually listing the
succession of bishops for a particular Church-he uses Rome as his
example-he gives a single line of succession. That is, he describes
one bishop succeeding another. There is no suggestion of multiple
successions. Indeed, it is Irenaios who formally identifies St.
Clement as the author of the letter from the Church of Rome to the
Corinthians: The blessed Apostles, then, having founded and built
up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the
episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to
Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third
place from the Apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This
man, as he had seen the blessed Apostles, and had been conversant
with them, might be said to have the preaching of the Apostles still
echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor
was he alone, for there were many still remaining who had received
instructions form the Apostles. In the time of this Clement, no
small dissension having occurred among the brethren in Corinth,
the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians
. . . To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed
Evaristus; then, sixth from the Apostles, Sixtus was appointed;
after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus,
after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sotor having succeeded
Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the Apostles,
hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this
succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the Apostles, and
the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most
abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which
has been preserved in the Church from the Apostles until now, and
handed down in truth (III.3.3). From the foregoing it is evident
that while the terminology regarding the offices of bishop and presbyter
remained somewhat fluid in the first and second centuries, the offices
themselves were not interchangeable. Ss. Clement and Irenaios, like
St. Ignatios, know of only one bishop in a church at a time. The
key to understanding this is provided by St. Justin the Philosopher
in his First Apology. In describing the Eucharistic celebration
to the emperor he writes: And on the day which is called the Sun's
Day there is an assembly of all who live in the towns or country;
and the memoirs of the Apostles or the writings of the prophets
are read, as much as time permits. When the reader has finished,
the president gives a discourse, admonishing us and exhorting us
to imitate these excellent examples. Then we all rise together and
offer prayers; and, as I said above, on the conclusion of our prayer,
bread is brought and wine and water; and the president similarly
offers up prayers and thanksgivings [Lit. eucharists] to the best
of his power, and the people assent with Amen. Notice that he describes
the leader of the Church's worship as the president.l0 This is extremely
important. Obviously an assembly can have only one president. Regardless
of how many presbyters may have been present, only one of them could
have presided.ll Notice also that this passage deals specifically
with the celebration of the Eucharist. Remember that St. Clement
treated the topic of Church government within the framework of the
Church's worship. The Church is first and foremost a worshipping
community, gathered around the Table of Her Lord. Thus, it is precisely
the Eucharistic nature of the Church that defines the structure
of the Church's ministry. John Meyendorff writes: It was in the
eucharistic meal and through it that the Church was truly herself,
the Church of God and it is, therefore, within the framework of
the eucharistic assembly, gathered every week on the Lord's Day,
that the internal structure of the Church had to take its shape.
Indeed, if the Eucharist was a reenactment of the Last Supper, someone
had to sit in the place of the Lord and pronounce the words He commanded
His disciples to say. On the other hand, the Eucharist was also
a participation in the forthcoming Messianic banquet of the Kingdom
as it was seen by the author of Revelation: 'a throne stood in heaven,
with One seated on the throne . . . Round the throne were twenty-four
thrones, and seated on the thrones were twenty-four elders [ presbyteroi]
. . .(4:2,4). 12 St. Ignatios also speaks of the place of the bishop
in the Church in terms of the Eucharist: Take great care to keep
one Eucharist. For there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and
one cup to unite us by His Blood; one sanctuary, as there is one
bishop, together with the presbytery and the deacons, my fellow-servants.
Thus all your acts may be done accordingly to God's will ( Philadelphians
4 ). Let no one do anything that pertains to the Church apart from
the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is under
the bishop or one whom he has delegated. Wherever the bishop shall
appear, there let the people be; just as wherever Jesus Christ may
be, there is the catholic Church (Smyrnaeans 8). 13 From the writings
of the early Church Fathers such as St. Clement, St. Ignatios, St.
Justin, and St. Irenaios, it is evident that the governing structure
of the early Church was directly related to Her nature as a Eucharistic
community. The Church is most truly Herself when She is gathered
around the Table of Her Lord. It is in this most self-expressive
of liturgical acts that the various ministries of the Church are
delineated. The New Israel Christianity did not spring from a vacuum.
Jesus Christ did not found a new religion. The first Christians
were Jews, and from the very beginning, they viewed the Church as
the New Israel. There is no question that Judaism is a liturgical
religion. Most Protestants, however, fail to make this liturgical
connection between the Old and New Israels. Within the New Testament
there is evidence that the Apostles continued to observe Jewish
liturgical practices. 14 Perhaps even more significant, however,
is the fact that the literature we have been examining, written
by Gentiles long after the Christians had been expelled from the
synagogue, also testifies to the fact that Christian worship was
based on Jewish patterns. In the first century, Jews prayed at set
times of the day and fasted on Mondays and Thursdays. The Didache
enjoins Christians to fast and pray, but in a way that differentiates
them from the Jews: Let not your fasts be with the hypocrites,15
for they fast on Mondays and Thursdays, but do you fast on Wednesdays
and Fridays. l6 And do not pray as the hypocrites, but as the Lord
commanded in His Gospel, pray in this way, 'Our Father . . .' Pray
thus three times a day. The important thing to notice about this
passage is that although the early Christians were eager to disassociate
themselves from the Jews, they nevertheless saw their life and worship
in terms of Jewish liturgical practice. Concerning the Eucharist
we read: On the Lord's Day of the Lord come together, break bread
and hold Eucharist, after confessing your transgressions that your
offering may be pure. But let no one who has a quarrel with his
fellow man join in your meeting until they be reconciled, that your
sacrifice not be defiled. For this is that which was spoken of by
the Lord, In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice, for
I am a great King, saith the Lord, and My name is wonderful among
the heathen . 17 Notice that the Eucharist is considered an 'offering'
and a 'sacrifice.' These non-Jewish Christians understood their
worship as a direct fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. Their
interpretation is confirmed by the fact that, according to the Law
of Moses, sacrifices were to be offered only in the tabernacle or
in the temple in Jerusalem, and only by the Aaronic priesthood.
Only in the Christian Church-the New Israel-is it possible to offer
a pure sacrifice in every place. St. Clement also speaks of Christian
worship in terms of its Old Testament prototype. He warns the Corinthians
that they must not revolt against their appointed leaders, for only
those appointed by God are able to offer the sacrifice of the altar.
There can be only one Church, and one offering: Not in every place,
my brethren, are the daily sacrifices offered or the free will offerings,
or the sin offerings and trespass-offerings, but only in Jerusalem.
There also the offering is not made in every place, but before the
shrine, at the altar, and the offering is first inspected by the
high priest and the ministers already mentioned. 18 Those therefore
who do anything contrary to that which is agreeable to His will
suffer the penalty of death. 19 You see, brethren, that the more
knowledge we have been entrusted with, the greater risk do we incur
. It should be stressed at this point that these Christians were
not practicing Jewish rituals. Indeed, St. Ignatios goes so far
as to say, 'It is monstrous to speak of Jesus Christ and to practice
Judaism' (Magnesians 10:3). They were practicing Christian worship,
but their worship patterns were based on Jewish patterns. 20 St.
Irenaios of Lyons makes this perfectly clear. He too interprets
Malachi 1:10-11 as a prophecy of Christian worship: And He also
counseled His Disciples to offer to God the firstfruits of His creatures,
not because He needed these gifts, but so that they should not be
unfruitful nor unthankful. This He did, when He took bread, of the
natural creation, and gave thanks, and said, This is My Body. Likewise
the cup of wine belonging to the creation of which we are part,
He declared to be His Blood, and explained as the new oblation of
the New Testament. This oblation the Church receives from the Apostles
and throughout the whole world She offers it to God, Who supplies
as our nourishment the firstfruits of His gifts in the New Testament.
Concerning this, Malachi thus prophesied: I will not receive sacrifice
at your hands. . . . In every place incense is offered in My name,
and a pure sacrifice; for My name is great among the gentiles. .
. . By this he quite clearly means that the former people will cease
to offer to God, but in every place a sacrifice will be offered,
and that a pure sacrifice while His name is glorified among the
gentiles (IV:17:4). Speaking specifically about the difference between
Christian and Jewish worship, St. Irenaios states: There are oblations
there and oblations here; sacrifices among the chosen People, sacrifices
in the Church. Only the kind of sacrifice is changed, for now sacrifice
is offered not by servants but by sons. There is one and the same
Lord; but there is a character appropriate to servile oblation,
and a character appropriate to the oblation of sons, so that even
by means of the oblations a token of liberty is displayed (IV:18:2).
A college New Testament professor of mine once outlined the order
of service for a Jewish synagogue of the first century for our class.
He then drew direct comparisons between the synagogue service and
a typical Baptist service. We were all rather impressed by the fact
that our worship practices had their roots in Jewish worship. Far
more important, however, than what we learned in class that day
was what we did not learn. Our professor neglected to inform us
that this basic pattern is that of the liturgy of the Word, which
is common to most Christian traditions. In his Apology, St. Justin
describes the Sunday service in the second century as having two
basic parts. In the first part the Scriptures are read and explained
in the sermon, and in the second part the Eucharist is offered.
The liturgy of the Word, not unlike the typical Baptist service,
is indeed patterned after synagogue services. However, the Sunday
service in St. Justin's day - and today in the Orthodox Church -
did not end with the liturgy of the Word. We must remember that,
strictly speaking, the worship of Israel did not take place in the
synagogues. The synagogue derives from the period of exile in Babylon.
There is no provision for the synagogue in the Law of Moses. 21
Indeed, as we saw above, the only place where Israel was authorized
to offer sacrifice was in the temple in Jerusalem. The documents
we are considering testify to the fact that the early Christians
saw their worship precisely in terms of sacrifice. As an Evangelical,
however, I was taught that the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross
put an end to all sacrifice. How, then, do we reconcile the undeniable
practice of the early Church with the uniqueness and finality of
Christ's work? The Flesh of Our Lord Jesus Christ When St. John
the Baptist first encountered Christ, he exclaimed, Behold the Lamb
of God, which taketh away the sin of the world (John 1:29). This
theme is echoed in the Book of Revelation. John beholds a Lamb upon
the throne as the angels and elders sing, Worthy is the Lamb that
was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength,
and honour, and glory, and blessing (Rev. 5:12). St. Paul writes
that Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us (1 Cor. 5:7). In Hebrews
we read: And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering
oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
But this Man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever,
sat down on the right hand of God From henceforth expecting till
His enemies be made His footstool(10:11-13). Jesus Christ is, therefore,
our Passover Lamb, slain for the salvation of the world. 22 Moreover,
His Sacrifice is perfect and can never be repeated. There can be
no doubt that the Crucifixion of Christ is the apex of all human
history. There is a tendency in Protestantism, however, to limit
the Cross of Christ to a point in history. That the Sacrifice of
Christ cannot be repeated is taken to mean that it can only be remembered
as a past event. Thus, the Lord's Supper is a 'memorial' -an act
of psychological remembrance. 23 This is manifestly not how the
early Church saw things. To begin with, the Greek word for remembrance-This
do in remembrance of Me (1 Cor. 11:24)‹has an active connotation.
24 It involves more than the mere psychological act of remembering.
It implies the representation of the event remembered: When the
Church is conceived to be the Temple of God and its members living
stones and a holy priesthood, then the eucharist becomes a sacrificial
meal -sacrificial in the sense that it is the means of entering
into and sharing Christ's sacrifice. This is implicit in the words
'Do this in remembrance of me,' although the translation 'remembrance'
does less than justice to the underlying idea. 'Remembrance' implies
the mental recollection of what is absent, but in the biblical perspective
the word has rather the sense of re-calling, of making what is past
present again so that it becomes operative by its effects here and
now. The offering of the eucharist in the Church, therefore, is
identified with the offering of Christ, not in the sense that his
sacrifice is repeated, but that the eucharistic offering is the
re-calling or re-presentation of his perfect oblation so that the
sacrifice is present and operative by its effects. 25 Thus, the
Eucharist is an active participation, here and now, in the unique
and unrepeatable Sacrifice offered by Christ on Golgotha. It is
not merely an act of reminiscence, but an act of genuine Communion
with Christ: The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion
of the Blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the
communion of the Body of Christ? For we being many are one bread,
and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread (1 Cor.
10:16-17). In his Letters, St. Ignatios takes great pains to counter
the claims of the Docetists, who maintained that the Word of God
had taken flesh in appearance only, not in reality. These people,
seeing themselves as more spiritual than the rest of the Church,
absented themselves from the worship of the Church. What is most
interesting, however is the reason why they did not participate
in the Eucharist: They abstain from Eucharist and prayer, because
they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior
Jesus Christ, Who suffered for our sins, Whom the Father raised
up by His goodness (Smyrnaeans 7). In the early Church, the only
people who denied that the Eucharist was truly the Body and Blood
of Christ were those who also denied that the Word had truly become
man. There is, in the eyes of the Fathers of the early Church, a
direct and unbreakable correlation between the doctrine of the Incarnation
and the Real Presence of Christ in Eucharist. To deny one is to
deny the other. Writing to the emperor of Rome, St. Justin also
makes an explicit connection between the Eucharist and the Incarnation.
Just as the Word of God became man in the Incarnation, even so the
bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist:
And this food is called among us Eucharist, of which no one is allowed
to partake but the one who believes that the things that we preach
are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the
remission of sins and unto regeneration,26 and who is living as
Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do
we receive these, but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior,
having been made flesh by the Word of God, and took flesh and blood
for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food
over which thanksgiving has been offered by the prayer of His Word,
and from which our blood and flesh are nourished through its transformation,
is the Flesh and Blood of that Jesus Who was made flesh. . St. Irenaios
is even more specific about the relationship of the Eucharist to
the Incarnation. His primary target in Against Heresies is Gnosticism.
Among other things, the Gnostics taught that the God of the Old
Testament and the God of Christ were two different Gods. Furthermore,
they explicitly disdained creation, asserting that matter is not
capable of being a true vehicle for the spirit. Irenaios, therefore,
goes to great pains to affirm both the inherent goodness of God's
creation and the reality of the Incarnation: We are His members,
and are nourished by means of His creation, and He Himself provides
His creation for us, making the sun to rise and sending rain as
He wills (Mat. 5:45). Therefore, the drink, which is part of His
creation, He declared to be His own Blood; and by this He enriches
our blood. And the bread, which comes from His creation, He affirmed
to be His own Body; and by this He nourishes our bodies. Whenever,
then, the cup that man mixes and the bread that man makes receive
the Word of God, the Eucharist becomes the Body of Christ and by
these elements the substance of our flesh receives nourishment and
sustenance. How, then, can they allege that flesh is incapable of
the gift of God, which is eternal life, seeing that the flesh is
fed on the Flesh and Blood of the Lord and is a member of Him (V:2:3)?
We saw that earlier in the second century the Docetists whom St.
Ignatios opposed absented themselves from the Eucharist because
they did not believe it to be the Body and Blood of Christ. They
may have been heretics, but at least they were consistent. According
to Irenaios, the Gnostics were not consistent. They called creation
evil and denied that Christ had truly suffered and died, yet apparently
they continued to participate in the Church's worship. Irenaios
was quick to point out the discrepancy between their theology and
their practice: Again, how can they say that flesh passes to corruption
and does not share in life, seeing that flesh is nourished by the
Body and Blood of the Lord? Let them either change their opinion,
or refrain from making those oblations of which we have been speaking.
But our opinion is in conformity with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist
confirms our opinion. We offer to Him what is His own, suitably
proclaiming the communion and unity of flesh and spirit. For as
the bread, which comes from the earth, receives the invocation of
God, and then it is no longer common bread but Eucharist, consists
of two things, an earthly and a heavenly; so our bodies, after partaking
of the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of
the eternal resurrection (IV:18:5). There are two aspects of this
passage that are of crucial importance for our study. First of all,
St. Irenaios states, 'But our opinion is in conformity with the
Eucharist, and the Eucharist confirms our opinion.' In other words,
his theology is in accord with the worship and life of the Church,
and the worship and life of the Church confirm the truthfulness
of His theology.27 This is another example of how the Fathers of
the early Church appealed to the life of the Church-tradition-in
order to settle theological disputes. Earlier in Against Heresies,
Irenaios actually talks about the relationship between Scripture
and tradition. He says that when the Gnostics are refuted from the
Scriptures, they claim that there is something wrong with the Scriptures.
They then rely on their own tradition, which, they claim, has been
handed down secretly (III:2:1). To this secret tradition, St. Irenaios
opposes the tradition handed down by the Apostles and maintained
publicly by the bishops in the Church. 28 For Irenaios, Apostolic
Succession is not merely a means of insuring valid Church government,
it is also a public guarantee of the authenticity of the Church's
teaching: It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church,
who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition
of the Apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are
in a position to reckon up those who were by the Apostles instituted
bishops in the Churches, and the succession of these men down to
our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like
what these heretics rave about. For if the Apostles had known hidden
mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting privately and
secretly to the 'perfect,' they would have delivered them especially
to those to whom they were entrusting the care of the Church (III:3:1).
It is, no doubt, difficult for Evangelicals to understand why the
Fathers of the Early Church would place so much emphasis upon tradition,
particularly upon worship. We are used to thinking that we do x
because we believe y. It can be somewhat disconcerting, therefore,
to hear someone assert the inverse as well: we believe y because
we do x. Yet, this is precisely what St. Irenaios is saying. This
brings us to the second notable aspect of St. Irenaios' argument:
'. . . so our bodies, after partaking of the Eucharist, are no longer
corruptible, having the hope of the eternal resurrection.' For Irenaios,
as for the other Fathers of the second century, as for Orthodox
Christians today, the Eucharist is genuine Communion with Christ.
It is our participation in His divine humanity. The reason that
St. Irenaios is able to interpret the Scriptures based on the way
He worships in the second century is because that which is described
in the Bible is experienced first-hand in the life of the Church.
The Scriptures testify to Christ; the Church is life in Christ.
St. Ignatios writes to the Church in Philadelphia: I hear certain
persons saying, 'Unless I find it in the archives I will not believe
it in the Gospel.' And when I replied, 'It is in the Scriptures,'
they answered, 'That remains to be proved.' But as for me, Jesus
Christ is the archives, the inviolable archives are His Cross, Death,
and Resurrection, and faith through Him (Philadelphians 8). Ss.
Ignatios and Irenaios understood that there is little point in arguing
about Scriptural interpretation. They are able to interpret the
Scriptures correctly not because they are smarter than others, but
because in the Church they have true union with Christ. The Church
is not a voluntary assembly of individuals who happen to have common
beliefs about God, She is the mystical Body of Christ, His continuing
presence in the world.29
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
-- Footnotes 1. For a general
introduction and bibliography, see Quasten, pp. 42-53. Translations
may be found in collections of the Apostolic Fathers. Cf. Ch.5,
n55, above. There is also a translation by J.A. Kleist, The Epistles
of Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch, Ancient Christian Writers,
Vol. 1 (NY: Newman Press, 1946). It is generally accepted that II
Clement is an early sermon by someone other than St. Clement of
Rome. 2. Cf. Quasten, pp. 63-76. For translations see Ch. 5, n55,
and Ch. 9, nl. 3. Cf. Quasten, pp. 196-221. There is a translation
in Vol. 1 of the Ante Nicene Fathers, pp. 159-193, and excerpts
may be found in Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers, pp. 58-64.
4. Irenaios is also spelled Irenaeus. For background and bibliography
see Quasten, pp. 287-313. We do not possess complete texts of Against
Heresies. There is a translation in Vol. 1 of the Ante Nicene Fathers,
pp. 315-578. For excerpts, see Bettenson, pp. 65-102. 5. Most English
translations render presbyter as elder. The KJV and RSV usually
render bishop as bishop, although the KJV does render it as overseer
once (Acts 20:28). The NIV, however, renders it as overseer exclusively,
thereby avoiding using a word that is objectionable to most Evangelicals.
For the use of bishop in the NT (albeit written from a Protestant
perspective), see Hermann Beyer's article on in Gerhard Kittel,
The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT), Vol. II,
Tr. by Geoffrey W. Bromily (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), especially
pp. 615ff. 6. For St. Clement, the office of bishop derives from
the Apostles. Elsewhere he writes, 'The Apostles received the Gospel
for us from the Lord Jesus Christ: Jesus the Christ was sent from
God. Thus Christ is from God, the Apostles from Christ. In both
cases, the process was orderly and derived from the will of God...
They preached in country and town, and appointed their first-fruits,
after testing them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those
who were going to believe' (42). Thus, the concept of 'Apostolic
Succession,' dates from the first century. 7. For an account of
the history of the interpretation of the Ignatian Letters, see Stephen
Neill, The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861-1961 (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1966), pp. 41ff. 8. The only exception
to this is the Didache, which gives very little information about
Church government. The Didache is concerned primarily with the authority
of traveling apostles and teachers and takes an almost apologetic
attitude toward local clergy. This is a point in favor of dating
the Didache in the first century, perhaps as early as A.D. 70. It
is highly unlikely that a second century document would give such
emphasis to traveling teachers. 9. This terminology is still used
in the Orthodox Church. l0. A close relative, is used in the NT
synonymously with Cf. 1 Th. 5:12. 11. It is possible, of course,
that the office of president (ie. bishop) was not held permanently
by any one presbyter, but rotated among them. However, there is
not the slightest bit of evidence to support the idea that this
is how the early Church was actually governed. On the contrary,
all of the documents from this era, from St. Clement's equating
the bishop with the OT high priest to St. Irenaios' list of episcopal
successors, explicitly rule out this idea. 12. Catholicity and the
Church, p. 53. l3. This is the first extant use of catholic as an
adjective modifying the Church. Contrary to popular opinion, catholic
does not primarily mean universal. Literally, it means according
to the whole. Thus, to speak of the Church as being catholic means
that the Church is whole, complete, lacking nothing. 14. Cf. Acts
2:42, 20:16. 15. That is, the Jews. l6. To this day, the Orthodox
Church observes Wednesdays and Fridays as fast days. 17. The quotation
is a conflation of Malachi 1:11,14. 18. At the time this was written
(c. A.D. 96), the temple in Jerusalem had long since been destroyed
by the Romans. It is obvious, therefore, that although St. Clement
is speaking in terms of the OT cultus, he is talking about the Christian
Church. l9. In the OT, Korah and his followers offered incense to
God, contradicting the directives that God had given to Moses. The
ground opened up and swallowed some, while others were burned up
by fire from heaven. Cf. Numbers 16. 20. It has become popular in
some circles for Evangelicals to celebrate the Jewish Passover seder.
This would have been seen by the early Church as an act of apostasy.
Christ, and Christ alone, is the Passover. 2l. The purpose of the
synagogue is primarily educational. Likewise, the purpose of the
liturgy of the Word is to instruct Christians and catechumens in
the faith, so that they might be prepared to participate in the
Eucharist. 22. According to St. John¹s chronology, Saturday
was the Passover. The Passover seder would have been on Friday night.
This means that Christ died as the Passover lamb was being sacrificed.
23. This is the position of those who follow the theology of the
Swiss Reformer Ulrich Zwingli. See Ch. 9 below. 24. Cf in TDNT,
1:348-349. 25. J.G. Davies, The Early Christian Church: A History
of Its First Five Centuries (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House,
1980), p.62. 26. That is, Baptism. 27. What would happen if we pressed
modern Evangelicals to demonstrate the continuity between their
professed theology and the way they worship? If in the early Church
belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist implied the
doctrine of the Incarnation‹that is, that in Christ God had truly
become man, then what would be the logical implication of the Zwinglian
view that the Eucharist is not truly the Body and Blood of Christ?
28. By publicly I mean the tradition that was open and available
to all the baptized members of the Church. This tradition, however,
would not have been made available to those outside the Church.
See the discussion of St. Basil's understanding of tradition in
Ch. 7. The Gnostics claimed to have a tradition that was not public
knowledge within the Church, but was accessible only to a small
spiritual elite. 29. 'lgnatius is no docetist. Christ came in flesh
and we are to 'flee to the gospel as the flesh of Jesus Christ.'
But that historical coming in the flesh is really and timelessly
present in the church now' so that to 'flee to the presbytery' is
to flee to the apostles. The (Greek Word) or eucharistic assembly
represents a reality which entered time and history and is significant
just because it is such. Union with the bishop in union with the
diaconate and presbyterate establishes contact therefore with an
historically grounded reality. Christ is incarnate in the flesh
and as such there will be represented in the church which is the
extension of the incarnation the dual character of flesh and Spirit
of him who is both 'Son of David' and 'Son of God.'' A. Brent, 'Pseudonymity
and Charisma,' Augustinianum 27 (1987), p. 351.
|
Subject: 'novelty' of concillar authority
From: Christopher
To: All
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 19:12:28 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
OK, I know I said I posted my last, but I'm almost through reading
the Council of Ephesus. Pilgrim, you said some time ago that my
idea about the council of Jeruslem in Acts being normative for the
Christian Church was 'novel.' I haven't read the first two yet,
but this is from that Third Ecumenical Council in 431: From the
Letter of Pope (a Roman Pope, no less!) Celestine to the Synod of
Ephesus: 'Every council is holy on account of a peculiar veneration
which is its due: for in every such council the reverence which
should be paid to that most famous council
of the Apostles of which we read is to
be had regard to.' Should I go back even further and see how much
less 'novel' this idea becomes? Christopher
|
Subject: Re: 'novelty' of concillar authority
From: Pilgrim
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 31,
2000 at 21:02:48 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
Christopher,
What I perceive is the irrational
crying out of a drowning man! :-) Of what weight is the personal
opinion of a pagan Pope to a person indwelt with the Spirit of the
living God? Is he in some manner endowed with divine authority to
which I must bow, accepting any and all his ravings? To the contrary,
I have been given two new eyes that see, a mind that is now able
to comprehend the great mysteries of God and a heart which is drawn
to love the truth of God's inerrant and infallible Word (written
and made flesh). I need not listen to the dribble of Popes, 'holy
Fathers' or Orthodox traditions, nay ANY man, for God has spoken
in these last days by His SON... 'hear ye Him!'
In His Grace, Pilgrim |
Subject: Re: 'novelty' of concillar authority
From: Christopher
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 31,
2000 at 21:07:43 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
I addressed only your charge of 'novelty.' Nothing
else. Christopher
|
Subject: Re: 'novelty' of concillar authority
From: Pilgrim
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 01,
2000 at 07:38:15 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
I addressed only your charge of 'novelty.' Nothing
else. Christopher
---
Christopher, And I addressed that
point above quite tersely, in case you didn't notice! It is a 'novelty'
indeed since the true church has never adhered to it and it has
been embraced by 'novel' folk as you have so conveniently pointed
out by quoting this pagan Pope! :-) I'm always appreciative of those
who help, even if was unintentional on your part! hehe Pilgrim
|
Subject: Double Predestination
From: Sunshine
To: All
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 13:19:33 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Try again! It seems I put my 'name' in the wrong place! (Who wants
to call themselves 'various' anyway??) Well, if anyone can tell
me what 'double predestination' means, I'd be grateful. Thanks again!
|
Subject: Re: Double Predestination
From: monitor
To: Sunshine
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 13:27:01 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Try again! It seems I put my 'name' in the wrong place! (Who wants
to call themselves 'various' anyway??) Well, if anyone can tell
me what 'double predestination' means, I'd be grateful. Thanks again!
---
Here you go, 'Various'! haha! Double Jeopardy www.gospelcom.net/thehighway/DoublePestination_Sproul.html
|
Subject: God's 'mistake'
From: Rod
To: All
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 06:16:16 (PST)
Email Address: na
Message:
I was catching up on the postings since I last felt
like dropping in and read twice statements that God only intended
hell to be for the 'devil and his angels,' falsely interpreted to
mean that men were never intended to be sent there. That interpretation
demands that one conclude that God made an error and had to revise
His plan, sort of making it up as He goes along. We have dealt with
this terrible view in the past and no doubt it will arise again.
Please be aware of what you're implying if you are one saying this
and taking this false road. You deny the sovereignty and omnipotence
of God, a very serious error. The whole intent and purpose of God
is involved.
|
Subject: Re: God's 'mistake'
From: Berean7
To: Rod
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 18:53:16 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Rod, Hell was originally prepared for the Devil and his angels,
look at Matthew 25:41. We have to keep in perspective that God created
man with Free Will. Eventhough God is sovriegn and knows all things,
He still created them that way. We have to remember the purpose
of God creating man in the first place. For a relationship and for
fellowship. Robots can not willing choose to worship or fellowship
with its creator, so thus God created us with Free will. But, because
of the fall(know we have no free will:)), we are all in unbelief
and anyone who stays that way till death, will partake in the place
prepared originally for the Devil and his angels, 'Hell, Hades,
Sheol, and eventually Lake of Fire.
|
Subject: Re: God's 'mistake'
From: john hampshire
To: Berean7
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 23:46:21 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Berean7, The place of fire prepared for the 'devil and his angels'
is also translated (better) 'devil and his messengers'. Guess who
are the messengers of the devil? Guess who are the messengers of
Christ? The point is, the lake of fire was not prepared as an after
thought due to a surprise in man's free will being lost. You wrote:
Robots can not willing choose to worship or fellowship with its
creator, so thus God created us with Free will. Well technically,
robots have no will whatsoever. There really is no analogy there.
A better illustration (maybe): Adam was created 'tuned' to God,
his spirit was 'tuned' to God's Spirit, they were in perfect communion.
With Adam's act of rebellion, God removed His signal (no more fellowship).
Adam and Eve were bound by their design, they must 'tune' to some
voice, and the voice they found was the devil. They were as much
freely slaves to God inititally as they were to become slaves to
Satan afterwards. The problem for all men born without 'direction'
is to immediately 'tune' into the nearest substitute for that missing
thing (God). I would disagree that 'Hell, Hades, Sheol are some
precursor place of punishment prior to the Lake of Fire. I know
many have differing opinions, but IMO Hades/Sheol are the abode
of the seperated parts of man (death is seperation) and the Lake
of Fire is the abode of the re-joined man (seperated from God forever).
That is, Hades/Sheol is the grave (for the body) and a place of
silence (for the spirit). All men end in Sheol, their bodies are
buried, both elect and non-elect alike. But the spirit of the elect
is different, being perfect in Christ it awaits Christ's return
in heaven with all the other elect spirits (plus Enoch, Elijah,
and Moses). The re-joined place of dwelling for the elect is called
the new heavens and new earth. The re-joined place of dwelling for
the non-elect is called the Lake of Fire. All these things were
designed by God from the start. Or to say it better, they were always
part of the 'mind' of God. john
|
Subject: Pilgrim's reply to Mary
From: Vernon
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 03:16:15 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Hllo Pilgrim, I have read below where you embrace Calvinism and
seem to highly embrace John Calvin. Men such as Welsey and Finney
you most likely would call them heretical. But I tell you there
is none better to embrace than Jesus Christ. I laugh when you write
twenty pages using word beyound my brain calling me everything but
stupid in scriptures. I read what you wrote to Mary and it did not
disapoint me. I would never expect any different from you. Sir,
according to the word of God, We all are sinners and guilty before
Him if we have not been forgiven through Faith in Christ Jesus.
You write and speak as if a person like Mary and I have nothing
but a heretical view and understand ing of Gods word. I even wounder
if you believe us to be lost. I know that Mary and I are worthless
with out Christ and neither of us deserves God's wonderful grace
and mercy. Sir, I almost since that you preceive your self high
and mighty before the Lord. But I hate to tell you.....'Your knowledge
is nothing before God...You are a sinner just as I am and in need
of Christ to even have a relation ship with thr Father. Pilgrim,
without the Holy Spirit, You could have no relationship with CHrist
nor have any knowledge in God's word. I laugh when you ask.....'
What comes first......Regeneration or Faith? Pilgrim, Pilgrim, have
I not told you that a man must be 'Born Again' to have a saving
Faith. It seems that you do not like the term.....'Born Again.'
Would this be the same as regeneration? I have told you that mans
heart is wicked and he the man is dead in his sin and can only be
made spiritually alive with a trusting faith in Christ Jesus. I
have told you more than once that it is God the Holy Spirit working
in the World and man to convict them of sin and bring all who do
hear his voice to a trusting faith in Christ Jesus. Do you believe
this is a heretical view Mr Pilgrim? I know man in his own ability
can neversee nor understand the things of God. Any man who truly
is 'Born Again' could never disagree in that. As much as you disagree,
Man sins because he choose to sin and disobey God. God did cause
Satan to rebel against him, nor Adam to sin. These two sinned because
they chose to sin. That means we have a will to sin. Pilgrim, I
do not disagree with 'Predestination nor Election, but not in the
way you believe it to be true. Pilgrim, to hear you speak, a man
must follow the doctrine of John Calvin to be saved. John Calvin
was nothing more than a sinner saved by the Crace of God just as
you and have been. I spoke of Pastor Whitefield and I do like the
way he presente Calvinism. He was not Hyper and he fully represented
God, not John Clavin. He had love and He presented the Loving word
of God in a way that it won souls to Christ. This is what I did
not see in your reply to Mary. You could not wait to chop her legs
from under her with Calvinism. Sir, would it have been better to
witneas Jeus Christ to her and allowed the Holy Spirit to do the
work rather than being so prideful and dogmatic in your attitude?
Think about it....presenting calvinist view with the love of Christ.
Do not delight in Calvlnist Theology, but delight in presenting
the gospel of Jesus Christ with love and in a way to have people
seeing Christ in you. In Christ Vernon
|
Subject: Re: Pilgrim's reply to Mary
From: a monitor
To: Vernon
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 07:03:38 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Vern - Born Again = Regeneration Paul, Augustine, the Reformers
and countless others since to include Whitfield preached a gospel
that was TOTALLY FREE based on God's mercy ... Calvin merely taught
this very same Gospel....one you reject in favor of a man-centered
one. As for your salvation, that's not my business.... a monitor
|
Subject: Re: Pilgrim's reply to Mary
From: john hampshire
To: Vernon
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 05:23:28 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Vernon, You wrote: 'I have told you that mans heart is wicked and
he the man is dead in his sin and can only be made spiritually alive
with a trusting faith in Christ Jesus'. Vernon, do you not know,
or care, that the above statement is incorrect. If a man is dead
in his sin, how does he possesses a trusting faith in Christ Jesus
that it should make him spiritually alive. Your statement could
be restated to say: 'If a dead man were to see, hear, talk, and
walk, then the Doctor will give him life'. Does this make any sense
to you? You wrote: '...it is God the Holy Spirit working in the
World and man to convict them of sin and bring all who do hear his
voice to a trusting faith in Christ Jesus'. You must understand
by now, after so long, that this statement of yours is incorrect.
Who does the Holy Spirit bring to a trusting faith in Christ Jesus?
Is it everyone in the world? If this is the case, then everyone
in the world will come to a trusting faith in Christ Jesus. Or shall
we say that some folks reject this work by God, then who can be
saved? Why, if this is true, only those who turn to God by their
own work of hearing, by their own faith are saved. We, in other
words, would be the author of our own salvation--by works no less,
if this were true, which thankfully it is not. You wrote: 'These
two [Adam and Eve] sinned because they chose to sin. That means
we have a will to sin'. Do you suppose that a will in bondage to
sin, dead to good works, estranged from God, working only evil continually,
will also, given some nudge by God, turn from all this and believe
in Christ Jesus, exhibiting faith? Do you think man is capable of
pleasing God and performing good works under his own power? Not
a chance. We have all gone astray, our works are like sewer stained
rags before God. Can you not see that expecting spiritually dead
men to do good works is impossible. That God must first give life
(regeneration), creating a new spirit that lives and functions.
Can you not see that apart from the Holy Spirit regenerating, there
is no faith, no repentance, no life. Can you also not see that the
Holy Spirit ONLY regenerates those that Christ has redeemed, which
are the same group (the elect) that the Father gave His Son to die
for? You wrote: 'Do not delight in Calvinist Theology, but delight
in presenting the gospel of Jesus Christ with love and in a way
to have people seeing Christ in you'. But Vernon, how is Christ
displayed if we speak a theology that is incorrect. How do people
see love in a lie? Is it loving to say, 'your faith has made you
whole', when they are actually still dead in their sins? Do you
think such a vast difference is worth your time and effort to understand
and preach correctely? I think so! Who wants to spread a false gospel,
who is willing to remain a false preacher? If we call the true gospel
'Calvinism', how is that unloving? It IS the Gospel of Jesus Christ,
there is no difference. It is not John Calvin's ideas, he promoted
these truths, but he certainly did not invent it. Calvinism came
straight from Scripture-- IT IS THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST. It is
what every believer should understand and preach. This Vernon IS
love, real and honest love. Any other gospel, including the incorrect
one you have expressed, is a gospel of death, it leads you away
from truth. You decide, what is important to you? Displaying kindness,
and speaking of salvation to the lost, but preaching a lie. Or being
honest, truthful, and pointed to those who are perishing; speaking
the truth that can set them free. Which one is true love and which
one is an impostor, a wolf in sheep's clothing pretending to be
love? That is why some folks on this forum do not allow the gospel
to spiral into a stream of incorrect statements. It is just too
important. Believe it or not, these people who seem angry and judgmental
to you, are the ones who love Jesus Christ and the Gospel He preached.
They love it more than they love the feelings and wants of men,
they simply will not compromise on truth. How's about you, how important
is truth to you? john
|
Subject: For john
From: Eric
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 09:28:37 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
How exactly is the gospel that a Calvinist presents, different than
the gospel that a person who holds to a modififed Arminian/Wesleyan
presents (which I think is to what Vernon holds to, forgive me if
that is an invalid assumption). While the underlying truths as towards
the 'why' someone accepts or rejects the message, to the unregenerate,
isn't the 'how' and the gospel truth the same as far as the individual's
perspective is concerned? It is only after someone has been regenerated
that they can grasp the underlying doctrines anyway.
|
Subject: Re: For john
From: Pilgrim
To: Eric
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 13:14:14 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Eric,
Not to answer for John, for he
is certainly capable in doing that for himself. But it seems to
me and history seems to support my view, that one's theology will
determine not only what one believes but how one expresses it. Thus
there is a vast chasm of difference between what I, the Reformers
and Puritans preached concerning the gospel itself and what most
modern church-goers are preaching as the gospel. The article I referred
Mary to by Dr. J.I. Packer makes this same point quite clear and
spells out the vast differences between the two 'systems' and how
each expresses them to others. The bottom line is that the 'modern
gospel' puts man in the 'driver's seat' of salvation and consequently
not upon Christ. Yes, yes, they will all tell you they are trusting
Christ, but in fact they are trusting in their 'decision for' Christ.
Easy Believism is a lie and it has deceived hundreds of thousands
with a false assurance of salvation. It DOES matter what you believe
and consequently what you say.
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim |
Subject: Re: For john
From: Eric
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 14:33:58 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
I think a lot of what you say is true, but then again, I think that
much of what passes for Christianity today is not really Christian,
and that is more a function of modernity as opposed to soteriology
per se. Many of the old Reformed denominations have gone the same
way as the old Weslyan denominations--liberalism and the social
gospel. Just look at Robert Schuler-and how the RCA still allows
him ordination is beyond me. Or take the PCUSA, or how the CRC is
starting down that slippery slope, or even the PCA is probably going
to split in the next 20 years because of all the in-fighting. I
don't know how I got off on this tangent, but my point is that the
basic facts of the gospel are the same--believe on the Lord Jesus
Christ, and you will be saved. Both Calvinists and Armininians agree
to that--I hope! Many old school Armininians (those not of the Finney
ilk) would be shocked at how the gospel has turned into a man centered
appeal to felt needs as opposed to a biblical presentation. Gotta
run
|
Subject: Re: Pilgrim's reply to Mary
From: mary
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 06:39:34 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
As you can tell I'm having a problem trying to post but I will keep
trying. I read both Vernon's post and John's. At this point I am
reading materials that Pilgrim asked me to read and it is quite
a large amount of reading which I fully intend to finish because
I want to know where you are both coming from. I just wanted to
say the following, that I became aware that I was a sinner at age
5. You might say that that was not likely. But until this day 55
years later I can tell you the circumstances causing me to understand
that I had sinned. I can't say that I understood fully what had
happened, but I knew that I had done something to displease God.
You would probably say that I had just at that time known that I
had done something wrong. No I knew that I had sinned, I had taken
the money that dad had given me for the sunday school offering and
bought candy with it on the way home from church. I can only tell
you that I was under such conviction that I have not forgotten that
incident in 55 years from that time until the day I fully understood
what regenerated, bornagain,or whatever term you choose to use and
surrenderd to the unmerited Grace of God I was working trying to
be good enough to please God and I can tell you that that didn't
work. I only became exhausted trying to please God because I did't
at that time know that it was through the work of the Cross of Christ
that I would be bornagain. I can only tell you this that I had heard
the Gospel since I was a child, my mother was a loving christian
mother, BUT until the Holy Spirit opened my eyes and anointed my
ears to HEAR I was LOST. I don't know what light either of you will
see this through, Calvin or what ever I understood that salvation
was a free gift from God throught the work of Jesus Christ on the
cross and it was not of works lest any man should boast. The following
scripture comes to mind The Lord is not slack concerning his promise,as
some men count slackness: but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing
that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
I just have one question. Is not a man bornagain when he believes
on the work of Jesus Christ, and he came to that point because the
Holy Spirit led him there. Jesus said without me ye can do nothing.
I had nothing to do with my salvation except to accept or reject
the work of Jesus on my behalf. I even had to have my spiritual
eyes opened to do that. mary
|
Subject: Re: Pilgrim's reply to Mary
From: john hampshire
To: mary
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 23:18:13 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Mary, It is interesting that children know what constitutes wrong,
they have to be 'programmed' by parents, adults, teachers, society
and the rest to accept their wrong as right. The conscience is quite
able to 'see' the altered state that even the tiniest sin brings,
it is like a motion detector for the soul, as each sin binds the
sinner and he/she sinks a little deeper. I would say that there
is a recognition of sin, with regret, even repentance of wrong-doing,
but salvation is an entirely different animal. it is an altered
state of being. You wrote: 'I had nothing to do with my salvation
except to accept or reject the work of Jesus on my behalf. I even
had to have my spiritual eyes opened to do that'. Just to highlight
what you have said, there is a problem. If we have nothing to do
with our salvation, yet we must do this or that, then we have something
to do with our salvation. It is akin to saying: 'God does it all,
except for the part I do'. It is a contradiction. Yes, God does
it all. That's the end of the sentence, there is no following 'But
I....'. It is God who opens eyes, which He does in conjunction with
the life He imparts to the spirit. Due to this new life there are
many changes that take place, many new desires. But none of this
requires us to 'accept Jesus' or 'claim Jesus' or any such thing.
There is nothing required of us. That is why it is called grace,
it is free. If we had to 'accept' Jesus, then we must leap a hurdle,
perform a work that initiates grace, and by this grace is no more
grace. Keep on reading, studying, and asking questions. john
|
Subject: Re: Pilgrim's reply to Mary
From: mary
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 05:12:22 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Mary, It is interesting that children know what constitutes wrong,
they have to be 'programmed' by parents, adults, teachers, society
and the rest to accept their wrong as right. The conscience is quite
able to 'see' the altered state that even the tiniest sin brings,
it is like a motion detector for the soul, as each sin binds the
sinner and he/she sinks a little deeper. I would say that there
is a recognition of sin, with regret, even repentance of wrong-doing,
but salvation is an entirely different animal. it is an altered
state of being. You wrote: 'I had nothing to do with my salvation
except to accept or reject the work of Jesus on my behalf. I even
had to have my spiritual eyes opened to do that'. Just to highlight
what you have said, there is a problem. If we have nothing to do
with our salvation, yet we must do this or that, then we have something
to do with our salvation. It is akin to saying: 'God does it all,
except for the part I do'. It is a contradiction. Yes, God does
it all. That's the end of the sentence, there is no following 'But
I....'. It is God who opens eyes, which He does in conjunction with
the life He imparts to the spirit. Due to this new life there are
many changes that take place, many new desires. But none of this
requires us to 'accept Jesus' or 'claim Jesus' or any such thing.
There is nothing required of us. That is why it is called grace,
it is free. If we had to 'accept' Jesus, then we must leap a hurdle,
perform a work that initiates grace, and by this grace is no more
grace. Keep on reading, studying, and asking questions. john
---
John maybe I am saying this very poorly, God knows I am
not a scholar. My point is this, I want to acknowledge that I give
the total Glory to God for my salvation. Maybe I am not expressing
it correctly, but I know in my heart what I am trying to say, though
you couldn't know that because you are unable as am I to discern
the intent of one's heart. To be totally honest with you I know
very little of the doctrins which have been discussed here in this
forum. My understanding of the scriptures has come about mainly
by reading them first of all, and by listening to Pastors such as
John Mcarthur from Grace to you and David Jerimiah of California,
and at one time many years ago I attended a reformed church although
I was very young and remember very little if anything of what was
taught there. I do believe that Grace and Salvation are a free gift
from God. It has always been my desire to read the scriptures through
the light of the Holy Spirits leading so therefore, I haven't read
many books on other's experiences or thoughts, just the Bible. I
have always believed that God the Holy Spirit would lead me into
all truth as he promises to do if I just continued to stay in his
word and I have yet to be disappointed. In fact, I am often suprised
by just how faithful he is do exactly that, I don't know why I am
suprised because God can't lie and he doesn't make false promises.
I guess I am amazed that he does it for me. I want to thank each
one of you who have responded to my posts for your kindness and
concern for my soul. I sense a lot of love in your replies. I don't
know what doctrin my views fit into but I Know without a doubt that
I am a child of the Living God and that I will spend eternity with
him because he has secured my salvation through Calvery. Thank you
for your kindness in your post. Because I am not able to discuss
doctrin I don't feel I should be participating in this forum but
I hope you don't mind if I just pop in to say hello once in a while.
I will still be reading your post as I have done for a while now.
Take care and God bless. Love in Christ Jesus Mary
|
Subject: Re: Pilgrim's reply to Mary
From: Brother Bret
To: mary
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 18:33:44 (PST)
Email Address: Lovitz5@aol.com
Message:
Hi Mary: You
said: 'and by listening to Pastors such as John Mcarthur from Grace
to you and David Jerimiah of California.' To use the terms for identification,
did you realize that MacArthur is at least a 4 point if not 5 point
Calvinist? And it is my understanding that David Jeremiah is a 'closet'
Calvinist :^ ) in as much that he embraces the T-U-L-I-P, just doesn't
advertise it. Do you have a MacArthur Study Bible or read any of
his commentaries? If you read any of that stuff, or books such as
'The Gospel According To Jesus' and others, you will see that he
believes in the historic biblical reformed view of total depravity
(inability), unconditional election, irresistiable grace, and perserverence
(preserving) of the saints. As with any study bible I recommend
caution, but I do recommend his and the New Geneva Study Bible (by
modern reformers), which are both in the New King James Version.
May God bless you according to His will and good pleasure (Is. 46:10;
Ph. 2:13) Brother Bret
|
Subject: Re: Pilgrim's reply to Mary
From: mary
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 20:22:58 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Brother Bret I hope this post will be ok. I was logged off my carrier
and lost everything I had written and had to start over. No, Brother
Bret I didn't know that John Mcarthur or David Jerimiah held to
the Calviniest doctrine and it doesn't really matter. I have always
maintained that we agree on more than we disagree on. You suggested
John Mcarthurs study bible and I did try to order it but I was at
work and couldn't really take the time to wait as his line was busy.
The it just slipped my mind. I do have one of his books. Its title
is Ashamed of the Gospel, you may have read it. As I said, I do
not read to many books on religeous doctrine but I truly respect
and trust John Mcarthur enough to buy his book and read it. Although,
I will still measure everything he says by the Word of God just
as you would that I am sure of. I haven't finished it but if you
haven't read it I recommend it. Thank you again for your love and
concern. In His Wonderful Love. Mary
|
Subject: Re: Pilgrim's reply to Mary
From: laz
To: mary
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 06:13:02 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Brother Bret I hope this post will be ok. I was logged off my carrier
and lost everything I had written and had to start over. No, Brother
Bret I didn't know that John Mcarthur or David Jerimiah held to
the Calviniest doctrine and it doesn't really matter. I have always
maintained that we agree on more than we disagree on. You suggested
John Mcarthurs study bible and I did try to order it but I was at
work and couldn't really take the time to wait as his line was busy.
The it just slipped my mind. I do have one of his books. Its title
is Ashamed of the Gospel, you may have read it. As I said, I do
not read to many books on religeous doctrine but I truly respect
and trust John Mcarthur enough to buy his book and read it. Although,
I will still measure everything he says by the Word of God just
as you would that I am sure of. I haven't finished it but if you
haven't read it I recommend it. Thank you again for your love and
concern. In His Wonderful Love. Mary
---
I recently purchased
3 or 4 copies of MacArthur's 'Ashamed of the Gospel' to give away...they
were on sale...4 bucks for hardcopies! I enjoyed it. Oh, he does
have a good section on 'Election' of the 'calvinistic' variety.
;-) laz
|
Subject: Re: Pilgrim's reply to Mary
From: a monitor
To: mary
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 09:57:00 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Mary - this website is PRECISELY for folks like you! Theology (or the study of God) is
everyone's business....since what we understand about God directly
impacts how we live. No? By the way, one of the other monitors is
a graduate of 'The Masters Seminary'...John MacArthur's ... yes,
a man who also believes in 'free grace'. ;-) In Him, a monitor p.s.
don't forget about the OPEN Forum next door (link above) if you
feel a little intimidated here. OPEN Forum www.paradise-web.com/plus/plus.mirage?who=highway&shownew=ok&showall=ok
|
Subject: Re: Pilgrim's reply to Mary
From: Pilgrim
To: mary
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 09:27:44 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
mary,
Thanks for the testimony! Why
you decided to share this at this time is known only to you I suppose.
Another question that popped up in my mind as I read your message,
was the mentioning of the name of 'Calvin'. I believe that if you
were to search any and all of my replies to you, you will not see
me name John Calvin even once. In fact, what you will see is most
Scripture references and reasoning from them. The same can be said
of most everyone's correspondence with Vernon; rarely is Calvin's
name evoked by US. It is Vernon who invariably brings up John Calvin
and for only evil purposes; i.e., he is always contending that those
of us who love the Lord Christ and HIS gospel of Sovereign Free
Grace, are followers of John Calvin! hehehe... yes, this is actually
quite funny but also quite sad. For this accusation is so far from
factual one must wonder if Vernon is suffering from some form of
mental deficiency and/or he does in fact have a serious spiritual
problem. I shall not pretend to know what his problem is other than
he is embracing serious error and preaching it to others. That much
I do know and have taken countless hours trying to point it out
and offering remedies to it. Many others have done the same in brotherly/sisterly
love. But what we always receive is 'Vernon's Venom' in the form
of fiery flaming darts, ad hominem slurs, false charges of following
men, admonishments of being 'too educated', false allegations of
questioning his salvation, etc., ad nauseam. Consequently, he has
been banned from this forum numerous times for his UNLOVING attitude
and HERETICAL views... both of which are clearly listed in the guidelines
as offenses which will not be tolerated on this forum. You will
however notice, that he is here AGAIN, and we have graciously tried
to teach him again from the SCRIPTURES (no mention of John Calvin),
but only to have our efforts fall on a hardened heart and deaf ears.
And in return, we are 'rewarded' with his non-sensical rhetoric
and false charges of all sorts. Okay, enough of this poor man. I
am more interested however in responding to you and telling you
that I am happy to read that you are indeed actually reading that
one article by Dr. Packer I recommended to you. Although it appeared
first as the Introduction to John Owen's magnificent work, 'The
Death of Death in the Death of Christ', reprinted by The Banner
of Truth Trust some years ago (the original treatise is found in
Chapter 10 of his 'Works', there were so many requests for this
Introduction to be printed separately, that it eventually was printed
in booklet form. I had already read Owen's original treatise in
his 'Works' but when the reprint appeared with Packer's 'Introduction',
I had to buy it just for Packer's remarks. Since then I have purchased
and given away literally hundreds of copies of this booklet. However,
it became impossible to financially support the giving away of so
many and thus I was even more thrilled when it was made possible
for me to reproduce this booklet on the Internet in The Highway
web site. I will always remember the very first time I read Packer's
'Introduction' for I was having some serious conflicts as a new
Christian. The Lord had given me an insatiable hunger for the Lord
Christ and His infallible Word. Thus I poured over the Scriptures
day and night, sometimes going without sleep for two or three days
because I was so captivated by this new book called the Bible. The
church I was attending was a typical conservative, evangelical congregation.
The preaching was also typical in that the theology behind it was
that which is most popular today with a few exceptions. The pastor
was surely a godly man, whom I loved more than my own biological
father, and still do to this day. He lovingly took me aside and
discipled me personally. It wasn't long before I had questions which
arose from my Scripture reading about what he was preaching and
teaching. What I was reading in the Scriptures appeared to be in
contrast to what my beloved pastor believed. In some cases, he was
unable and/or unwilling to answer some of them, eg., 'Who did Jesus
Christ die for?', etc. I began to feel like a 'black sheep' among
the members of this church, and in fact I was a 'black sheep' because
the rumor quickly got around that I was questioning some of the
most dearly held beliefs of the people. How could anyone question
whether or not it is true that 'God loves everybody equally'? or
that 'Jesus Christ died for everybody'? But I couldn't deny what
the Scriptures appeared to me to teach. Despondency was my lot for
some time as I continued to ask questions and received hardly an
answer from anyone. It was like I had the plague. There were few
if any who would or even could open their Bible and show me what
God had said to my questions. Well, as God's marvelous providence
would lead me, I came across 'The Works of Jonathan Edwards' and
the bookstore manager asked me if I had ever read Edwards? I told
him I had never even heard of Jonathan Edwards. He strongly encouraged
me to buy the set and read everything in those books. Wow! What
first came to my mind is that there was someone who believed just
like me!! I wasn't really alone in my beliefs. And here was a man
who was purportedly famous and used mightily of God to bring about
the Great Awakening in America. The short of it is, I afterward
learned that what I had come to believe as being God's truth, was
nothing less than what the Reformers also believed and which was
the doctrine of all the major denominations of the Protestant Reformation
until the late 1800's. Thus, my personal theology, which I had embraced
from reading THE SCRIPTURES ALONE, was not some theology of a 'Lone
Ranger' but the theology of Moses, Isaiah, Micah, Jeremiah, Amos,
Malachi, Paul, James, Peter and the Lord Christ Himself which had
been nicknamed 'Calvinism'. It was THE Gospel of Free Sovereign
Grace; 'Salvation is of the Lord' (Jonah 2:9). So, Packer's words
in that little Introduction were 'music to my ears', for they clearly
showed the great difference between what is currently being preached
and taught as the 'gospel' compared to what the Scriptures teach
as THE GOSPEL. Further, he also shows as John Hampshire stated so
well above, that Calvinism IS the Gospel by just another name. Call
it what you will, but what it is, is the proclamation of God's salvation
of sinners in the Lord Jesus Christ, by grace through faith alone.
It is biblical Christianity come to its own; in its purest state
thus far. No other 'system' of theology, and everyone has a system
of some kind, exalts God so highly, debases man so lowly and has
sinners saved so graciously as what is infamously called, 'Calvinism'!
It's just the truth of the Bible's teaching. It is hated by people
like Vernon because it strips away all self-reliance, self-help,
self-assurance and makes God the SOVEREIGN REDEEMER who 'will have
mercy on whom HE will have mercy'. I look forward to your comments
and/or questions when you have finished reading Packer's 'Introductory
Essay. . .'!
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim |
Subject: You are on the right track
From: Eric
To: mary
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 07:59:14 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Keep focused on Christ and His excellencey and sufficency for your
life, and you will not stumble. Don't get caught up on whether your
doctrinal views are as precise as others, or even if things are
confusing. Keep meditating on the Word of God, and continually petition
God to give you greater understanding. He is a merciful and gracious
Father, He will provide you all the light you need to get you Home.
95% of all scripture is crystal clear, don't let the other 5%, that
many so often differ upon, distract you.
|
Subject: Re: You are on the right track
From: a monitor
To: Eric
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 10:06:33 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Keep focused on Christ and His excellencey and sufficency for your
life, and you will not stumble. Don't get caught up on whether your
doctrinal views are as precise as others, or even if things are
confusing. Keep meditating on the Word of God, and continually petition
God to give you greater understanding. He is a merciful and gracious
Father, He will provide you all the light you need to get you Home.
95% of all scripture is crystal clear, don't let the other 5%, that
many so often differ upon, distract you.
---
On the surface
this seems like good advice...but what do we make of JW or Mormons
who may say that they agree with us on 95%....when we know that
it's that nasty little 5% remaining where their system is stuffed
with doctrines from demons? The 'essentials' (quality) is what should
unite us, NOT the the volume of doctines (quantity) we agree on.
I commend Mary for having the guts to search for herself in true
Berean fashion to see if in fact what the Reformers taught (and
what we believe and promote) was in fact the truth. I believe her
beloved brother, Vern, is stuck in a rut and can't seem to get out.
Not sure why that is. ;-) The nature of grace, faith, justification,
etc as they relate to salvation/redemption are NOT trivial matters.
If there is disagreement, we need to discuss it for they are at
the very heart of the Gospel. We need to nail these matters down...otherwise
we are not being faithful to the Word entrusted to us. No true believer
is going to throw his/her hands up and let God's grace be defined
by popolar opinion or sentiment. They are going to want to know
THE truth of the matter. a monitor
|
Subject: Holy Orthodoxy
From: eikke
To: All
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 21:16:27 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Hello- I'm a student of Christianity in general, and Orthodoxy in
particular (since, God willing, I hope to be baptized into it some
day). I'm new here, so I'm wondering what the folks who frequent
this board know/think about Orthodoxy, ancient Christian history,
etc. Thank you in advance for any responses. In IC XC
|
Subject: Re: Holy Orthodoxy
From: laz
To: eikke
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 21:31:39 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Greetings, Eikke - I'm no expert, but as I just told your friend
Christopher, I have noticed many similarities btwn 'Holy Orthodoxy'
and Roman Catholicism...especially wrt the nature of justification....and
of course ecclesiology (sp?). Be interested in hearing what you
know about the doctrines of the Reformation. blessings, laz
|
Subject: Re: Holy Orthodoxy
From: eikke
To: laz
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 21:14:24 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Hello- I know comparably little about Reformation theology, other
than the stereotypical 'Calvin was a dark and bitter man, took Augustine's
fatalism to its logical extreme conclusion, all are damned, only
God's whim saves us,' etc. I don't know how far any of that's true
(most of it, I suspect), but I look forward to learning about it
nonetheless. Maybe we can make a trade... :) At this point in the
game, quite a few of the similarities that the Orthodox share with
the Roman Catholics are more apparent than real. Orthodox ecclesiology
is radically different from that of the Catholics, actually, and
our views on justification don't quite jibe either. After all, there
is a reason why the Reformation took place under the Roman Church.
The Orthodox have no Purgatory, hence no indulgences, and they have
no infallible hierarchy, like the Papacy. These two details in themselves
should be a tip-off that there are some radical differences between
the so-called Eastern Orthodox and the former Western Orthodox (which
is how the Orthodox occasionally refer to pre-11th century Christian
Europe, with whom they were once in communion). Then there are the
controversies over the Filioque, the nature of the Eucharist, the
nature of Holy Tradition, inherited guilt (the Orthodox have no
dogma of an Immaculate Conception), the tendency to emphasize the
Crucifixion to the exclusion of the rest of Christ's life (which
all of western Christianity, protestant and Roman, inherited from
-again- the 11th century St. Anselm), etc. Those things that the
RC holds in common with the Orthodox were actually the common heritage
of all Christendom prior to the 11th century, i.e. the real change
in the Eucharist, the absence of any doctrine of sola scriptura,
the veneration of the Mother of God and the saints, the belief in
the One, Visible Church, etc. As you will find if you visit the
Phronema board (where the debate is much more learned than what
I can muster), there is an Orthodoxy vs. Catholicism board, where
all of the differences are brought to bear. In fact, there's even
an Orthodoxy vs. Protestantism board for you to cut your teeth on,
should you feel so inclined. But a lot of Orthodox would actually
be appalled to find their beliefs equated with Roman Catholicism,
and for as many historical reasons as doctrinal ones. In IC XC
|
Subject: Re: Holy Orthodoxy
From: john hampshire
To: eikke
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 04:41:32 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
YOU SAID: 'Those things that the RC holds in common with the Orthodox
were actually the common heritage of all Christendom prior to the
11th century, i.e. the real change in the Eucharist, the absence
of any doctrine of sola scriptura, the veneration of the Mother
of God and the saints, the belief in the One, Visible Church, etc.'
If these beliefs were the 'common heritage of all Christendom prior
to the 11th century', one might think they are Biblically based
and extend back to the very early church. Which Scriptures support
these beliefs? 1. The real change in the Eucharist 2. The absence
of any doctrine of sola scriptura 3. The veneration of the Mother
of God and the saints 4. The belief in the One, Visible Church john
|
Subject: Eucharistic Scriptures
From: Christopher
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 12:27:03 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
>>>>>Which Scriptures support these beliefs? 1. The
real change in the Eucharist<<<<< Quoted in the course
of catechetical lectures by St Cyril of Jersulalem in the fourth
century. 1 Cor. xi. 23. I received of the Lord that which also I
delivered unto you, how that the Lord Jesus, in the night in which
He was betrayed, took bread, 1. Even of itself the teaching of the
Blessed Paul is sufficient to give you a full assurance concerning
those Divine Mysteries, of which having been deemed worthy, ye are
become of the same body and blood with Christ. For you have just
heard him say distinctly, That our Lord Jesus Christ in the night
in which He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks
He brake it, and gave to His disciples, saying, Take, eat, this
is My Body: and having taken the cup and given thanks, He said,
Take, drink, this is My Blood. Since then
He Himself declared and said of the Bread,
This is My Body, who shall dare to doubt
any longer? And since He has Himself affirmed
and said, This is My Blood, who shall ever hesitate, saying, that
it is not His blood? 2. He once in Cana of Galilee, turned the water
into wine, akin to blood, and is it incredible that He should have
turned wine into blood? When called to a bodily marriage, He miraculously
wrought that wonderful work; and on the children of the bride-chamber,
shall He not much rather be acknowledged to have bestowed the fruition
of His Body and Blood? 3. Wherefore with full assurance let us partake
as of the Body and Blood of Christ: for in the figure of Bread is
given to thee His Body, and in the figure of Wine His Blood; that
thou by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, mayest be made
of the same body and the same blood with Him. For thus we come to
bear Christ in us, because His Body and Blood are distributed through
our members; thus it is that, according to the blessed Peter, we
became partakers of the divine nature. 4. Christ on a certain occasion
discoursing with the Jews said, Except ye eat My flesh and drink
My blood, ye have no life in you. They not having heard His saying
in a spiritual sense were offended, and went back, supposing that
He was inviting them to eat flesh. In the middle of the second century,
St Justin Martyr, in his first apology, says: And this food is called
among us Eukaristia(5) [the Eucharist], of which
no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things
which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing
that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who
is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and
common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ
our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both
flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught
that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from
which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the
flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.(6) For the apostles,
in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have
thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took
bread, and when He had given thanks, said, 'This do ye in remembrance
of Me,(7) this is My body;' and that, after the same manner, having
taken the cup and given thanks, He said, 'This is My blood;' and
gave it to them alone.
---
---
It's not a matter
of 'Scriptural support,' it's a matter of how the Scriptures are
understood, no?
|
Subject: Re: Eucharistic Scriptures
From: john hampshire
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 00:36:51 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Christopher, Certainly 1Cor 11:23 mentions the breaking of bread
which you quote. You wrote: 'Since then He Himself declared and
said of the Bread, This is My Body, who shall dare to doubt any
longer?' And? And what was the next thing Jesus said? It was, 'Do
this in remembrance of Me'. He did not say, 'Do this and I will
turn the bread into flesh so you will not only remember Me, but
see Me'. Likewise for the wine. 'Do this, as often as you drink
it, in remembrance of Me. For as often as you eat this bread and
drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes'. He
did not say 'You will remember Me each time you do this for a real
piece of Me will form in your cup and your hand until I come'. What
is remembering Christ, what is remembering His death? Is it so hard
to see that the bread and wine represent His death which we should
remember until He comes? You wrote: He once in Cana of Galilee,
turned the water into wine, akin to blood, and is it incredible
that He should have turned wine into blood? You mean, if Jesus changed
water into wine to symbolize the atonement, wouldn't it make sense
that the wine in the cup would also be used to SYMBOLIZE the atonement?
Did Jesus ever turn anything into actual blood? The incredible part
of this is to believe that Biblical symbols are transmuted into
physical realities, when the Bible is clear they are symbols of
spiritual things. You wrote: Christ on a certain occasion discoursing
with the Jews said, Except ye eat My flesh and drink My blood, ye
have no life in you.. Yes, and as you recognize, the spiritual connection
was in view. Or should we expect the Pharisees to, perhaps, munch
on his leg? So, recognizing that this is a spiritual invitation
to eat Christ's flesh, the logic follows that... the bread is a
PHYSICAL eating???? Whew, how does one make such an illogical grandiose
jump into no-Scripture land. The obvious implication here is: The
body of Christ in view is a spiritual union with Him -- not by chewing
on His actually body. You wrote: St Justin Martyr, in his first
apology, says... Well, I think Justin Martyr owes another apology.
(hehe) He reasons that if Jesus became a man, flesh and blood, for
our salvation, then the bread/wine must also become flesh and blood
for our salvation. That's some logic. If Christ in His body is sufficient
for our salvation how is it that we must really eat Him for our
salvation? Would not logic dictate that if Christ went to the trouble
to be a flesh n blood man, that is all our salvation requires. What
need does anyone have of physical food? You make Christ's atonement
insufficient by the inclusion of this bizarre act of cannibalism,
and all this against common sense and Scripture evidence to boot.
You wrote: It's not a matter of 'Scriptural support,' it's a matter
of how the Scriptures are understood, no? Err no! If we take the
plain teaching of Scripture and mutilate it, then ignore Christ's
constant use of spiritual imagery to force a physical fulfillment,
you might as well not even bother studying Scripture. Want an example?:
I know you said 'Yes'. Jesus is described by John the Baptist as
the 'Lamb of God'. Now let's make a similar teaching out of it.
Let's teach Christ was transmuted, just as the bread is, into an
actual lamb. We can even argue as Justin Martyr so ineffectively
does that this must be so because Christ was to be a sacrificial
Lamb so the physical lamb is a requirement just as the flesh/blood
food is a necessity to the bread/wine communion. Why not? The only
thing lacking is a thousand years of endorsement by a church to
make it gospel truth. We can not gain Scriptural support and understanding
apart from the Scriptures. We cannot take Scripture and begin to
express all kinds of doctrine from it because we simply like our
ideas. I hope you can see that this teaching is useless, unnecessary,
and wrong. If not, go down to your local grocery store. Take a long
look at the meat selection, find lamb chops, and remember: one of
these packages may indeed by Christ's body--packaged for your convenient
worship. False teachings are as easy to start as that. And you know
what? There are a million people out there who will believe whatever
is tossed their way. Sad isn't it. john
|
Subject: Re: Eucharistic Scriptures
From: Christopher
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 12:03:50 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
john, What would be sad would be if God waited almost 1,600 years
to give a teacher to the Church who correctly understood what the
definition of 'is' is. That is what seems to me to be 'against common
sense.' Christopher
|
Subject: Re: Eucharistic Scriptures
From: john hampshire
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 19:53:35 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Christopher, >>>'What would be sad would be if God waited
almost 1,600 years to give a teacher to the Church who correctly
understood what the definition of 'is' is.' Even Bill Clinton was
unsure what the definition of 'is' is, but he has an excuse, he's
a known liar and hypocrite. Fortunately the churches have no one
like that for a leader. (hehe) To your point, in all seriousness,
by your statement I will assume you would agree that except for
those church leaders who proposed and hastened the deification of
Mary, they were without opposition? It must be so, for otherwise
we would find OTHER leaders who were instructing the church differently
into different doctrines. If there were other leaders throughout
the history of the Orthodox or RC church, then the churches were
NOT without leaders who explained and expounded truth to the laity.
Or are we to believe that the only 'true' church teachers are church
teachers who teach the doctrines that tickle your ears and support
the Orthodox or RC churches? I suppose then the rest are false teachers?
If they are false, then should we not burn them at the stake, or
torture them to recant? This is the logic the RC used, and the smoke
of burning Reformers is their undeniable trademark. Indeed their
were men speaking the truth, but they are not part of your church
history. They are part of a different church, small groups that
met in individual houses. These devout Christians were criminals,
law-breakers, the very enemy the RC church sought to destroy. Fact
is, the church has NEVER been without the truth. It was not always
popular, not always preached though by the popular church leaders
of the day. Actually, from a Reformed perspective, we could say
the truth was much hated, much suppressed, and the cause of much
turmoil and death. But it NEVER disappeared. Not from the first
Pentecost onward, the NT churches have always kept the candle lit
somewhere. Today, you can find a candle here and there, just as
in most periods of history. It is the clever, people-pleasing churches
that are visible, powerful, and continue the tradition of apostasy.
We don't burn people at the stake anymore, we just don't publish
their books. We don't torture people anymore, we just ignore them
or slander them. The truth is not always readily available, just
as in the days of the house churches when the giant RC church suppressed
truth, and tortured those who dared to have their own Bible, burning
the printing presses, and robbing and cheating the populace to build
grand stone churches. Churches that resemble stone tombs in which
the dead worship. The Pope's army is gone, kings no longer bow to
him, no more torture, death, and genocide. No more persecutions,
no holy wars, no sickness, poverty, and death on their account.
But it was off the bones of the poor and ignorant masses, forbidden
to learn, the RC church grew, like a fungus on rotting debris. Today,
this hulk of ignorance, superstition and man-made doctrine continues
to bind ignorant peasants with their works doctrine and cult of
Mary. They continue to defend every man-made invention and abhor
the teaching of Scriptures. You may have it all, I will keep the
Scriptures, and honor the few brave men who withstood that tempest
of ignorance and hatred, who gave their lives as a sacrifice to
Christ to announce the truth to the huddled masses. Throughout history,
unknown men and women met together to worship God under the heel
of an oppressive political-religious cult. Remember them! They kept
the truth, they passed it to their children... until the day God
ended the reign of tyranny through men like Martin Luther (and inventions
like the printing press). So ended the manipulation of the masses
and began the process of bringing these long-held truths out for
all to see. And thus was the end of the age of the Holy Mother Church,
slain by honest men with a pen. john
|
Subject: Ah, yes, Zwingli...
From: Christopher
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 13:38:14 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
john, You once said you didn't like long posts. Sorry. But I think
this is about all I have left to say. The second part should also
answer a monitor's question regarding how one would determine who's
got the Truth. There is no need to object, as I post this for informational
purposes only. 'The Swiss entered the colloquy intending to present
their view of the overriding importance of the spirit at the Lord's
Supper, not to squabble over its exact relationship with Christ's
flesh. However, Luther's experience as a debater, combined with his inherent unwillingness
to compromise, led him to stigmatize the Swiss' argument by his
statement soon after the colloquy began: 'You seek to prove that
a body cannot be in two places at the same time' (Kittleson 223).
He falsely deconstructed their argument to the 'physics' of Christ's
body, forcing them to prove that his strict
interpretation of Jesus' words 'This is my body' was wrong. In defending against Luther's incorrect accusation,
the Swiss primarily referred to John 6:63 saying, 'The flesh is
of no avail' (Kittleson 223). Because of Luther's shift of the burden
of proof away from himself, he was not obligated to prove the Swiss'
opinion wrong. This became an early hint of Luther's steadfastness
to his version of the gospel and his unwillingness to change, a
personal characteristic that doomed any attempts to resolve the
Sacramentarian Controversy. Luther came to the colloquy not to debate
in hopes of collaborating on a new truth about the Eucharist, nor
did he even come to persuade the others to his side. He merely came
to state his opinion and see all other notions collapse before its
rightness, without him having to defend or even thoroughly explain
the dogma.' 'Contrarily, Zwingli prefaces his 67 Articles with the
statement: 'The articles and opinions below, I, Urlich Zwingli,
confess to have preached in the worthy city of Zürich as based
upon the Scriptures which are called inspired by God, and I offer
to protect and conquer with the said articles, and where I have
not now correctly understood said Scriptures I shall allow myself
to be taught better, but only from said Scriptures' (qtd. in Hastings
12:875). Trained in the humanist tradition, Zwingli's clearly intended to seek the truth by proof and re-proof while
studying the 'original source' of Christianity, the New Testament.
He did not boldly claim to have the absolute truth, as Luther for
the most part does. Because Zwingli did not arrive at his position
through a personal, agonizing experience like Luther did, but through
a more scholastic,
Scripture based method, Zwingli does not share Luther's unyielding
adherence to his own theology. Because of Zwingli's apparent openness
to correction, it is unfortunate that Luther did not attempt to
prove to Zwingli with Scripture that 'This is my body' means exactly
what it reads. Also, because of Zwingli's openness to scholarship
by his admitting that he did not possess the pure truth, he allowed
Luther to turn the burden of proof onto him and his Swiss counterparts
without much resistance.' http://silcon.com/~akraus/ecumenism/lordsupr.html
Contrary to Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, Orthodoxy does
not utilize humanism, scholasticism or any other 'ism' developed
or revived in the first half of the second milleneum (indeed, the
Hesychast controversies and St Gregory Palamas' responses to them
prove this beyond all doubt) as the principal of Christian knowledge.
I know you objected to my statement that the issue was really about
how we understand Scripture, but the small quote above should suffice
to prove that the way in which Scripture is approached has a direct
bearing on what conclusions one derives from it. The man-centered,
self-reliant spirit of the Renaissance/Reformation resulted in everyone
enjoying the priviledge of having their own personal interpretation
of Scripture. For my part, I have not rejected the 'plain' or 'clear'
teaching of Scripture at all. I endeavor to reject, as much as I
am currently able to humble my own mind, the individualistic methods
of approaching Scripture which were developed in the west after
it split from the Church. The following methodology is the corrective
to all these different ways of approaching Scripture which were
unknown to the early Church. 'II: A General Rule for distinguishing
the Truth of the Catholic Faith from the Falsehood of Heretical
Pravity I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of
very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what
sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish
the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity;
and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer
to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect
the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to
continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the
Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first,
by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of
the Catholic Church. But here some one
perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and
sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what
need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation?
For this reason,--because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture,
all do not accept it in one and the same
sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another;
so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there
are interpreters. For Novatian expounds
it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius,
Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another,
Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another.
Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies
of such various error, that the rule for
the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed
in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation. Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that
faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense 'Catholic,'
which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends
all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent.
We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be
true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity,
if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest
were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent,
in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient
definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost
all priests and doctors.' --St Vincent of Lerins, 5th c. Vladimir
Lossky, 20th century Russian theologian,put it nicely: 'Tradition
is the principle of Christian knowledge.' It is only via the lens
of Tradition that one can understand the Scriptures properly. Not
via humanism, not via scholasticism (Aquinas), and not via rationalism--none
of these methods are the principle of Christian knowledge. If one
does not seek out true Tradition (yes, that would be contained in
Orthodoxy), then one must necessarily resort to one of these other
approaches to Scripture.
|
Subject: Re: Ah, yes, Zwingli...
From: Tom
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 14:03:18 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Hope this helps John 6:51-54 is an important passage that can help
us better understand the Lord's Supper. It focuses on Christ presenting
Himself to the people as the Bread of Life. In verse 51 He says,
'I am the living bread that came down from heaven; if any man eat
of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread that I will
give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. '
That means that God the Son entered our world by taking on human
form, He offers eternal life to those who receive Him in faith (symbolized
by eating). Of course only the the elect will John 6:37;44&65.
Although He used physical terminology, He was conveying a spiritual
message: to take Him to satisfy one's soul as a man eats bread to
satisfy his stomach. Jesus' statement confused some of those who
heard Him: 'The Jews, therefore, [argued] among themselves, saying,
How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto
them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of
the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. He
who eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and
I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed,
and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh
my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him' (vv. 52- 56). These Jews
were interpreting Jesus's metaphor in a literal, physical sense,
but the Lord was speaking in a figurative way. He was saying they
would need to acknowledge that He was God in human flesh and appropriate
His sacrificial death on their behalf. Unless you can accept the
incarnation and the substitutionary blood- atoning death of Christ
on your behalf, you will never have eternal life. When you were
saved you did just that. And when you share in the bread and cup
of Communion, you symbolize that spiritual appropriation. Communion
is a restatement of our salvation, and should also be a rededication
of our faith. So it's vital that we share in it. Tom
|
Subject: Re: Ah, yes, Zwingli...
From: laz
To: Tom
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 14:08:58 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Hope this helps John 6:51-54 is an important passage that can help
us better understand the Lord's Supper. It focuses on Christ presenting
Himself to the people as the Bread of Life. In verse 51 He says,
'I am the living bread that came down from heaven; if any man eat
of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread that I will
give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. '
That means that God the Son entered our world by taking on human
form, He offers eternal life to those who receive Him in faith (symbolized
by eating). Of course only the the elect will John 6:37;44&65.
Although He used physical terminology, He was conveying a spiritual
message: to take Him to satisfy one's soul as a man eats bread to
satisfy his stomach. Jesus' statement confused some of those who
heard Him: 'The Jews, therefore, [argued] among themselves, saying,
How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto
them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of
the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. He
who eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and
I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed,
and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh
my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him' (vv. 52- 56). These Jews
were interpreting Jesus's metaphor in a literal, physical sense,
but the Lord was speaking in a figurative way. He was saying they
would need to acknowledge that He was God in human flesh and appropriate
His sacrificial death on their behalf. Unless you can accept the
incarnation and the substitutionary blood- atoning death of Christ
on your behalf, you will never have eternal life. When you were
saved you did just that. And when you share in the bread and cup
of Communion, you symbolize that spiritual appropriation. Communion
is a restatement of our salvation, and should also be a rededication
of our faith. So it's vital that we share in it. Tom
---
That begs the question, what kind of 'meat' were the OT and preresurrection
saints munchin' on? laz
|
Subject: Re: Ah, yes, Zwingli...
From: Tom
To: laz
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 07:25:31 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Laz You said: That begs the question, what kind of 'meat' were the
OT and preresurrection saints munchin' on? I am trying to understand
where you are coming from when you ask that question. Are you disagreeing
with something I said? Tom
|
Subject: Re: Ah, yes, Zwingli...
From: laz
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 13:50:33 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
BUNK! - a true understanding of the basics is given by the illuminating
power of the Holy Spirit to whomever has been given eyes and ears....
The TRUE church supplements the believer in providing fellowship,
preaching, sacraments, discipleship, discipline, correct teaching
and godly exhortation of those things revealed to the Elect thru
the Word. You simply have NO basis (logical, historical or scriptural)
for claiming to be the ONE true 'visible' Church...NONE! If you
are, you've done a VERY poor job of discipling the nations. laz
|
Subject: Re: Ah, yes, Zwingli...
From: Christopher
To: laz
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 14:35:43 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
I've got logical, historical and Scriptural basis for everything
I've ever presented here. You just don't happen to agree with any
of it. :) Christopher PS-I think my time here is done (don't cheer
too loud, everyone). But participation on this board has certainly
helped me ask questions which I may or may not have thought of myself
and forced me to do digging which I might not have otherwise done.
Thanks.
|
Subject: Re: Eucharistic Scriptures
From: laz
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 13:37:18 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
john, What would be sad would be if God waited almost 1,600 years
to give a teacher to the Church who correctly understood what the
definition of 'is' is. That is what seems to me to be 'against common
sense.' Christopher
---
AAAAHHHH, BUT....! ...1600 years
to the Lord is like one day and just past lunchtime of the next!
LOL! laz p.s. the greater shame is the wholesale introduction and
promulgation of doctrines not to be found nor implied ANYWHERE in
scripture...
|
Subject: Re: Eucharistic Scriptures
From: Pilgrim
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 13:34:29 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Christopher,
I was wondering how long it would
take to have this type of discussion here! With all the cries from
the Orthodox about being so alien to the Roman state church, it
is amazing how similar the theologies are in many matters. Here,
for example, we have the doctrine of transubstantiation being promoted
as the 'doctrine of the historic church' by the Orthodox, no differently
than the apologists for the Roman state church do. Yet in both cases,
what is to be carefully recognized is that the few references made
to the 'Eucharist' and those that appear to support this fantastic proposition, that the bread
and wine actually and really are transformed into the flesh and
blood of the Lord Christ, by the 'Fathers' were NOT the universal
nor majority view of the early church. Augustine even is often quoted
as a proponent of transubstantiation, but in fact if the man is
read in context and such statements given as support for it are
compared with the bulk of his writings, he obviously and in many
places vehemently rejects this view. That there was much disagreement
amidst the early church, even during the last days of the Apostles
is not any secret. For heresy was present during the lifetime of
Paul and Peter as they both directed admonitions and exhortations
to the churches to beware of these false teachers and prophets.
It is a shallow argument, to say the least to pick and choose which
'Father' supports your particular view of doctrine when there are
many others who wrote contradictory views during the same time.
Why not adopt Origen's view of God? Why is he wrong and others correct?
Frankly, you have no valid answer or polemic against doing this,
and thus the TRUE church has always and will always rely upon the
one and only source of truth; the Word of God WRITTEN!. That men will disagree over its interpretation is a
given, as the Scriptures also reveal. But that should be no deterrent
to a child of God to seek the truth, not from some alleged preserved
'tradition' or 'holy Father', but from the SOURCE itself. Therefore
there is no substance to your proposition (indeed a disheveled strawman
at best) that antiquity equals veracity and thus truth is to be
found only by submitting to a small group of men whose proximity
of life to the Apostles is closer than ours. Further, the conclusion
is false therefore, that a disagreement with a doctrine now which
was held by a select few means that the church was without truth
for 1600 years. Even the Apostles, before they were anointed with
the Holy Spirit at Pentecost held to grave error and were mistaken
about many things concerning God and His kingdom. Is it too difficult
to understand therefore, that those who came after them, yes, even
those who were allegedly discipled by some of them, were fraught
with myriad misconceptions and errors? The 'Fathers' were not INSPIRED but men such as
we and therefore susceptible to all manner of errors in life and
doctrine. Lastly, on what documented grounds are you able to contend
that men like Luther, Calvin, Knox, Zwingli, Bucer, Bullinger, and
later Tertullian, Edwards, Owen, Warfield, Hodge, et al were slaves
to the writings of Augustine or some other 'ancient father's ideas'?
To summarily dismiss the intellect and spirituality of all these
men and to suggest that they either did not or were incapable of
searching the Scriptures on their own is utterly preposterous and
ingenuous. To be sure, all make reference to many forefathers in
their writings, but one thing that stands out above all these references,
unlike the apologetes of the Orthodox and Roman factions, their
excursus are enmassed with Scripture passages and the exegesis of
them.
Isa 8:20 'To the law
and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word,
it is because there is no light in them.' Hos 8:12 'I have written
to him the great things of my law, but they were counted as
a strange thing. 13 They sacrifice flesh for the sacrifices
of mine offerings, and eat it; but the LORD accepteth them not;
now will he remember their iniquity, and visit their sins: they
shall return to Egypt.'
In His Grace, Pilgrim |
Subject: Re: Eucharistic Scriptures
From:
Christopher
To: Pilgrim
Date
Posted: Fri, Mar 31, 2000
at 15:21:12 (PST)
Email
Address: Not Provided
Message:
>>>>>.....unlike the
apologetes of the Orthodox and Roman factions, their excursus are
enmassed with Scripture passages and the exegesis of them.<<<<<
OK, one last post. Have you ever even read St John Chrysostom? Almost
everything written by him is verse-by-verse exegesis. It is your
'we quote Scripture and nobody else does, therefore we're right'
claim that doesn't seem to hold much water. When I've quoted others,
it's usually one of two things--either commentary on Scripture itself,
or writings which illustrate our different approaches to understanding
Scripture. Like I told laz, I've got plenty of logical, historical,
and Scriptural basis for these beliefs. You folks just don't agree
with any of them. :) I thanked laz and I would like to thank you,
too, for your continued willingness to engage in discussion over
the past several months. In Christ our True God, Christopher PS--many
thanks to john and Rod, too. Don't want to skip anyone!
|
Subject: Re: Eucharistic Scriptures
From: Christopher
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 14:11:24 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Pilgrim, Please see the post from 'eikke' on the word symbol. This
excludes the idea of transubstantiation. Just as with the Immaculate
Conception, it is a totally unnecessary doctrine. I'm not going
to argue with you about Augustine again. We've been down that road
before. It should suffice to refer to a post by a monitor above
referencing 'Paul, Augustine and the Reformers.' Christopher
|
Subject: The veneration of the Mother of God and the saints
From: Christopher
To: Christopher
Date Posted:
Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 12:43:36 (PST)
Email
Address: Not Provided
Message:
>>>>>Which
Scriptures support these beliefs? 3. The veneration of the Mother
of God and the saints<<<<< St Cyril of Alexandria,
whose teaching was supported by the Council at Ephesus in the early
fifth century, said: 'If any one does not acknowledge that Emmanuel
is in truth God, and that the holy Virgin is, in
consequence, 'Theotokos (Mother of God)
for she brought forth after the flesh the Word of God who has become
flesh, let him be anathema.' I'm sure you're aware of the Nestorian
heresy he and the rest of the Church was fighting. Everything having
to do with the veneration of the Mother of God, the saints and icons
has to do with that 'in consequence' and the fact of Christ's conquering
of death.
|
Subject: Re: The veneration of the Mother of God and the saints
From: john
hampshire
To:
Christopher
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 06:34:16 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Sorry Christopher, but when I read you post I found it amusing.
I know you are serious about these things, but I just cannot fathom
it. We know that Christ is the Word of God. We know the Word was
God and was with God (John 1:1). Then it says: 'all things came
into being through Him; and apart from Him nothing came into being
that has come into being'. That means, if we understand it, Christ,
the Word of God, created all things. He is the Creator God. Mariam
who provided the biological cells that became Jesus was created
by the Word, that is Christ. But in stark contrast to this, Cyril
of Alexandria wrote that Mary created Jesus and is the Mother of
God by consequence. So, the Word which became flesh and took on
the appearance of a man has a creator under this teaching, this
woman Mariam, in complete opposition to Scripture. Even worse John
1:14 says the 'Word became flesh, and dwelt among us...the only
begotten from the Father...'. Begotten by whom? Mary the Mother
of God???? No, The Word was begotten by the Father. We can take
an idea, as some churches do, and run wild with it, but Scripture
must first be mangled to do it. Mariam is no more the Mother of
God, who has no beginning, than James was the Brother of God. Mary
was Jesus' earthly mother, that is correct, but to say any more
than this is an incredibly blasphemous doctrine, one I am surprised
any rational man would even consider adopting as their belief. It
is utterly ridiculous to boot. Because Mariam was used by God to
provide the genetic material to create the body for Jesus she becomes
God's Mother-- whew, that is phenomenally bad. Sorry, but this doctrine
really is offensive. As Jesus said to His mother, 'Woman, what have
I to do with you? That is to paraphrase: 'I am not under your authority
except in the most basic mother-son relationship, I am God and don't
forget it'. Jesus knew His mother's place, Mariam knew her place
(most of the time). It seems some churches have forgotten a lesson
Mary knew all too well. john
|
Subject: Re: The veneration of the Mother of God and the saints
From: eikke
To: john
hampshire
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 12:09:35 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Hi John- This is one of the benefits of belonging to a Church that
understands the world in the same way that the Apostles and Gospel
writers did. You see, the German Reformers who began your traditions
did not understand symbolism in the same way that the average Greek
of the 1st century did. For moderns, symbols are seen as signs unconnected
in any essential way with the things they represent, i.e. your view
of the Eucharist. It's a symbol, it points to a higher reality,
reminds us of Christ's sacrifice, but otherwise there is no essential
connection between the bread/wine and Christ. Symbolism for the
Greeks (including the authors of the Gospels, who to varying degrees
thought like Greeks, especially St. John) meant that an object,
or a word, or an idea, was somehow viscerally connected (in its
essence) to the higher reality that it represented. That which makes
an object what it is, it's essential 'it'ness, is somehow related
metaphysically to the thing or being that it represents. It's as
simple as that. That's how it came about that Christians from the
very beginning understood the Eucharist to be in some sense literal.
They were, after all, only thinking about it in the same way that
the gospel authors were. For further illustration, the same idea
applies to idolatry. If, after all, idols were mere lumps of clay
or wood, there is absolutely no reason for anyone to pray to them.
But they were seen to be essentially connected to the beings they
represented, and were thus viewed as demonic in and of themselves
by Jews and Christians. IC XC NI KA
|
Subject: Re: The veneration of the Mother of God and the saints
From: john
hampshire
To:
eikke
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 20:28:31 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
You wrote: For further illustration, the same idea applies to >>>>idolatry.
If, after all, idols were mere lumps of clay or wood, there is absolutely
no reason for anyone to pray to them. But they were seen to be essentially
connected to the beings they represented, and were thus viewed as
demonic in and of themselves by Jews and Christians' I thank you
for your clarification on symbology, but please permit me to continue
to disagree. The bread and wine are understood to represent something
-- bread is the gospel of Christ and the wine is the blood that
was shed, as defined by Scripture itself. You argue that there is
an intrinsic connection, a certain metaphysical binding of the blood
to the wine and the bread to Christ's body. But in reality, this
idea is foreign to the Bible's use of symbology and Christ's usage
for that matter. Sure an idol is considered evil, but not because
it has become the god it represents. It is evil because it is forbidden
by God. Should we think that there is some metaphysical reality
in which the wood idol actually BECOMES the god it represents? Yes,
some believed it did, they were pagan idol worshippers. By contrast
then, would those who believe the bread/wine actually BECOMES the
real body and blood of Christ equally pagan worshippers? They are
cut of the same cloth, who else believes such ridiculous notions.
Did the early church believe that lambs BECAME Christ during their
sacrifice? Did the Jews think that the unleavened bread actually
became manna? Did the apostles think the water used in baptism actually
became God the Holy Spirit? Did those who heard Jesus preach that
He was the water of life really think Jesus could become water suitable
to drink? Is there any instance, outside the beliefs of the pagan
church of Rome and the Orthodox church, where we find Scripture
teaching that the symbol actually becomes the thing symbolized?
Is it found anywhere?, even by any means possible, including some
metaphysical meaningless mumbo-jumbo? No, it is always understood
as we do today. The symbol is just a symbol, the reality never becomes
the symbol. If this is the benefit of belonging to a Church that
supposedly understands the world in the same way that the Apostles
and Gospel writers did, then there is no benefit. It would be more
truthful to say it is the benefit of belonging to a church which
pretends its many aberrant unscriptural doctrines are the apostles,
and does this simply by stating it to be so without proof or Scripture
to corroborate, so that it has a means to defend what it cannot
prove otherwise. It may seem more holy and powerful to say your
teachings are those of the Apostle John, and I suppose it dupes
the unwashed masses, but that claim is a bold lie: a popular lie,
but still a lie. It is no better than a Pentecostal saying “Jesus
told me.... just the other day”. A lame attempt to make the indefensible
seem defendable. john
|
Subject: Re: The veneration of the Mother of God and the saints
From: eikke
To: john
hampshire
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 02:41:19 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Your post is full of good points. It had not occurred to me before
reading it that the first century hellenes of the mediterranean
looked at the world in a fashion so similar to the way you and your
16th century north european forebears do. You said: But in reality,
this idea is foreign to the Bible's use of symbology and Christ's
usage for that matter. What exactly is the Bible's use of symbology,
then? Has it occurred to you that a symbol with no intrinsic connection
to that which it represents is arbitrary and therefore meaningless?
You wrote: Sure an idol is considered evil, but not because it has
become the god it represents. It is evil because it is forbidden
by God. Nobody said anything about the idol becoming the god it
represents. You're reading too much into my example. I just said
the idol was seen to have an essential connection to that which
it represented. It was not considered the same thing as the demon
it represented. Now, the above is some pretty dead end reasoning.
You're saying that idolatry is not inherently evil, we just call
it evil because God forbids it, or because He has decided that it
is. Forgive me. I've been out of protestantism so long that I forgot
how arbitrary and circular a logician your God is. Should we think
that there is some metaphysical reality in which the wood idol actually
BECOMES the god it represents? Yes, some believed it did, they were
pagan idol worshippers. By contrast then, would those who believe
the bread/wine actually BECOMES the real body and blood of Christ
equally pagan worshippers? They are cut of the same cloth, who else
believes such ridiculous notions. Well, all Christians until the
16th century, actually, and the majority of Christians today. With
one and a half billion people worldwide believing in such ridiculous
notions, and with a religion that has believed in them everywhere
for 2000 years, it's good to know that there are a few million intelligent
armchair theologians in America to set us all straight. You just
don't get what I was saying. You see, that attitude wasn't just
restricted to idols, sacrifices, or other religious paraphernalia.
It was applied to everything. Nobody thought their idols were the
gods themselves, not even the pagans. They believed there was a
metaphysical connection between their idol and their god. The fact
that early christians believed that there is an essential connection
between an object and its symbol did not mark them as pagans, any
more than your belief in a fatalistic God makes you a muslim. That
is, assuming you're Reformed. That way of thinking was just part
of the 'intellectual furniture,' of their world. It was just assumed
by everybody, whether they were monotheistic Stoics, hellenized
Jews like the Apostles, or pagan polytheists. The only people back
then who looked at symbols in any way remotely resembling the way
you do all happened to be atheist Cynics. The parallel is fitting,
since that's what your religion reduces people to. You wrote: Did
the early church believe that lambs BECAME Christ during their sacrifice?
Did the Jews think that the unleavened bread actually became manna?
Did the apostles think the water used in baptism actually became
God the Holy Spirit? Did those who heard Jesus preach that He was
the water of life really think Jesus could become water suitable
to drink? Apparently not, since we have no sacrament that involves
drinking water. Is there any instance, outside the beliefs of the
pagan church of Rome and the Orthodox church, where we find Scripture
teaching that the symbol actually becomes the thing symbolized?
Is it found anywhere?, even by any means possible, including some
metaphysical meaningless mumbo-jumbo? Actually, it's your logic
that reduces the Eucharist to meaninglessness, not 'metaphysical
mumbo-jumbo.' Btw, I'd be careful about throwing out those kinds
of phrases, if I was you. The author of the gospel which begins
with a discussion of that well known metaphysical term 'the Logos'
might hear you. Gee, I wonder if he meant anything by using a term
that had been familiar to Greek philosophy for centuries, in order
to get his idea of a divine Son of God across to a Greek thinking
audience. Nah, it was probably just more of St. John's metaphysical
mumbo-jumbo. And this last part is kind of a silly question, insofar
as there were no writings on the nature of the Eucharist outside
of the Church for the first couple of centuries, unless you count
the gnostics. Therefore, there could be no 'instances outside of
the beliefs of the Roman and Orthodox Churches,' considering they
were the only ones writing. You have to remember: The Bible is ours.
The One, Visible Church put it together at the end of the 4th century,
not the 1st. You're welcome. I'm not sure I know which period of
'the early church' you're talking about. You mean Israel? Can you
really be asking such a silly question, considering as their God
had not performed the act of the sacrificial lamb at that point?
What on earth does that have to do with Christianity, which came
about only after the sacrifice was made? If you can find me a point
in the OT where God splits a lamb asunder and says, 'Take, eat,
this is my body, and this is my blood, etc.', then your question
might be relevant. We're talking the NT Church here, and they never
sacrificed lambs. As for the water used in baptism: does anybody
say that the water actually becomes the Holy Spirit? I've never
heard this. Still, I have to wonder why baptism was instituted for
the Church if God could purify us by any means and at any time.
If one wants to make a symbol nothing more than a representation
of a certain reality, then why not just forego the symbol and say
that God has purified you regardless of immersion? What does water
do to facilitate the descent of the Holy Spirit? Nothing, right?
Then water baptism is an empty ritual, and best done away with,
right? You wrote: If this is the benefit of belonging to a Church
that supposedly understands the world in the same way that the Apostles
and Gospel writers did, then there is no benefit. I still don't
see where you've shown there to be no benefit. I'd prefer to understand
God in the same way that the 1st century Greek christians did, considering
they're probably a lot closer to the truth than 16th century swiss
or germans, or 20th century Americans like yourself. It would be
more truthful to say it is the benefit of belonging to a church
which pretends its many aberrant unscriptural doctrines are the
apostles, and does this simply by stating it to be so without proof
or Scripture to corroborate, so that it has a means to defend what
it cannot prove otherwise. First off, you're asking the Orthodox
and Catholics to play exclusively on your homecourt, and that just
ain't gonna happen. Sola scriptura is a man-made doctrine, a historical
fallacy. What point is there in debating according to its rules
when we're discussing early christians who themselves had never
heard anything like it? It may seem more holy and powerful to say
your teachings are those of the Apostle John, and I suppose it dupes
the unwashed masses, but that claim is a bold lie: a popular lie,
but still a lie. This really says nothing, of course. But I do think
that in the interest of good christian humility, the people on this
board shouldn't make such frequent contrasts between themselves
and 'the unwashed masses.' It is no better than a Pentecostal saying
“Jesus told me.... just the other day”. Yeah, it's almost as lame
as somebody saying 'I had all of these questions and nobody at my
church could answer them. Then I began reading Calvin and found
out that he agreed with me. I knew from that point on that I was
right.'
|
Subject: Re: The veneration of the Mother of God and the saints
From: Christopher
To: john
hampshire
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 21:13:26 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
So irrational, isn't it? So foreign to human reason! The pagan Greeks
thought the idea of Logos having flesh and blood (and bile, according
to one objection) was mumbo-jumbo, too...quite a ridiculous notion.
Christopher
|
Subject: Nestorian?
From: Christopher
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 09:54:50 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Let's at least be intellectually honest with one another, shall
we? Tell you what, read the Council of Ephesus, readily available
online or in any 38 volume collection of the works of the Fathers
that a good library would have. When you have read the canons, and
the brief arguements for both sides, generally provided by Nestorius
and Cyril, then we can have an educated conversation about whose
doctrine is blasphemous and not according to Scripture and whose
isn't. Blasphemy is a serious charge and if a discussion is to steer
clear of meaningless rhetoric, then both parties should probably
be on the same page. Not that I expect you to hold the Council of
Ephesus as any sort of authority for yourself. I am merely curious
as to how your rejection of the very Scriptural doctrine of St Cyril
and the council does not lead directly to the allegedly Scriptural
Nestorianism and a hopeless division of the Person of Jesus Christ.
I am becoming more and more convinced that most Protestant theology
actually is Nestorianism. The rejection of the title Theotokos is
usually defended, as you have defended it, by splitting up the Person
of Jesus Christ into different parts, as if one could explain the
Mystery of the Incarnation of God in such a manner. Christopher
PS--just FYI, I am no longer under the delusion that what I believed
prior to converting to Orthodoxy was, in any real sense, 'Reformed.'
Although I was raised Baptist, my thinking was shaped far more by
CS Lewis than anyone else. In fact, I probably would have eventually
become Anglican if it's American branch, the Episcopal Church, had
not exchanged the teachings of men like Lewis for men like Bishop
Spong, and I had not discovered, by the mercy of God, the Orthodox
Church first. In rereading some of Lewis recently, I was struck
by how Orthodox a lot what he wrote actually is. The Screwtape Letters
would be a perfect example. And his recommendation, in his introduction
to the translation of St Athanasius' On the Incarnation, that one
should read three old books for every one new book still seems very
sound. Whether you consider St Athanasius or St Cyril Fathers of
the Church or not, there is at least value in reading them to ensure
that one is not dooming oneself to repeat history. So that's why
I'd like to see if the brands of Protestantism that reject Mary
as Theotokos are, in fact, Nestorian in their theology of the Person
of Jesus Christ. Nestorius was only willing to grant 'Christotokos,'
much as you might.
|
Subject: The belief in the One, Visible Church
From: Christopher
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 30,
2000 at 13:05:54 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
>>>>>Which Scriptures support these
beliefs? 4. The belief in the One, Visible Church<<<<<
Start with Eph 4:6 and 1 Tim 3:15? Please see the attached link
for how these Scriptures are understood in the Orthodox Church.
It won't take up too much of your time. Christopher PS--I'll leave
the conversation regarding sola scriptura to eikke, if he chooses
to respond. We've been down that path several times and I don't
think revisiting the subject is likely to yield any new arguments
from either side. The Church is Visible and One orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/church.htm
|
Subject: Re: The belief in the One, Visible Church
From: laz
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 30,
2000 at 14:38:05 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
Seems to me that the true Church, like a house, having
her beginning with the FOUNDATION built by the Apostles (with the
chief cornerstone being Christ himself (1Pe 2:5))has been undergoing
successive growth in maturity with the passing of time under the
superintending presence of the Spirit. Some call this 'progressive
revelation' whereby the Body has been getting stronger and smarter
relative to the things of God as He has revealed Himself (in scripture).
We are transformed as we grow in grace and knowledge with time as
individuals ... the Church as an organism has also been undergoing
the same transformation - growing in grace and knowledge as new
heresies have come to be (or reemerged) and as annointed teachers/preachers
have been raised up for the edification of the saints. No NEW revelation,
mind you, but increased understanding (fuller understanding) of
the revelation already given in holy writ. Rome and Orthodoxy have
never 'grown up'... in fact, they refuse to put the 'errors' of
the early church (who were not all in agreement on many things!)
under the all revealing light of the God's Word...a
lamp unto (our) feet, and a light unto (our)path. Ps119:105 Heb 4:12 For the word
of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword,
piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of
the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents
of the heart. In fact, their errors (especially
Rome's) have been compounding over the centuries...kinda like interest!
;-) Sola, Raised To The Fifth, laz
|
Subject: Re: The belief in the One, Visible Church
From: eikke
To: laz
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 30,
2000 at 18:32:04 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
I'm still curious as to which errors you believe
the Orthodox adhere. Say what you will about Rome (the Orthodox
were calling her on the same errors that the Reformers protested,
after all, just 450 years earlier), but I'd like to know which developments
in the last thousand years have taken the Orthodox from the ancient
understanding of the Word of God? But do you really mean to say
that you have a better, fuller, more mature understanding of Christ's
mission (because you live 2,000 years after He did) than the Apostles
or their disciples did? Merely because there are so many more books
on the subject today than back then, or because the catalogue of
Christian experience is wider now than in the 1st century? I assume
the traditional response to your idea of 'progressive revelation'
(or progressive understanding of revelation) would be to question
why it is that those folks who have changed the least since the
days of the Apostles (i.e. the Orthodox, for the sake of this argument),
and who understand the meaning of the revelation as the Apostles
did -having that direct line of discipleship from the Apostles to
the Apostolic Fathers, and down the line- should be held somehow
to be inferior in comparison with those whose teachings (the Reformers)
have less in common with the mindset that guided the Holy Apostles.
Is not Christ the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow? If anything,
shouldn't we be seeking to adopt the mindset that has guided the
ancient faith for millennia, rather than condescending to it by
calling it a less mature species of our own faith? I ask this especially
in light of the fact that the Reformers, in going back to what they
thought was the mind of the ancient Church, actually sought to do
so by using the same Church Fathers (St. John Chrysostom, et al)
that have always undergirded Orthodoxy. The Reformation was, after
all, fueled in part by new translations of the Greek Fathers into
German -which translations rarely, if ever, existed in Latin. Ironically
enough, the idea of a progressive revelation is actually Roman Catholic.
It might interest you -and anyone else who looks on Orthodoxy as
an eastern form of Catholicism- to know that the Orthodox look on
protestantism and Roman Catholicism as two sides of the same coin.
This is a prime example. The Orthodox have no truck with 'progressive
revelation.' They understand the Ecumenical Councils, for instance,
not as meetings to discuss new Christian doctrines, but rather to
define what Christians have always believed. The Roman Catholics,
on the other hand, understand revelation as a sort of gold mine
from which new and interesting facts about God are constantly extracted.
That, in fact, is how the errors of the Catholics have been gaining
compound interest. What you call errors, they would call examples
of the 'fuller understanding' that you claim. It's the same principle
as 'reformed and ever reforming.' Now, you've seen the mistakes
that that attitude has led Rome into. Do you think that hydra-headed
protestantism stands a better chance with the same principle? History
certainly doesn't bear that out. The idea that the 'Church' is constantly
growing and improving is more rooted in the post-Enlightenment belief
in inevitable progress than in historical reality. Especially if
you look at it from the Orthodox point of view, according to which
the last 900 years have seen Western Christianity fall further and
further away from the true and ancient Faith. As for the supposed
tendency that the Orthodox and Roman Churches have of not submitting
their findings to Holy Scripture: it was only with the scholastic
movement in the 11th-15th centuries that the Catholic West developed
doctrinal theories based on philosophy largely divorced from Holy
Tradition or scripture. I believe this is one of the main qualms
that Luther and his ilk had with the scholastics, and rightfully
so. It had appalled the Orthodox for centuries. But this development
never took place in the East. The Orthodox never threw the Holy
Bible, the Church Fathers, or the Holy Traditions overboard for
the sake of reason-based philosophies. Read any of the Church Fathers,
and see how much their exegesis depends on the Bible, or on their
copious commentaries on the Holy Books contained therein. I imagine
you would not be surprised to see how much of their thought is vitiated
with the mindset of the Bible, considering that in many cases these
are men who spent their entire lives in remote monasteries studying
their holy books. I'd also like to know how you (or any of the other
protestants here) view the Church as somehow stronger now than it
was in the past, considering that at one time most of Europe, Asia
Minor, mediterranean Africa, and the Balkans were Christian. Today,
America is hardly even nominally Christian, Europe is well known
to be a post-Christian continent, Asia Minor and mediterranean Africa
were conquered and forcibly converted to Islam, and the Balkans
are a political nightmare. Can anyone really say that the Church
is healthier now than it was even 100 years ago, the Holy Spirit
notwithstanding? IC XC NI KA
|
Subject: Re: The belief in the One, Visible Church
From: a monitor
To: eikke
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 31,
2000 at 12:08:49 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
Errors of Orthodoxy? How would determine that an
error has been committed? What would be my barometer for truth?
hmmm If I were from Mars and wanted to settle the dispute between
Orthodoxy and Rome....how would I go about arbitrating ...coming
to the truth...determining who is right...who is the true and rightful
heir to the 'keys of the Kingdom'...and apostolic succession? a
monitor
|
Subject: Re: The belief in the One, Visible Church
From: eikke
To: a monitor
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 31,
2000 at 20:04:41 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
That would be an involved undertaking, and one that
I suggest our martian friend get down to doing, rather than sitting
snidely by, pointing out the fact that there are differences between
the only historical churches. After all, if he wants to determine
who's right and who's wrong, he has to study the canons, the consensus
patrum, the history, the traditions, the theology, the commentaries,
the liturgies, the lives of the saints, the Whole Dang Thing. Unlike
Catholics and protestants, the Orthodox have no one person to determine
who's right and who's wrong. They do so after sifting the above.
I suppose an Orthodox would suggest that our martian friend start
by reading Plato, since he not only had a profound influence on
the Fathers, but on St. Paul and some of the gospel writers as well.
It's always good to know what mindset St. John the Divine was writing
for and with, what all he means by Logos, etc. Then the more generous
Orthodox would steer our martian friend to a general, popular history
of Christianity, written by a humanist Catholic like Paul Johnson.
If he wanted the Orthodox view of said controversies, he could (and
should) read Papadakis' The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy,
in addition to Meyendorff's Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions,
both meant to be accessible for students and the general reader,
and very well written. If our martian friend likes reading religious
history, he'll find both books to be real page turners. They can
be found on the net at Eighth Day Books, for about $20 apiece. I
suppose a Catholic would guide him to a more expensive book, like
the weighty Documents Illustrative of Papal Supremacy, if he wanted
to prove his point. The Orthodox would argue that Papadakis' and
Meyendorff's books provide the only balanced assessment of ancient
Christendom out there today, as all the other histories tend to
speak of it as a purely Western phenomenon. The Orthodox know -and
have always known- that the real split in Christendom is not between
Catholics and protestants, but between the Catholic West and the
Orthodox East. The Orthodox would point out to the martian that,
in some pretty fundamental ways, the protestants are just Catholics
without the sacramentalism, so that he need not bother reading up
too much on them. The martian, being an outsider and forced to look
at the three faiths objectively, would note that while the Orthodox
and Catholics may seem to dress and decorate their churches alike,
it is truly the Catholics and protestants who have the most in common.
Now, if our Martian friend weren't absolutely sick of Christianity
by this point, but were in fact eager to learn more about the true
faith (which in any case would lead him away from so-called protestantism
and towards one of the historical churches), the Orthodox would
point him to Michael Pomozansky's Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, which
is both lucid and accessible, and contains many edifying citations
from the Fathers. Perhaps our martian has a taste for more popular
books, ones that contain well-rounded surveys of theology and history
in one. The friendly Orthodox would point him in the direction of
Timothy Ware's The Orthodox Church, which the martian at any rate
should be able to find at his nearest Barnes & Noble or Borders.
Or, if our Martian were something of an intellectual, they would
point him to Meyendorff's Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends
and Doctrinal Themes, as well as Lossky's The Mystical Theology
of the Eastern Church, both of which protestant thinkers (at least
those protestant thinkers who even think about Christianity outside
of protestantism) have been contending with for some time. And,
of course, no martian ever went wrong in buying up every one of
Fr. Georges Florovsky's books that he could find. Of course, our
martian, being a visitor from another planet, most likely has no
American currency to plunk down for these purchases. In that case,
our frustrated little friend must settle with Patrick Barnes' www.orthodoxinfo.com,
which really isn't much of a letdown because it contains a gigantic
amount of information on the historic faith. More than any one person
could digest in a month. Say the martian wants to see comparisons
between the Orthodox and the Catholics, Anglicans, Reformed, and
other protestants. He can do so by following the link to the 'For
Anglican Inquirers,' 'For Reformed Inquirers,' links, etc. On the
Reformed link, he will even find a link to a wonderful site put
up by a former Presbyterian elder converted to Orthodoxy. The Catholics,
I suppose, would direct our martian to The New Advent Catholic Supersite,
at newadvent.org. There the martian will find links to the Fathers
AND THEN SOME. There's the ever-informative (if a little dated)
Catholic Encyclopedia, as well as links to the ancient councils,
canons, and all the rest. Our martian will find that this site is
actually far more satisfying along these lines than the Wheaton
Church Fathers site, which his erstwhile protestant friends had
once suggested he visit. After sifting all of these things, our
sincere (as opposed to proud and mocking) alien will then be able
to see for himself what the root causes of the schisms and controversies
between the churches are, why they are -in fact- so important, how
they have been resolved at various times in the past, and how they
may be resolved in the future. But then, all of this presupposes
somebody who actually cares enough about the truth to do the legwork
and find it. The lazy martian will return to his ship without supplementing
his prior beliefs by further study, impoverished in his understanding
of his own faith, if not in his knowledge of the history of his
religion. IC XC NI KA
|
Subject: Re: The belief in the One, Visible Church
From: Pilgrim
To: eikke
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 31,
2000 at 20:55:44 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
eikke,
And a true Christian would emulate
the Lord Christ and His apostles, 'And
beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them
in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.' (Luke 24:27) . . . 'And Paul,
as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned
with them out of the scriptures,' (Acts
17:2) . . . 'But now is made manifest,
and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment
of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience
of faith:' (Rom 16:26) . . . Further,
it is hopefully the desire and actual practice of true Christians
which enables them to echo the apostle Paul when he wrote:
Acts 20:26 'Wherefore
I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood
of all men. 27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all
the counsel of God. 28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves,
and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made
you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased
with his own blood. 29 For I know this, that after my departing
shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse
things, to draw away disciples after them. 31 Therefore watch,
and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not
to warn every one night and day with tears. 32 And now, brethren,
I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is
able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all
them which are sanctified.'
Our foundation and hope is built
upon the person of the Lord Christ and His Scriptures; nothing more,
nothing less!
In His Grace, Pilgrim |
Subject: Re: The belief in the One, Visible Church
From: eikke
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 01,
2000 at 02:48:29 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
Our foundation and hope is built upon the person
of the Lord Christ and His Scriptures; nothing more, nothing less!
---
Paradoxically enough, your foundation and hope are
built upon far more and far less than Christ and the Scriptures,
but rarely on the two of them alone. IC XC NI KA
|
Subject: Re: The belief in the One, Visible Church
From: Pilgrim
To: eikke
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 01,
2000 at 07:57:18 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
Our foundation and hope is built upon the person
of the Lord Christ and His Scriptures; nothing more, nothing less!
---
Paradoxically enough, your foundation and hope are
built upon far more and far less than Christ and the Scriptures,
but rarely on the two of them alone. IC XC NI KA
---
eikke,
You may indeed write your ad hominem
slurs, albeit not for long in here, but what you may not do is to
judge/determine where my hope lies. In this you are unqualified
and your opinion stated is woefully erroneous. You may wish I would
become an icon-carrying Orthodox, but until then, I'll trust in
the Scriptures ALONE, the Lord Christ ALONE, by faith ALONE, and
the source being BY GOD'S GRACE ALONE. I am glad that you guys have
decided to try your traditional hands here in The Highway Theology
Forum. I am indebted to you three, really!! :-) It has brought back
found memories of a dear friend I met while in college many years
ago. He was Greek, John Ephantides was his name. And sometimes he
would share with us something of his life in Greece. One of the
things we found most fascinating was his release from the captivity
of the Orthodox church. The truth of the gospel and the power of
God had set him free from the 'Traditions of men' which made void
the word of God. John was indeed a free man in Christ and loved
the Word of God so very much, for it was his 'meat indeed'. I sometimes
take out the Greek Bible he gave me as a gift and read it, for it
is a sure reminder how easy it is for someone to follow men and
not God according to the Scriptures.
By His Grace, Pilgrim 'All men become like the
objects of their worship. Our inward character is being silently
moulded by our view of God and our conception of him. Christian
character is the fruit of Christian worship; pagan character the
fruit of pagan religion; semi-Christian character the fruit of a
half-true understanding of God. The principle holds good for us
all: we become like what we worship for worse or for better.
'They that make them are like unto them' (Psa. 115:8).' — Maurice
Roberts |
Subject: Re: The belief in the One, Visible Church
From: eikke
To: a monitor
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 31,
2000 at 19:59:47 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
That would be an involved undertaking, and one that
I suggest our martian friend get down to doing, rather than sitting
snidely by, pointing out the fact that there are differences between
the only historical churches. After all, if he wants to determine
who's right and who's wrong, he has to study the canons, the consensus
patrum, the history, the traditions, the theology, the commentaries,
the liturgies, the lives of the saints, the Whole Dang Thing. Unlike
Catholics and protestants, the Orthodox have no one person to determine
who's right and who's wrong. They do so after sifting the above.
I suppose an Orthodox would suggest that our martian friend start
by reading Plato, since he not only had a profound influence on
the Fathers, but on St. Paul and some of the gospel writers as well.
It's always good to know what mindset St. John the Divine was writing
for and with, what all he means by Logos, etc. Then the more generous
Orthodox would steer our martian friend to a general, popular history
of Christianity, written by a humanist Catholic like Paul Johnson.
If he wanted the Orthodox view of said controversies, he could (and
should) read Papadakis' The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy,
in addition to Meyendorff's Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions,
both meant to be accessible for students and the general reader,
and very well written. If our martian friend likes reading religious
history, he'll find both books to be real page turners. They can
be found on the net at Eighth Day Books, for about $20 apiece. I
suppose a Catholic would guide him to a more expensive book, like
the weighty Documents Illustrative of Papal Supremacy, if he wanted
to prove his point. The Orthodox would argue that Papadakis' and
Meyendorff's books provide the only balanced assessment of ancient
Christendom out there today, as all the other histories tend to
speak of it as a purely Western phenomenon. The Orthodox know -and
have always known- that the real split in Christendom is not between
Catholics and protestants, but between the Catholic West and the
Orthodox East. The Orthodox would point out to the martian that,
in some pretty fundamental ways, the protestants are just Catholics
without the sacramentalism, so that he need not bother reading up
too much on them. The martian, being an outsider and forced to look
at the three faiths objectively, would note that while the Orthodox
and Catholics may seem to dress and decorate their churches alike,
it is truly the Catholics and protestants who have the most in common.
Now, if our Martian friend weren't absolutely sick of Christianity
by this point, but were in fact eager to learn more about the true
faith (which in any case would lead him away from so-called protestantism
and towards one of the historical churches), the Orthodox would
point him to Michael Pomozansky's Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, which
is both lucid and accessible, and contains many edifying citations
from the Fathers. Perhaps our martian has a taste for more popular
books, ones that contain well-rounded surveys of theology and history
in one. The friendly Orthodox would point him in the direction of
Timothy Ware's The Orthodox Church, which the martian at any rate
should be able to find at his nearest Barnes & Noble or Borders.
Or, if our Martian were something of an intellectual, they would
point him to Meyendorff's Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends
and Doctrinal Themes, as well as Lossky's The Mystical Theology
of the Eastern Church, both of which protestant thinkers (at least
those protestant thinkers who even think about Christianity outside
of protestantism) have been contending with for some time. And,
of course, no martian ever went wrong in buying up every one of
Fr. Georges Florovsky's books that he could find. Of course, our
martian, being a visitor from another planet, most likely has no
American currency to plunk down for these purchases. In that case,
our frustrated little friend must settle with Patrick Barnes' www.orthodoxinfo.com,
which really isn't much of a letdown because it contains a gigantic
amount of information on the historic faith. More than any one person
could digest in a month. Say the martian wants to see comparisons
between the Orthodox and the Catholics, Anglicans, Reformed, and
other protestants. He can do so by following the link to the 'For
Anglican Inquirers,' 'For Reformed Inquirers,' links, etc. On the
Reformed link, he will even find a link to a wonderful site put
up by a former Presbyterian elder converted to Orthodoxy. The Catholics,
I suppose, would direct our martian to The New Advent Catholic Supersite,
at newadvent.org. There the martian will find links to the Fathers
AND THEN SOME. There's the ever-informative (if a little dated)
Catholic Encyclopedia, as well as links to the ancient councils,
canons, and all the rest. Our martian will find that this site is
actually far more satisfying along these lines than the Wheaton
Church Fathers site, which his erstwhile protestant friends had
once suggested he visit. After sifting all of these things, our
sincere (as opposed to proud and mocking) alien will then be able
to see for himself what the root causes of the schisms and controversies
between the churches are, why they are -in fact- so important, how
they have been at various times resolved, and how they may be resolved
in the future. IC XC NI KA
|
Subject: An invitation
From: Christopher
To: All
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 19:40:14 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
You are all hereby, with all due respect to the 'master' of this
website, invited to participate on a new board that involves discussion
between Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestants. It's new still,
but some of the discussions are substantive, and the input of some
of the 'old timers' here would be of value for everyone. Please
do stop by when you have a moment. Christopher Phronema pub4.ezboard.com/bphronema.html
|
Subject: Re: An invitation
From: laz
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 21:27:36 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
I was struck by the Georges Florovsky's piece and how much it resembles
Roman Catholic thought relative to justification. For a moment I
thought he might even be suggesting that the reformers neglected
'human responsibility'. He tried hard to avoid being accused of
Pelagianism...but at the end of the day, synergism is just as diabolical.
I was shocked to see him outright deny alien imputation of Christ's righteousness....again, so very Romanish.
I didn't get the feel that he was promoting monasticism per se,
but I was constantly reminded of this: Isa
64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and
all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags;
and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind,
have taken us away. YET....! Zec 3:3 Now Joshua
was clothed with filthy garments,
and stood before the angel. 4 And he answered and spake unto those
that stood before him, saying, Take
away the filthy garments from him. And unto him he said, Behold,
I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe
thee with change of raiment. 5
And I said, Let them set a fair mitre upon his head. So they set
a fair mitre upon his head, and clothed him with garments. AAAHHHH, such grace, sweet and free.....what have we
done to deserve such favor? zip... laz p.s. not that I consider
myself an 'old timer' with anything to contribute, but I did visit
and bookmark that website/discussion board,,,my system got hung
up ....may try again.
|
Subject: Re: An invitation
From: eikke
To: laz
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 12:23:48 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
I'm curious to know how you define Pelagianism, and how the Orthodox
doctrine of the divine energies is to be considered 'just as diabolical?'
|
Subject: Re: An invitation
From: laz
To: eikke
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 14:39:00 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
I'm curious to know how you define Pelagianism, and how the Orthodox
doctrine of the divine energies is to be considered 'just as diabolical?'
---
eikke - I (a non-scholar/theologian) define Pelagianism
as the denial of original sin and the affect it had on Adam's (and
our) total being whereby we die physically AND have inherited both
his guilt(imputed to us ala Rom 5), and a will/emotive/desires at
odds/emnity with God. We inherited corruption and are 'dead in trespasses
and sin' completely and totally unable to understand 'spiritual'
things as they pertain to God's special revelation. We are unable
to help ourselves salvifically speaking....like a corpse, like Lazarus
as he lay rotting. The author was quick to qualify his statements
so as to preclude any notions of a self-help gospel of works-righteousness
(pelagianism), but in the final analysis, he clearly defended synergism...
that we cooperate with God's grace in our justification through
our 'works'. Monasticism being the works of the best kind, or so
I gathered. Was monasticism a requirement (even a consideration?)
for the Apostles...or Paul or Timothy or those elders/deacons to
be chosen by them for service in the first Churches identified in
Scripture? What about the seven churches identified in Revelations?
laz p.s. call me biased but I think monasticism exists because synergism
is clearly embraced...believed to be meritorious towards justification.
This is the heart of our beef with Rome...the nature of justification,
and apparently with Eastern Orthodoxy.
|
Subject: Ah.
From: eikke
To: laz
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 20:37:27 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
In that case, I think there may be a problem, because we define
the heresy differently. I assume that Pelagius' argument was really
meant as an optimistic/humanist defense of God, i.e. that no one
could blame God for their damnation. Pelagius, after all, was a
pretty cheerful guy. I am by no means a scholar or a theologian
myself, as will become readily apparent, but my understanding of
Pelagianism was that the essential doctrine didn't necessarily have
anything to do with inherited guilt. It ultimately revolved around
the proposition that God made man inherently capable of fulfilling
His commandments, and He just lets us to it. He made us so that
we don't need His help in returning to Him. The two components of
St. Augustine's argument, as I understand it, are Original Sin and
Inherited Guilt. For the Orthodox, the doctrine of the first is
sufficient to refute Pelagius, and it also confirms the truth that
we are fallen beings. However, the Orthodox also adhere to the familiar
belief that we are responsible for our own sins, not Adam's and
Eve's. Now, the Orthodox do believe in Original Sin. They believe
that physical (and, more importantly, spiritual) death entered the
world through Adam's and Eve's sin, and that we are naturally (rather,
unnaturally) inclined to flout God's will for the sake of base pleasures
and whatnot. Man's nature has degraded since Adam to the point that
we are now more inclined to bad than good, and only God can save
us from our own fallenness. But the Orthodox do not believe in inherited
guilt, nor did the Church in the West before St. Augustine. It is
important to remember that Augustine's reading of Romans 5 was based
on a faulty translation of that passage. St. Augustine didn't know
Greek very well. Oddly enough, the great theological mind of the
Western middle ages wasn't very good at picking up languages. I
do think it's highly significant, however, that of those Church
Fathers whose native tongue was Greek (and who therefore read the
NT in its original language), not one of them -even in St. Augustine's
day- ever agreed with the doctrine of inherited guilt. Now, when
one speaks of the late Fr. Georges Florovsky's views, one is almost
always speaking of Orthodox belief itself. He's a widely recognized
Orthodox stalwart. I only say this so you know where he stands in
regard to Orthodoxy. Moreover, unlike what I'm about to say, his
thinking was actually organized, and the essay to which you refer
dealt specifically with a justification for monasticism from the
NT. If it isn't too much trouble, would you mind bringing up those
points in Fr. Florovsky's essay with which you take issue? The way
I understand 'synergism,' and I think this is how most Orthodox
look at it, is that our cooperation with God (hence, our salvation)
is impossible without Him. Which is to say, synergism is manifestly
not Pelagianism, as the Orthodox recognize that nothing in our salvation
happens without the Savior. If I'm not mistaken, synergism is based
in part on the belief that the Incarnation was entirely God and
entirely Man, having two natures and two wills, with neither His
human nor His divine aspects submerged in the other. This is thoroughly
orthodox, being defined throughout the Seven Ecumenical Councils,
to which I assume Calvinist theology (like that of Luther and Melanchthon)
seeks to conform. At any rate, the Orthodox believe that in Christ
the divine and human wills, though separate and distinct, yet work
as one. In addition, the Orthodox have this strange habit of looking
at their Christology on a personal level, i.e. what is true of Christ's
nature can be true of ours, God willing. In a way, Christology is
a psychology of man. To a large extent the relationship between
the human and the divine in Christ defines the nature of the relationship
between the Holy Spirit and its human agents, which is another way
of saying that it determines who we are as human beings, now that
human nature and the Divine have become united in the Incarnation.
This partially explains all the riots and destruction that accompanied
the Christological controversies way back when. To deny that we
have any role in our salvation is, Christologically speaking, the
heresy of Nestorius, which held that in Christ the Divine enveloped
the human nature ('Christ's humanity was but a drop in the ocean
of His divinity', or something like that), and thus His human will
was forcibly submerged in His divine will. Do I understand correctly
if I perceive this to be your view of man's relationship to God
the Holy Spirit? We are saved purely through an act of God's will,
and none of our own? As for Fr. Florovsky and monasticism: Monasticism
per se is not really looked on as 'works of the best kind,' at least,
not by the Orthodox. They have multitudes of married saints in their
liturgical calendar. Indeed, at least one of the Church Fathers
(St. Ambrose) was married. But, as I believe Fr. Florovsky pointed
out, most men and women are not made by their Creator for the vocation
of strict monasticism. The Orthodox attitude is that, while the
majority of us are better prepared to live 'in the world' than in
a mountain cell, layfolk are still called to pursue righteousness.
Thus it happens that layfolk -no less than monastics- are expected
to participate in the feasts and fasts of the liturgical calendar,
that they too are expected to renounce the world wherever it conflicts
with God's will, to pray as much as possible (last time I heard,
the Orthodox have eleven appointed times every day when they are
called to set aside time for prayer), to deprive themselves of those
pleasures which contribute to the corruption of their souls, to
attend church services whenever possible (most Orthodox churches
have at least a few services every day) etc. The main difference
between the average monastic per se and the average layman per se
is that the monastic is constitutionally capable of taking himself
out of the daily grind of the working world, which places innumerable
barriers to constant prayer, fasts, and self-renunciation; while
the rest of us are not. But again, layfolk are still called upon
to live as much of a monastic life 'in the world' as possible. By
asking about a 'monastic requirement for the Apostles' are you referring
to clerical celibacy? Because if so, the Orthodox have always had
married clergy. The Roman Church did too, up until the 11th century
when -in reaction to the corruption of inherited dioceses- they
made celibacy a requirement of all clergy. Oddly enough, the 11th
century was also the point when the Roman Church fell away from
the Orthodox East (they were one Church before then). As far as
the Orthodox look at it, monasticism began with St. Anthony of Egypt,
roughly two centuries after most of the Apostles had died. And monastics
do not look at their vocation as being meritorious of grace. Actually,
it seems like that would lead to a sort of spiritual snobbery. But
in any case, talk to any monastic and they will likely tell you
that they are a greater sinner than you are, though you may be inclined
to disagree after observing the long hours they spend in prayer,
contemplation, work, Church services, and self-renunciation. They
lead their entire lives seeking purification of the temple of the
Holy Spirit, which they know cannot be had without His grace. P.S.
I could be wrong, but I believe that looking into the Orthodox view
towards justification will show you that their view of it differs
significantly from that of the Roman Catholics. In IC XC
|
Subject: Re: An invitation
From: Christopher
To: laz
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 22:06:30 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Hi laz, Please do try again. There are several folks over there
whom I'm sure you'd enjoy conversing with. I see 'eikke' stopped
by. I hope Kwanstantinos does, too (he's Greek--spells some 'o's
with a 'w' for some reason, I forget). Both pretty sharp. Christopher
|
Subject: Re: An invitation
From: eikke
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 21:21:05 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Hi Chris- Kwnstantinos spells his name that way because the 'w'
is Omega in Greek, which makes a short 'o' sound (as in boat), while
the Greek 'o' (Omicron) makes a long o sound, as in 'long'. Forgive
my pedantry. :) In IC XC
|
Subject: A great and humble Calvinist
From: Vernon
To: All
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 16:33:16 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Hello Pilgrim. Would you accept George Whitfield's teachings,I do
agree and find him different in his Calvinist teaching. A great
evangekist. In Christ Vernon One of the greatest evangelists ever
to set foot on American soil was George Whitefield. Read carefully
the following quote and note his pleading with sinners. I offer
you salvation this day; the door of mercy is not yet shut, there
does yet remain a sacrifice for sin, for all that will accept of
the Lord Jesus Christ. He will embrace you in the arms of his love.
O turn to him, turn in a sense of your own unworthiness; tell him
how polluted you are, how vile, and be not faithless, but believing.
Why fear ye that the Lord Jesus Christ will not accept of you? Your
sins will be no hindrance, your unworthiness no hindrance; if your
own corrupt hearts do not keep you back nothing will hinder Christ
from receiving of you. He loves to see poor sinners coming to him,
he is pleased to see them lie at his feet pleading his promises;
and if you thus come to Christ, he will not send you away without
his Spirit; no, but will receive and bless you. O do not put a slight
on infinite love--he only wants you to believe on him, that you
might be saved. This, this is all the dear Saviour desires, to make
you happy, that you may leave your sins, to sit down eternally with
him at the marriage supper of the Lamb. Let me beseech you to come
to Jesus Christ; I invite you all to come to him, and receive him
as your Lord and Saviour; he is ready to receive you. I invite you
to come to him, that you may find rest for your souls. He will rejoice
and be glad. He calls you by his ministers; O come unto him--he
is labouring to bring you back from sin and from Satan, unto himself:
open the door of your hearts, and the King of glory shall enter
in. My heart is full, it is quite full, and I must speak, or I shall
burst. What, do you think your souls of no value? Do you esteem
them as not worth saving? Are your pleasures worth more than your
souls? Had you rather regard the diversions of this life, than the
salvation of your souls? If so, you will never be partakers with
him in glory; but if you come unto him, he will supply you with
his grace here, and bring you to glory hereafter; and there you
may sing praises and hallelujahs to the Lamb for ever. And may this
be the happy end of all who hear me! George Whitefield was a staunch
Calvinist. There is one thing certain--Whitefield's Calvinism did
not in any way dampen his holy zeal for the souls of men.
|
Subject: Re: A great and humble Calvinist
From: Tom
To: Vernon
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 23:30:44 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Vernon I find nothing that is at odds with what Whitfield said here
and Calvinist theology, though it could be interpreted that way.
For instance: I offer you salvation this day; the door of mercy
is not yet shut, there does yet remain a sacrifice for sin, for
all that will accept of the Lord Jesus Christ. He will embrace you
in the arms of his love. Whitfield does not go into his theology
in detail, but indeed if someone TRULY accepts the Lord Jesus Christ,
He will indeed embrace them with open arms. The problem is nobody
will accept Him unless they first have been regenerated and given
the faith to believe. If you had read any of the works written by
Whitfield, you would realise what he meant by the word 'accept'.
It is not meant in the same sence that an Arminian preacher would
mean it. For if it was he would be contradicting his own theology,
for the sake of a few more false professions of faith. That is not
to say that Arminian preachers haven't led people to the Lord, I
am proof that it can occur. But I am convinced that it is the exception
to the rule. For indeed there are true believers in Arminian Churches.
Tom
|
Subject: Re: A great and humble Calvinist
From: Pilgrim
To: Vernon
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 19:55:42 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Vernon,
More games Vernon? hahaha....
You may like what old George was preaching here, but you would not
be in agreement with the theology behind it which made it possible
for him to preach so passionately to sinners. For you are in fact
in agreement with John Wesley far more than Whitefield, and Whitefield
used no buttery words when describing the errors of Wesley. Whitefield's
preaching is hardly 'different in his Calvinist teaching' than most
all other Calvinists. How you perceive that it is, only you would
know. I am confident that I have read 100's perhaps 1000's more
sermons, articles and books by Calvinists than yourself, and there
is absolutely no warrant to see George Whitefield's teaching as
being any different than the great mass of those other Calvinists
I have been privileged to read. If you want a simple evidence of
this, then I refer you to: George Whitefield
- The life and times of the great evangelist of the 18th century
revival by Arnold Dallimore and specifically
to Volume II, pp. 551-569 (Cornerstone Books: Westchester, Ill.,
1979). On the other hand, I find your Semi-Pelagian/Arminian teaching
to be no different than those who have held this heresy before you.
:-)
In His Sovereign Grace, Pilgrim |
Subject: Talking Religion
From: Berean7
To: All
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 12:32:21 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Brethren, I have a question to ask; What is one to do if he is asked
not to speak religion or share his faith with others in the workplace?
Would appreciate any Biblical views and instruction:)
|
Subject: Re: Talking Religion
From: laz
To: Berean7
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 17:46:01 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Brethren, I have a question to ask; What is one to do if he is asked
not to speak religion or share his faith with others in the workplace?
Would appreciate any Biblical views and instruction:)
---
Depends who's (not 'whose', hehe) asking. If the boss says stop
talking religion because he believes, rightly or wrongly, that it's
disruptive/divisive/etc and bad for business...you should stop.
If you disagree, then if a little badgering of coworkers is commanded,
then CONSTANT badgering would be even more biblical. ;-) If a coworker
asks to not be badgered...honor his request. No skin off your nose.
No sin in NOT witnessing to him when and where he/she desires not
to be bothered. Can we badger a person into the kingdom? We are
called to live at peace with all men... laz
|
Subject: Re: Talking Religion
From: Eric
To: Berean7
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 13:59:51 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Abide by there request. However, your actions speak so much more
loudly than your words will. Let them see your love and compassion
and diligence towards your job. Let them see your disinterest in
the things of this world. Matthew 5:16 In the same way, let your
light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise
your Father in heaven. IMHO, it is when people see that you live
what you profess, that they will be willing to listen or respond
to the message. There is a gentleman in my office who professes
often to be a believer, but yet he is disliked for his smugness,
meanness, and arrogance. People have no interest in what he has,
for he is just like they are, even worse.
|
Subject: Re: Talking Religion
From: Proginowsko
To: Eric/Berean7
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 16:09:13 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Gentlemen: Witnessing on the job both verbally and through our lives
does require balance. I recall some of the posts below regarding
this subject. Just today I was talking to a customer who was sharing
things about his life and being at a crossroads so to speak, and
it being difficult to make certain decisions in life that probably
should be made. This customer is a Dentist and knows my wife and
daughter and therefore a little bit about me. I asked him what his
'faith' was. He said he was Jewish, and I proceeded to tell him
that I have some Jewish in me too :-). I proceeded to tell him that
there was a point that I accepted Christ as Messiah and Savior.
He said he wouldn't do that, but that it was that type of 'cutting
against the grain' decision that he needed to make. All of this
was done at a time that normal conversation takes place while doing
business. I agree with what many have said regarding Christians
being the best and most honest employess. So true. And we should
not verbally witness so that it will take away from our job performance.
But if other conversations are allowed then certainly so is conversation
about the Lord Jesus, IF someone has ears to hear. And even better,
if they ask us something about faith, church, God, etc. It's amazing
how talk of sex, dirty jokes, innuendos, and cursing God's name
is okay, but nothing about God's grace in salvation etc is acceptable.
One lady on my job today was saying that the homosexuals didn't
bother her any. She wouldn't do it, but that is was their business.
I put my 2 cents in and talked about how the tolerance has hurt
us as a nation. And that every nation or empire in the past mentioned
in the word of God and history were either destroyed by others or
self destructed(humanly speaking) when they became immoral. Was
it okay for her to make her comments (she was my immediate supervisor),
but not okay for me to make mine? Finally I would like to ask: Was
our Lord Jesus being disobedient when he talked with the doctors
in Jerusalem while His earthly parents were continuing on? 'And
He said unto them, how is it that you sought Me. Wist(know) ye not
that I must be about My Father's Business' (Lk.2:39-49). Blessings,
Proginowsko
|
Subject: Sheol/Geenna/Hades/Tartaroo
From: Eric
To: All
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 07:22:13 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Are these words referencing different places/states? Sheol/Geenna/Hades/Tartaroo
It seems that these words are often translated as being the same,
but certain passages indicate that they are not all referring to
the same thing. Any info?
|
Subject: Off the top of my head
From: mebaser
To: Eric
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 14:10:19 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Hi Eric, Now off the top of my head, I remember the following information
from studying this issue. Sheol - in the Old Testament, this Hebrew
word was a reference not so much of a place, but a state of being,
that is 'death.' It would be very similar to how we would use the
phrase 'the grave' in our conversatoins (i.e. Both the wicked and
the righteous will go to the grave). Gehena - Literally, Gehena
was a specific location where refuse was burned continually. Metaphorically,
some New Testament authors refer to the place where the wicked go
to be tortured by burning after they die. Hence, the usual translation
for this word is 'hell' in many Bible versions. The lake of fire
of Revelation 20 (although the word Gehena does not appear in that
passage) is the ultimate expression of the idea that Gehena conveys.
Hades - In the New Testament, this word is used much like Sheol
is used in the Old Testament. In greek mythology, there is no heaven
or hell, but one place called Hades (run by the god of death - himself
called Hades). Greek language then adopted the word Hades to, again,
refer to 'the grave' or 'death' itself. The actual Greek word for
death is THANATOS, and appears frequently in the Bible. We have
an interesting example of parallel thought in Revelation 1:18 and
20:13-14 where the two words (THANATOS and HADES) appear together
('and I have the keys of death and of Hades';'and death and Hades
gave up the dead which were in them';'And death and Hades were thrown
into the lake of fire'). Notice that Hades will be thrown into the
lake of fire, which is reminiscent of Gehena. Tartarus - also from
Greek mythology, the place 'in Hades' (it was more of bottomless
pit) where the wicked were condemned to suffer for all eternity.
I don't actually know if this word is used in the New Testament,
but if it is, it may have to do with where the wicked go, or perhaps
in Revelation, allegorically depicting a pit that was used for a
prison for the devil or other demonic agents. There you go, I hope
that helps. In Christ, mebaser
|
Subject: Thanks, mebaser
From: Eric
To: mebaser
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 09:37:37 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Would it be fair to say that the OT does not speak of what we commonly
refer to as Hell? Your point about death and Hades (Sheol) being
thrown into the lake of fire (Hell) must mean that these are distinct
things. Now, where are the dead currently? Are they in Sheol/Hades,
or Heaven/Hell? The verse that I often hear referenced is Paul's
telling us that to be absent from the body is to be present with
the Lord, is commonly interpreted as meaning that at least as far
as a Christian is concerned, they're immediately in heaven, and
not in any sort of immediate state, also, there is some symbolic
statements in Revelation that indicate this as well. P.S. Tartoroos
is mentioned only once in the NT, by Peter who refers to it as the
place where fallen angels are chained. II Peter I believe.
|
Subject: For Eric
From: Christopher
To: Eric
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 08:54:58 (PST)
Email Address: mtl9904@yahoo.com
Message:
Hi Eric, I apologize if I seemed unwilling to talk in my previous
post. In lieu of a long post detailing differences, please see the
attached article by Georges Florovsky. It provides a nice explanation
of the Orthodox objections to Reformation interpretations of St
Paul and it's not too long. It was one of the first articles I came
across when researching Orthodoxy and, upon rereading it, I still
find it to be one of the better critiques of the Reformation doctrine
of justification. Should you desire further reading, there is a
link at the top right hand corner of the page which will take you
to articles on other topics of interest to Evangelicals. Please
let me know if I can be of further assistance. There's a ton of
stuff on the web and I must have most of it bookmarked, so I would
be glad to pass on information on whatever topic you may be interested
in. Christopher PS--Regarding your recent discussion here: are you
a Methodist? Wesley is the only Protestant theologian I'm aware
of that went in the direction you did here with the Scriptures on
the topic. Whatever information you could pass my way would be appreciated.
I am interested in Protestant denominations that do not adopt an
Augustinian concept of original sin/guilt. Thanks. Link for Eric
orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/florov_nt.htm
|
Subject: Thanks
From: Eric
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 14:21:36 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Don't worry about it. I will e-mail you sometime in the near future
with some questions--I hope. I have been pretty busy lately, but
then again, who hasn't? As to my background, I haven't read anything
by any Methodist. I grew up Pentecostal, but upon seriously examining
their doctrines, I decided to raise my family in a different church.
As to the doctrine of Orginal Sin, honestly, I haven't read anything
about it besides the Reformed view, but it just didn't seem to fit
with my understanding of the character of God. I think justification
by faith alone is truly biblical, but I also think that the majority
of Protestants have put their interpretation of Paul over and above
Jesus's own words. They read Jesus in light of Paul, as opposed
to reading Paul in light of Jesus. God bless.
|
Subject: just curious
From: a monitor
To: Eric
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 20:28:58 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Eric - if I may ask, what church DO you attend and could you explain
your comment abouit how many interpret Jesus in light of Paul? Enquiring
minds wanna know, a monitor
|
Subject: Re: just curious
From: Eric
To: a monitor
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 07:52:33 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
I attend a Baptist church, however I tend to disagree with their
stated position on a number of issues. I lean towards paedobaptism,
weekly participation in the Lord's Supper--very hard to find unless
one is Catholic, paedocommunion, I prefer the Lutheran emphasis
on Christ, but am uncomfortable with their dramatic distinction
between law and gospel, amillenialism, strong church discipline,
the Reformed/Lutheran concept of '2 kingdoms.' As far as my comment
of many reading Jesus through Paul, I get a sense that their is
such a strong fear of preaching a works based gospel, that many
go to far. For instance: Matthew 25:34-46 'Then the King will say
to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father;
take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation
of the world. [35] For I was hungry and you gave me something to
eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger
and you invited me in, [36] I needed clothes and you clothed me,
I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came
to visit me.' [37] 'Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when
did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something
to drink? [38] When did we see you a stranger and invite you in,
or needing clothes and clothe you? [39] When did we see you sick
or in prison and go to visit you?' [40] 'The King will reply, 'I
tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these
brothers of mine, you did for me.' [41] 'Then he will say to those
on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal
fire prepared for the devil and his angels. [42] For I was hungry
and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing
to drink, [43] I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I
needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison
and you did not look after me.' [44] 'They also will answer, 'Lord,
when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes
or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' [45] 'He will reply,
'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least
of these, you did not do for me.' [46] 'Then they will go away to
eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.' Matthew
5:48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Instead of taking Jesus' words at face value, many will soften their
meaning, and read their understanding of Paul's view of the law/gospel
antithesis into Jesus words, as opposed to the other way around.
Jesus was so radical in his teaching, but His message of the Christian
life is unrecognizable in most of it's followers today. Almost all
of Jesus teaching was about DEEDS. IMHO, the Reformers, did a good
job in clearly spelling out the gospel, but their personal piety
and private devotion kept the personally from moving to far away
from the necessity of good deeds, but subsequent generations, have
taken justification by faith alone into a greater distinction between
law and gospel than what is presented in the bible. I think this
may also play a large part as to why the 'church' is so ineffectual
today, and irrelvant in society. I often hear that whatever is not
gospel, is law. I don't think that is quite right, at least the
way it is often lived out.
|
Subject: Re: just curious
From: kevin
To: Eric
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 17:09:24 (PST)
Email Address: amoshart@earthlink.net
Message:
Eric, Excuse me while I jump in here for a sec. I understand and
agree with you on the weekly communion idea. John Calvin actually
held to that as well. The church I attend has communion every Sunday
evening. We are non-denominational with teachings that lean strongly
in the Reformed view. The church does not hold to padeobaptism but
does allow young children (starting at age 6) to partake of communion.
If you are curious as to why we allow at that age I would be happy
to let you know but for brevity sake I will abstain in this post.
As a whole we are amillenial. Now my other question. Have you ever
read D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones? If not I think you should try to find
some of his sermons. There are many in print and even some on the
internet in various places. Also there is a book put out by Zondervan
Publishing House title 'Five Views on Law and Gospel.' I think you
would find that of great interest. Each of the 5 people put forth
their argument and the other four state their objections to the
view. All five views are treated this way. This is actually part
of a really good series. I would be happy to supply you with the
other titles and possible locations of purchasing them. Lastly,
I partly understand your concept of people interpreting Jesus in
light of Paul's writings. I agree that there could be a danger but
|
