Christ > The Word > Scripture

[Veritas]

I lifted an issue from another thread:

[quote:f8326]AVBunyan wrote:
Scripture is my authority...not history.

sojourner wrote:
There is where you err twice.... Christ is my authority and History only confirms that authority. [/quote:f8326]

In my mind, Scripture and Christ go hand in hand. John Chapter 1 comes to mind:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. John 1:1-2

By definition, The Word is not only something said, but thought. Reasoning, a rational principle.

We know what He said, His reasoing, and rational principle for us, through the Bible. Christ speaks to us from there.

...and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. 2 Timothy 3:15-16

I find it interesting that speaking, involves breath... Javier, do you know the definition of God-breathed in Greek by chance?

 

[Guest]

Veritas,

In my mind, Scripture and Christ go hand in hand. John Chapter 1 comes to mind:

yes, but Scripture is not the Word. Scripture is NOT Christ. Scripture is not even the whole Gospel as given to the Ancient Church.

By definition, The Word is not only something said, but thought. Reasoning, a rational principle.

Are you saying that Christ is a thought, a rational principle?

We know what He said, His reasoing, and rational principle for us, through the Bible. Christ speaks to us from there.

He speaks from Himself. He gave ALL TRUTH to the Apostles. Some of that ALL TRUTH made in on paper, not all of it. The Bible is not given alone, nor in isolation. It is a written record of God's interaction with man in history. This includes the OT and the NT. He is still interacting with man in history and will continue to do so until He come Again.

...and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. 2 Timothy 3:15-16

Of course Paul is ONLY refering to the OT here, We know that His letters and the Gospels eventually became part of that written Canon and so are also applicable today. But the Bible cannot be extracted from the whole of the Gospel, from the practice and belief that supports that written witness. The Bible cannot be separated from its historical context and content, if it will have any meaning at all.

I find it interesting that speaking, involves breath... Javier, do you know the definition of God-breathed in Greek by chance?

Does that mean that God also breathes?

 

[Veritas]

soujourner wrote:
yes, but Scripture is not the Word. Scripture is NOT Christ. Scripture is not even the whole Gospel as given to the Ancient Church.

I believe Scripture is how we KNOW Christ. God, is that rational principle, or reasoning, that works behind what is written and guides us. I believe the Holy Spirit also plays a part in this. I could expand on all the areas rational principle encompasses, but I'll stick to Scripture for now.

Are you saying that Christ is a thought, a rational principle?

I believe Christ is a person. He is my LORD and Savior. But I believe that which we percieve as "reason" is intrinsic to Him and flows from Him.

He speaks from Himself. He gave ALL TRUTH to the Apostles. Some of that ALL TRUTH made in on paper, not all of it. The Bible is not given alone, nor in isolation. It is a written record of God's interaction with man in history. This includes the OT and the NT. He is still interacting with man in history and will continue to do so until He come Again.

I believe all the Truth we need is in there. Are you saying otherwise?

Of course Paul is ONLY refering to the OT here, We know that His letters and the Gospels eventually became part of that written Canon and so are also applicable today.

I disagree, God knew exactly how many books were going to be in the Canon of the New Testament. He knew who would write the books and when. God also knew the exact working that would be in these books, since he, not the men chose the working:

Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For the prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. 2 Peter 1:20-21

But the Bible cannot be extracted from the whole of the Gospel, from the practice and belief that supports that written witness. The Bible cannot be separated from its historical context and content, if it will have any meaning at all.

Explain what you mean please.

 

[Guest]

Veritas,

I believe Scripture is how we KNOW Christ. God, is that rational principle, or reasoning, that works behind what is written and guides us. I believe the Holy Spirit also plays a part in this. I could expand on all the areas rational principle encompasses, but I'll stick to Scripture for now.

If you are speaking of modern man and only those modern men who have even read, seen, been told the Gospel, then yes. But we, that is mankind has not had the written scripture throughout history. The Isrealites didn't even have the NT. Abraham, Noah did not have anything except the concience which is part of our Image in God. The soul of man is the part of him that is divine, the physical part is the dust of the physical world.
It is ONLY through the Holy Spirit that we first learn of the Gospel and it is through that Holy Spirit indwelt in the lives of beleivers that that Truth is maintained. It is maintained not by individuals, but by the Holy Spirit within the whole of the Body. Christ is Head of that Body, of which we are members.

I believe Christ is a person. He is my LORD and Savior. But I believe that which we percieve as "reason" is intrinsic to Him and flows from Him.

Yes, that is part of the Image of God in all men.

I believe all the Truth we need is in there. Are you saying otherwise?

Yes, it is in there, but not by our own interpretation of that Truth. It was given once and the written cannot be properly understood without the whole Gospel. The Bible as a book has no authority whatsoever. We either submit to the authority that it proclaims or we submit to our interpretation of that authority. This makes each interpretation the authority, not the source which is Christ. Christ leads us to understand, but not in isolation of the whole. He does not give each individual new revelation that has never been seen before relative to that scripture. That is why false teachings can be easily discerned in the light of the Gospel, because it must be according to the "rule of faith" that which has always been believed.
Saying it is scripture is quite meaningless because historically, all false teachings have been based on scripture. But the Truth was declared not on scripture alone, but on how that scripture has always been believed and understood in light of the Whole Gospel from the beginning.

I disagree, God knew exactly how many books were going to be in the Canon of the New Testament. He knew who would write the books and when. God also knew the exact working that would be in these books, since he, not the men chose the working:

Well, I can't disagree with that. But then God failed all along the way. He should have had Adam write his story and Enoch, Noah etc. It was not until Moses that we, by Jewish accounts have the first five books of the Bible. Not a single book was written as the means. It was all oral, then written. The NT has not single word that is original, having never been spoken prior to the writing. Christ would have had to be the writer of the Gospels. All that He said in not contained therein. Paul in every single case, with Romans the exception, had lived, taught in every place and in some cases was there twice before he even wrote anything. If God really wanted his Gospel completely written, from the very instant it happened, then why did not all of the Aposltes simply sit down and write. Then leave it to those that accepted the reading to attempt to interpret just what he stated.

This is precisely what you are doing. The Bible is not the Gospel. It is a written portion of the Gospel. It has always been primarily transmitted by Tradition. Scripture is foremost Tradtion. Tradition, the Oral Gospel, the whole practice of Christianity was fully in force by the time the first Book was written. The written simply verifies that part of the Oral. God is still working through men. Believers who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit within His Body. That scripture has revealed that the Holy Spirit being indwelt only works within the Body of Christ. Only believers are indwelt as per scripture. That does not mean the Holy Spirit works in other ways. We know from that same scripture that all men have been given a measure of knowledge of God by virtue of their being human beings, created in God's Image. God gave everyone a conscience. See Rom 1-2.

Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For the prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. 2 Peter 1:20-21

And why do you think that the Church has NEVER recognized the gospel of a single individual, nor even a group of individuals. It was given ONCE, ALL TRUTH to the Apostles. It was explained fully what it all means by them, who you know were inspired by the written word. You have no proof whatsoever that the Apostles were inspired but by their word and the support and authentication of the Holy Spirit in the lives of all the beleivers. It is the Body, with Christ as Head that continues to preserve that ONCE Given gospel.
You have accepted this by faith. Why not accept all of what He has given through His body, the Church.

Explain what you mean please.

The Bible was given to and for the Church, His Body. It is why the Church is the ground and pillar of that Truth, because the Church IS Christ. It is why the Church can confess to believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The Church is Christ. They cannot be separated.

 

[Veritas]

sojourner wrote:
It is ONLY through the Holy Spirit that we first learn of the Gospel and it is through that Holy Spirit indwelt in the lives of beleivers that that Truth is maintained.

I'm still deciding whether I agree with you here or not. I believe its through Holy Spirit we learn the Gospel but the Word will always be involved too.

It is maintained not by individuals, but by the Holy Spirit within the whole of the Body. Christ is Head of that Body, of which we are members.

... I dont think it matters whether individuals or the Body is involved. I believe the Holy Spirit can maintain Truth no matter what. To say otherwise diminishes the ability of the Holy Spirit.

Yes, it is in there, but not by our own interpretation of that Truth.

Agreed, in part. In part because I think I know where you are going with this. I agree in that I believe God's interpretation is the correct one.

It was given once and the written cannot be properly understood without the whole Gospel.

Okay, give me an example of part of the Gospel not within the Scriptures.

The Bible as a book has no authority whatsoever. We either submit to the authority that it proclaims or we submit to our interpretation of that authority. This makes each interpretation the authority, not the source which is Christ.

Something doesn't seem right about this statement. How can the Bible not have authority yet proclaim the authority of somethinge else (I'm assuming you are talking about the Body of Christ) unless it has authority over that?

Christ leads us to understand, but not in isolation of the whole. He does not give each individual new revelation that has never been seen before relative to that scripture.

Agreed.

That is why false teachings can be easily discerned in the light of the Gospel, because it must be according to the "rule of faith" that which has always been believed.

As long as "that which has always been believed" is simply not "tradition" but is actually Truth

Saying it is scripture is quite meaningless because historically, all false teachings have been based on scripture. But the Truth was declared not on scripture alone, but on how that scripture has always been believed and understood in light of the Whole Gospel from the beginning.

Oh, but think about what Truth is. Truth is not simply tradition. Traditions can be untruthful. Truth is the basis for logic. I believe if you work logically from the scripture you will come to the correct conclusions. The conclusions themselves may not be "logical" but I see no problem in that because I affirm that there is something beyond logic.

If God really wanted his Gospel completely written, from the very instant it happened, then why did not all of the Aposltes simply sit down and write. Then leave it to those that accepted the reading to attempt to interpret just what he stated.

Well, I believe thats not the way God wanted His Gospel completely written. Who are we to define what is complete and what is not.

It is the Body, with Christ as Head that continues to preserve that ONCE Given gospel. You have accepted this by faith. Why not accept all of what He has given through His body, the Church.

If you are talking about the Roman Catholic Church it is because I see that many traditions take away from Christ. If you take any "tradition" and stand it on its own, it will be devoid of meaning and will take an individual away from Christ.

The Bible was given to and for the Church, His Body. It is why the Church is the ground and pillar of that Truth, because the Church IS Christ. It is why the Church can confess to believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The Church is Christ. They cannot be separated.

Sure, If we are talking about the Roman Catholic Church, I believe some people from that particular denomination may be a part of this One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, but I do not believe the Roman Catholic Church to be the sole or even accurate representation of it

 

[jgredline]

Veritas,

Well, I can't disagree with that. But then God failed all along the way. He should have had Adam write his story and Enoch, Noah etc. It was not until Moses that we, by Jewish accounts have the first five books of the Bible. Not a single book was written as the means. It was all oral, then written. The NT has not single word that is original, having never been spoken prior to the writing. Christ would have had to be the writer of the Gospels. All that He said in not contained therein. Paul in every single case, with Romans the exception, had lived, taught in every place and in some cases was there twice before he even wrote anything. If God really wanted his Gospel completely written, from the very instant it happened, then why did not all of the Aposltes simply sit down and write. Then leave it to those that accepted the reading to attempt to interpret just what he stated.

:o This sure says allot about what you believe.....

 

[Guest]

Veritas,

I'm still deciding whether I agree with you here or not. I believe its through Holy Spirit we learn the Gospel but the Word will always be involved too.

I think you are using the word "Word" differently than the Scriptues. The "Word" is Christ. So if that is how you are using it, then yes, He is definitely involved.
If however, you are using it to define Scripture, then it would not be correct. Scripture and especially the NT is only part of the Gospel.

... I dont think it matters whether individuals or the Body is involved. I believe the Holy Spirit can maintain Truth no matter what. To say otherwise diminishes the ability of the Holy Spirit.

It matters greatly as per scripture. The Holy Spirit does not work in a vaccum. It clearly states He indwells the believer. This is not an external existance, but ontological. We exist in the Body of Christ. We partake of that Body through the Eucharist which gives life to each participant.
That cannot be taken as transcendental in nature.
If He maintains Truth no matter what, it would have no relevance to man. It was, I would believe, maintained before the foundations of the Earth. But it needed to be revealed to man. It was revealed and is maintained through men. Believers who are indwelt and reside in the Body of Christ. So says Scripture.

Agreed, in part. In part because I think I know where you are going with this. I agree in that I believe God's interpretation is the correct one.

Precisely. That is why God, through the Holy Spirit has not permitted any man or group of men to alter the Gospel once Given. He is actively preserving not only His Body in this world, but the Gospel given to the Apostles to proclaim, teach and establish His Body here on this earth. That is why I ONLY believe in the Gospel as given in the beginning. I do not adhere to any man-made gospel that has come down the pike over the centuries. Neither has the Church for 2000 years. It has successfully resisted and eliminated false teachings that have sprung up inthe Church. Paul alluded to this danger and specifically specified the greater danger from within. History has shown he was quite accurate. Could that be the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?

Okay, give me an example of part of the Gospel not within the Scriptures.

How Baptism was instituted put into practice and understood what it means. All the NT does is mention it. The Eucharist is how the Church identifies herself as being unified in Christ. Those who use Sola Scriptura, with only the Lutherans as an exception deny the actual blood and bread as the Body of Christ. Yet this is what is precisely taught and practiced from the beginning. The Didache, a partial document of the early Church believed to have been written toward the end of the first century or very early second describes both of these practices. If written in late first century it was probably written before the Gospels which were last excluding the Gospel of John, Johns Letters and Revelation. Some of the very early Church Fathers wrote about the fall. What constituted the fall in light of the OT which would have been explained by the Apostles.
Not a single sola scripturist, that I know of, but being thousands of views available I surely do not know them all, believe that Christ did not die for all men and save all men from the fall. Yet this teaching goes to the very beginning. It became the basis of understanding of the Incarnation. The understanding of the Trinity is not contained in the Bible. But yet the explanation and the acceptance of the EC of 325 is based on the rule of faith, that it is what had always been believed thus it became the definition of the Trinity.
All of these issues and many, many more have been debated back and forth among sola scripturists and none have been able to align their views with scripture. It is a wholly new innovation doctrine, belief, that had not seen the light of day until someone established a presuposition on something and then prooftexted the scriptural support. This was done by every false teacher in the history of the Church. The Truth has been preserved without change, even with using men to preserve it.
Tell me just how does sola scripture give any evidence of the work of the Holy Spirit. Does the Holy Spirit contradict Himself when He says in the recorded scripture that He gave the Apostles ALL TRUTH. Do you think that the Apostles failed to teach it as instructed? Do you think that thousands of early Christians failed to understand it correctly? Not only that, but failed to understand it from the Apostles from far reaches of the Empire with no easy and quick means to have corroboration of each others teachings. Yet all of this was maintained by the Holy Spirit through these men.
But on the other hand, those using sola scripture, the views they propagate usually does not last their life time. There is always someone better, more intellectual, who thinks they can interpret a book which was not meant to be interpreted in isolation from the whole Gospel, nor exterior to the working of the Holy Spirit.

Something doesn't seem right about this statement. How can the Bible not have authority yet proclaim the authority of somethinge else (I'm assuming you are talking about the Body of Christ) unless it has authority over that?

It proclaims that the Authority is Christ. But yet, everyone who uses sola scriptura asumes that they have recieved some special instruction/revelaton from the Holy Spirit that will shed light on a text. Why would that even be necessary. ALL TRUTH has already been given and II Pet 1:20 denies that the Holy Spirit gives any prophecies to individuals. Not even the Apostles were alone. There were twelve and they all got it right and when they taught it in the far reaches of the Empire they did not alter that understanding. Written records from various saints all record the same teaching. In a day and age that did not have email and satalite communication.
And secondly, It is preserve in the Body of Christ. Christ is Head of that Body. The Holy Spirit, as per scripture, only works within that Body. He indwells believers who reside IN Christ. Ontological again. It is not an external union but organic. He preserves that Gospel through the entire Body. Not through a man or groups of men.

My statement: Christ leads us to understand, but not in isolation of the whole. He does not give each individual new revelation that has never been seen before relative to that scripture.
Your response: Agreed. {/quote] But this is what has happened for 500 years in protestantism using the principle of Sola Scriptura. All these minions of interpretations has never seen the light of day prior to their first exposure of that single individual.
Considering that the Gospel was meant to be universal, for all, to all for all time, it seems that it is quite obvious scripture does not have the authority you think it does. It surely has never been the sole source of faith or practice.
Might also add, that, this holds true for the Roman Catholic Church as well. Since their departure from the historical Church, they have added many things both to Tradition which has become tradition.
They have changed many doctrinal meanings as well from those in the beginning. Why is this?
You have ONE man, or at most a Tribunal of Cardinals, the Magisterium who dictate new doctrines, doctrines that have never been seen before the 10th century. Why do you even think that Protestants believed that this method must be acceptable. The Pope was doing it for 500 years by that time as well. The protestants just went the next step and made it all individuals, not just one who is head of a church organization. Protestants actually were not true sola scripturists at first either. Denominations were created based on varied views, but these denominations for almost 400 years held unified authority to an extent. It is only in the more recent times that interpretations have run amonk. Protestantism will fall in on itself soon from the weight of all these new and innovative doctrines, teachings, ideas, suppositions, presuppositions. All intellectuals attempting to outdo the Apostles in the least and even the Holy Spirit.

[quote:03e73]As long as "that which has always been believed" is simply not "tradition" but is actually Truth

We are ONLY speaking of Tradition. Holy Tradition, that Gospel, All TRUTH, imparted to the Apostles which was proclaimed to all.

Oh, but think about what Truth is. Truth is not simply tradition. Traditions can be untruthful. Truth is the basis for logic. I believe if you work logically from the scripture you will come to the correct conclusions. The conclusions themselves may not be "logical" but I see no problem in that because I affirm that there is something beyond logic.

You are absolutely right. But I am speaking ONLY of Tradition. The Gospel once given. We are not speaking of small tradition here. The separate Orthodox churches each has some traditions that are not shared by others. Some are cultural, if not most. But we are unified in faith and practice, being IN Christ, sharing the Eucharist, in communion with each other because we are in union with Christ. It is the same life being imparted by Christ.

If you believe that, then why for 500 years no protestant group has yet arrived that any unifed Truth. Scripture can be made to say just about anything one desires. That was proven even before Protestants revolted.

Well, I believe thats not the way God wanted His Gospel completely written. Who are we to define what is complete and what is not.

Or how it was imparted and why.

If you are talking about the Roman Catholic Church it is because I see that many traditions take away from Christ. If you take any "tradition" and stand it on its own, it will be devoid of meaning and will take an individual away from Christ.

I'm not speaking of the RCC, but of Orthodoxy.
And that is precisely how I see protestantism. A lot of personal traditions, interpretations which all are leading away from Christ and leading to the individual who made the interpretations. Why do protestants teach, Calvinism, Lutheranism, Wesleyiansim (Methodist). Why all the thousands of names all denoting some variation of practice, belief and faith. It this really ONE Faith, ONE Lord, ONE Baptism?

Sure, If we are talking about the Roman Catholic Church, I believe some people from that particular denomination may be a part of this One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, but I do not believe the Roman Catholic Church to be the sole or even accurate representation of it

[/quote:03e73] I don't either and that is why I am not Roman Catholic.
I also believe that some are in the Body of Christ as are some protestants. But respective of the Gospel and what it has revealed, the Holy Spirit abides in the Church which He established on this earth. He called it out of the world, to be a beacon but also a safehaven. We know where He dwells, because He revealed that to us in written scripture. But we know He may also operate in other ways, by other means, but has not revealed that to us.

 

[Veritas]

[quote96ea]Veritas wrote:
I believe its through Holy Spirit we learn the Gospel but the Word will always be involved too.

sojourner wrote:
I think you are using the word "Word" differently than the Scriptues. The "Word" is Christ. So if that is how you are using it, then yes, He is definitely involved.
If however, you are using it to define Scripture, then it would not be correct. Scripture and especially the NT is only part of the Gospel.[/quote96ea]

I see scripture as the rule; the standard, containing everything we need to know about the Gospel. In a certain sense, I do believe the Scripture to be the Word (as in Christ)--When we read it and understand it with the guidance of the Holy Spirit it becomes the Word (Christ) speaking to us.

And how else can I relate with a brother in Christ like I'm assuming and praying you are, without Scriptures? All traditions within different denominations are different... I believe "traditions" are fine when they line up with what Scriptures say, and when they are done by the individual in a way that is glorifying to God.

This brings up another thing. What exactly do you mean by "The Tradition"? If you are talking about simply having a relationship with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ then yeah... I agree with it, I'm right there with ya brother. I just have a hard time understanding "tradition" in much of a favorable light considering Jesus was tearing them down all the time (for good reason).

You mentioned the Lords Supper and Baptism and I believe enough is said about both in the Bible. I think both are very important, edifying, and a means of grace from God, but I don't believe either are essential to salvation. Of course, baptism of the Holy Spirit is essential, but I don't believe that always coincides with a water baptism; just look at the thief beside Jesus on the cross who was saved without the lords supper or water baptism.

I agree with you that the Holy Spirit lives within us, and that we are in the Body of Christ among other believers. But I do not think the Body of Christ is soley represented by any one denomination, Protestant, Roman Catholic, or Orthodox. I agree, as you said, that believers together are the the Body of Christ and that he is the head, but remember that together, we are also Christs bride. Remember what kind of bride we are, and why Christ had to do what He did for His bride.

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. Ephesians 5:25-27

Yes, we are the Body of Christ, but we are also Christ's bride, and as such we are not perfect and need to be cleansed by Him. It is still only through Him that the Church is what it is.

I don't understand your objection to me saying that the Holy Spirit maintains Truth in an individual, because of the fact that the Holy Spirit resides within us and because that ultimately IS personal. It is between you and Jesus and no one else on judgement day. Same for me, same for everyone.

And I think all believers can say that they believe in the Gospel as given in the beginning. Its written down in the Bible. Maybe I'm just an optimist but I do see a unified belief throughout believers in different denominations. I do see One Faith, One, Lord, One Baptism. Yes, some get caught up on certain thinkers like Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc. or on certain people like the Pope, or Mary, or whoever. And yes, a false tradition can be made out of that. But I would hope (and I have seen in the cases of Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli ) that each one is pointing back to Christ. So that we can look at each one of those thinkers or individuals, hear what they say, and follow the finger that points back to the Gospel and understand the Gospel for ourselves through the Holy Spirit.

 

[francisdesales]

Veritas,

...I don't either and that is why I am not Roman Catholic. I also believe that some are in the Body of Christ as are some protestants. But respective of the Gospel and what it has revealed, the Holy Spirit abides in the Church which He established on this earth. He called it out of the world, to be a beacon but also a safehaven. We know where He dwells, because He revealed that to us in written scripture. But we know He may also operate in other ways, by other means, but has not revealed that to us.

Sojourner,

I enjoyed your post. Makes a lot of sense. We share a lot of common themes. Also, I agree that the Catholic Church is not the sole and complete Body of Christ. Nor does the Church teach that - but only that it is the fullness of it. Thus, at Vatican 2, when completing what was said at Vatican 1 about the Church, she said that the Body of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church (rather than ...IS the Catholic Church). It is a subtle but important distinction that quite frankly, is Scriptural.

John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part. Mark 9:38-40

Regards

 

[Guest]

Veritas,

And how else can I relate with a brother in Christ like I'm assuming and praying you are, without Scriptures? All traditions within different denominations are different... I believe "traditions" are fine when they line up with what Scriptures say, and when they are done by the individual in a way that is glorifying to God.

this is true, all traditions are different and that is the problem. That is why they cannot align with each other. We are only speaking of the Holy Tradition. Relative to Holy Tradition, traditions are all outside of scripture. These are customs, nuances, normative traditions that one finds in all different churches. That is immaterial to anything. However, Protestants have made Holy Tradition into their own traditions.
Lets go back to the examples I posted in my last post. Baptism, it was set as a practice by the Apostles as they established each Church. Same for the Eurcharist. Paul explained that it was the Body and Blood of Christ that they were partaking. It is an actual participation in that sacrifice. It is exactly as Paul is stating it. It is so explained by all the very earliest Church Fathers from many different areas of that time. However, most protestants make this into a true memory concept, like a birthday party. We simply remember an historical event, like the Fourth of July. Now, if one would actually reinact this, for example, the battle of Bunker Hill, which is actually done in Boston, then it is more like the Orthodox concept of participation, not a memory.
Now, Baptism. Romans 6 is the Baptism Chapter. It is describing regenerative baptism. Not only the meaning, the form and the intent but the practice is all recorded many times over from the very earliest.
And I could go on and on.

This brings up another thing. What exactly do you mean by "The Tradition"? If you are talking about simply having a relationship with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ then yeah... I agree with it, I'm right there with ya brother. I just have a hard time understanding "tradition" in much of a favorable light considering Jesus was tearing them down all the time (for good reason).

Tradition is all of the Gospel once given. It is the Oral and practical establishment of the All Truth that was imparted to the Apostels to establish His Church here on earth.
Yes, Jesus was constantly berating all the traditions of men. Paul also warns against the traditions of men. History has proven him correct 100%.

You mentioned the Lords Supper and Baptism and I believe enough is said about both in the Bible. I think both are very important, edifying, and a means of grace from God, but I don't believe either are essential to salvation.

That is precisely why Tradition is what it is and why protestants have made it a tradition. The Bible is quite emphatic on both that they are salvfic. We are concretely changed by baptism, in fact, regenerated. How more salvfic is that.
The Eucharist, Jesus, plainly stated that IF you do NOT eat of my flesh and blood, you have no life in you. How emphatic is that? How salvfic is that?

Jesus did not say, repent and if you would like, I prefer that you be baptised. If you do, it is just a reminder that I died, was buried, and resurrected for your sakes. NO, we are partakers of the Divine Nature, II Pet 1:4. We are living IN Christ. This is not an external existance, but ontological. It is organic in nature. Christ assumed our nature so that we could partake in the Divine Nature.
It is ALL salvfic. We are being changed, transformed, renewed, regenerated, cleansed, sanctified, made holy, becoming the Mind of Christ. We are in the process of being healed.

Of course, baptism of the Holy Spirit is essential

Again, Tradition backs up Scripture here. One cannot even receive the Holy Spirit UNLESS one is baptised. We recieve the Holy Spirit, the indwelling Holy Spirit as a result of being baptised INTO Christ. But that is again 'Tradition made into tradition.

but I don't believe that always coincides with a water baptism; just look at the thief beside Jesus on the cross who was saved without the lords supper or water baptism.

We follow the rule, not the exception. One can also argue that the NT had not yet taken effect. Christ had not yet arisen and the Holy Spirit had not come since Christ had not Ascended as yet.
We leave the exceptions to Him. He is the Judge. We are instructed to follow His teachings.

I agree with you that the Holy Spirit lives within us, and that we are in the Body of Christ among other believers. But I do not think the Body of Christ is soley represented by any one denomination, Protestant, Roman Catholic, or Orthodox.

It is represented by the Church He founded in this world, which is embodied in Orthodoxy, or the Orthodox Church.
I know you will disagree, but you cannot disprove it historically, nor scripturally. But the Orthodox Church is not a denomination, it is not even an organization. The Orthodox Church is a membership of autocephalous Churchs, who could be called denominations, or definitely are organizations, who are United as ONE IN Christ. One Lord, One Baptism. We are unifed in faith and practice, IN Christ. That is the unity spoken of in John 17 of Christ with the Trinity, with the Disciples, with His Church and He prays that all the world would come to know Him and thereby be united IN HIM.

I agree, as you said, that believers together are the the Body of Christ and that he is the head, but remember that together, we are also Christs bride. Remember what kind of bride we are, and why Christ had to do what He did for His bride.

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. Ephesians 5:25-27

Yes, we are the Body of Christ, but we are also Christ's bride, and as such we are not perfect and need to be cleansed by Him. It is still only through Him that the Church is what it is.

That is true, we constantly sin and are in need of constant forgiveness. We also sin against others and they sin against us. We need to forgive them and seek their forgiveness as well. We are continually being sanctified. We will never be perfect in this life. But that does not mean we can just forfeit the goal and admit defeat and slump away. I can do all things through Him who strengthens me.

I don't understand your objection to me saying that the Holy Spirit maintains Truth in an individual, because of the fact that the Holy Spirit resides within us and because that ultimately IS personal. It is between you and Jesus and no one else on judgement day. Same for me, same for everyone.

We have All Truth given to us 2000 years ago. The Holy Spirit leads us to that Truth. We accept that Truth, His Truth, and yes, then that Truth is maintained in that individual.
But the Holy Spirit does not give you Truth in the sense of new revelations as He did the Apostles. This is what Sola Scriptura has done for 500 years. Introduced a lot of personal, man-made interpretations, or new truths, that were never given from the beginning. That is the test of false doctrine all through the ages. It is why in every single instance, individual truth, or even group truth has always ended up being false, or not from the beginning.

Now, what I seem to hear you actually saying here, is the Holy Spirit leads each and every person differently into personal truth. If that were so, then that also contradicts scripture. There is ONLY ONE way to Christ. That way is guarded, protected by the Holy Spirit as ONE FAITH, not hundreds of ways through a myriad of many truths and faiths.

And I think all believers can say that they believe in the Gospel as given in the beginning. Its written down in the Bible.

But protestants have not come close to showing that. All they have done is taken the written portion, isolated it from the whole, the context in which it was given, and then imposed their interpretations upon it. That is not the Gospel from the beginning. None a single thing in Protestantism can be linked to the beginning. For some they have accepted some early Church teachings, Incarnation, or the Trinity, though in practice and theology, this is not true for many either.
The Bible specifically is not what is being preserved and guarded. It is the Gospel once given, within His Body where the Holy Spirit works within the members of that Body to preserve both.

Its written down in the Bible. Maybe I'm just an optimist but I do see a unified belief throughout believers in different denominations. I do see One Faith, One, Lord, One Baptism.

These are words written down in the Bible. But the Bible is not a treatise, a manual, nor a theology book, nor a systmatic practice of faith.
You may see something unified, but all I see is a hodge podge, a very confused mass who are scruying around trying to find Truth, when we have had it for 2000 years. We are not supposed to spend our lives trying to find it, but accept it and live it. Christianity is a way of life. It is a life to be lived IN Christ. If you do not know precisely where that road is, nor how to get on it, you may miss it during your life.

But I would hope (and I have seen in the cases of Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli ) that each one is pointing back to Christ.

But which Christ. That of Calvin or Luther or even Joseph Smith, or Eddy?

So that we can look at each one of those thinkers or individuals, hear what they say, and follow the finger that points back to the Gospel and understand the Gospel for ourselves through the Holy Spirit

That is just it, it is their interpretation of that ONLY written portion. Then it is your either all acceptance their formulations, or you will only accept some, then rely on your own intellect to ascertain the rest. It becomes YOUR Gospel, according to Veritas or Veritasism. This is exactly what Paul was exhorting the Corinthians, it is not Apollo, or any other, but Christ.
It cannot be of the Holy Spirit. Is the Holy Spirit confused? Why is not the Bible authoritative and if the Holy Spirit, it should be uniform every single time.

 

[Guest]

francisdesales,

I enjoyed your post. Makes a lot of sense. We share a lot of common themes. Also, I agree that the Catholic Church is not the sole and complete Body of Christ. Nor does the Church teach that - but only that it is the fullness of it. Thus, at Vatican 2, when completing what was said at Vatican 1 about the Church, she said that the Body of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church (rather than ...IS the Catholic Church). It is a subtle but important distinction that quite frankly, is Scriptural.

yes, as yet we share a lot in common. But that commonality is fading fast as tome goes on. The RCC has made many changes what was Tradition and has also changed some doctrinal understandings and added several. There is still always hope that unity can be achieved. It may be only a short time and the Coptic and Assyrian Churches will be united once again with the Orthodox. Things move slowly. It may be another quarter century, but hopefully much less. Maybe the RCC as well. Many RCC's are entering the Orthodox faith currently as individuals as well as protestants, which I am one of them.

 

[francisdesales]

francisdesales,

yes, as yet we share a lot in common. But that commonality is fading fast as tome goes on. The RCC has made many changes what was Tradition and has also changed some doctrinal understandings and added several. There is still always hope that unity can be achieved. It may be only a short time and the Coptic and Assyrian Churches will be united once again with the Orthodox. Things move slowly. It may be another quarter century, but hopefully much less. Maybe the RCC as well. Many RCC's are entering the Orthodox faith currently as individuals as well as protestants, which I am one of them.

Well, congrats on the move to Orthodoxy! A beautiful and apostolic Church. We share so many things. I have had a number of discussions with my Orthodox brothers and it is amazing how much we agree on things. They just joined right in during the Protestant - Catholic discussions as if they had never left! It was pretty neat watching them step into the breach. Several of them hadn't realized how far they (Protestants) have fallen astray, and had a new appreciation for the Catholic Church and its defense of Holy Mother Church. Of course, we still disagree on some issues, esp. the Papacy's role in the Church, and the filioque still bothers them.

It is good to see your defense of Tradition. It brings back fond memories that I have at another forum where me and this other Orthodox guy from Yugoslavia defended Holy Mother Church vs. Calvinists and other assorted separated brethern. I was constantly amazed on how little was lost in our nearly 1000 year separation. He also developed an appreciation for the Catholic Church (before, all he could talk about was how we had fallen astray, but his opinion changed after several months of standing side by side with me). He seemed to be one of the better defenders of the Catholic faith (pre-Schism Catholic!)

As to "changing", we tend to look at it as "development", much like the mustard tree that Christ speaks of in His parable. The Spirit guides the Church to all truth - this was evident when the Church was united and continues to this day. There is no reason why Christ stopped guiding the Church at 1054. I am happy that the Church IS getting closer together at the grass root level, from my understanding within other forums.

Again, God bless. It is wonderful to see a person coming into a closer union with Christ through His sacramental and liturgical action. It is literally heaven on earth, as they describe our Divine Liturgy. I am fascinated by the Orthodox Liturgy. I especially like the symbolism of the icon and icon screen (I forget the actual name, but it separates the sanctuary from the rest of the people during Mass). I think us Catholics need to remember what happens during the Mass - sometimes, there are just too many "extraordinary ministers" running around up there... But that's me personally.

Brother in Christ

 

[Guest]

francisdesales,

As to "changing", we tend to look at it as "development", much like the mustard tree that Christ speaks of in His parable. The Spirit guides the Church to all truth - this was evident when the Church was united and continues to this day. There is no reason why Christ stopped guiding the Church at 1054. I am happy that the Church IS getting closer together at the grass root level, from my understanding within other forums.

I know that the RCC looks at it as development. The Truth does not need development. It needs to be defended, safeguarded and defined as Truth when false teachings encrouch.
This development took off after the Roman See split from the Church in 1054. Not only is there no reason the Holy Spirit stopped, but we know He continues to preserve both His Body, His Church and the Truth. The Orthodox have remained faithful to that Truth once given.
I think you are right in that in the grass roots the RCC members have seen that the Truth lies in the Orthodox Church. That is why the large numbers that are coming over. I see this as the only hope for those in the RCC Church. The Pope is not going to give up his office, nor all the power, riches, glory he now possessess.

That wall of icons is called the iconostasis.

 

[Veritas]

sorjourner, I'm not really in much disagreement with you about the importance of Baptism and the Lords Supper.

sorjourner wrote:
Jesus did not say, repent and if you would like, I prefer that you be baptised. If you do, it is just a reminder that I died, was buried, and resurrected for your sakes. NO, we are partakers of the Divine Nature, II Pet 1:4. We are living IN Christ. This is not an external existance, but ontological. It is organic in nature. Christ assumed our nature so that we could partake in the Divine Nature. It is ALL salvfic. We are being changed, transformed, renewed, regenerated, cleansed, sanctified, made holy, becoming the Mind of Christ. We are in the process of being healed.

You know, I agree with this. I'm just saying that if a person suddenly believed, then lost their life before being able to get a water baptism or recieve the Lords Supper--they would still be saved. The theif on the cross next to Jesus was.

[quote:39a3b]Veritas wrote:
I agree with you that the Holy Spirit lives within us, and that we are in the Body of Christ among other believers. But I do not think the Body of Christ is soley represented by any one denomination, Protestant, Roman Catholic, or Orthodox.

It is represented by the Church He founded in this world, which is embodied in Orthodoxy, or the Orthodox Church. I know you will disagree, but you cannot disprove it historically, nor scripturally. But the Orthodox Church is not a denomination, it is not even an organization. The Orthodox Church is a membership of autocephalous Churchs, who could be called denominations, or definitely are organizations, who are United as ONE IN Christ. One Lord, One Baptism. We are unifed in faith and practice, IN Christ. That is the unity spoken of in John 17 of Christ with the Trinity, with the Disciples, with His Church and He prays that all the world would come to know Him and thereby be united IN HIM.[/quote:39a3b]

Well great! I really don't know enough about the Orthodox church to really disagree much with it at the moment. The only thing I know about it is from talking with you. But I still do disagree in that I belive that Christ's Church is embodied in churches outside the Orthodox church too. I don't believe His church to be limited to any earthly representation of it.

sojourner wrote:
... we constantly sin and are in need of constant forgiveness. We also sin against others and they sin against us. We need to forgive them and seek their forgiveness as well. We are continually being sanctified. We will never be perfect in this life. But that does not mean we can just forfeit the goal and admit defeat and slump away. I can do all things through Him who strengthens me.

I agree, amen.

sorjourner wrote:
Now, what I seem to hear you actually saying here, is the Holy Spirit leads each and every person differently into personal truth. If that were so, then that also contradicts scripture. There is ONLY ONE way to Christ. That way is guarded, protected by the Holy Spirit as ONE FAITH, not hundreds of ways through a myriad of many truths and faiths.

I apologize if I led you to believe that I was stressing that all personal truths are valid. I am quite opposed to that. Jesus is the ONLY way to the Father. We know this, Jesus said:

I am the way and the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father expcept through me. John 14:6

There is only ONE Truth. All is NOT relative. Now what you said is that there is only one way to Christ, I'm a bit curious about that. Are you speaking of traditions and doctrines now? I believe the way to Christ is simply a personal relationship with Him (after being born again).

Let me rephrase what you thought I was saying and contrast it with what I was saying:

I am NOT saying that the Holy Spirit leads each and every person differently into a different personal truth.

What I AM saying is that the Holy Spirit leads each and every person differently into HIS UNIQUE TRUTH.

sorjourner wrote:
The Bible specifically is not what is being preserved and guarded. It is the Gospel once given, within His Body where the Holy Spirit works within the members of that Body to preserve both.

The two (the Bible and the Gospel) are hand in hand arent they? Or maybe I should ask, what do you know about the Gospel that I don't?

sorjourner wrote:
You may see something unified, but all I see is a hodge podge, a very confused mass who are scruying around trying to find Truth, when we have had it for 2000 years. We are not supposed to spend our lives trying to find it, but accept it and live it. Christianity is a way of life. It is a life to be lived IN Christ. If you do not know precisely where that road is, nor how to get on it, you may miss it during your life.

Well, I'm not worried. I'm IN Christ. But I am worried about others, so I spread the Good News

[quote:39a3b]Veritas wrote:
But I would hope (and I have seen in the cases of Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli ) that each one is pointing back to Christ.

But which Christ. That of Calvin or Luther or even Joseph Smith, or Eddy?[/quote:39a3b]

Can't you discern between Calvin and Joseph Smith? Or Luther and Joseph Smith. God gave you a brain and the Holy Spirit to guide you and give you discernment. It's rather obvious who is onto the Truth, and who is not.

sorjourner wrote:
That is just it, it is their interpretation of that ONLY written portion. Then it is your either all acceptance their formulations, or you will only accept some, then rely on your own intellect to ascertain the rest. It becomes YOUR Gospel, according to Veritas or Veritasism. This is exactly what Paul was exhorting the Corinthians, it is not Apollo, or any other, but Christ.
It cannot be of the Holy Spirit. Is the Holy Spirit confused? Why is not the Bible authoritative and if the Holy Spirit, it should be uniform every single time.

I don't think its our place to determine how things should be. But, yes, it is MY Good News, I hope and pray it's YOUR Good News, and then we can SHARE the Good News with others.

And no, again, I'm not saying that truth is relative. It's not. Intellect plays a part, but ultimately the Holy Spirit guides to the Truth. You can have a personal relationship with the Truth. The Lords Supper is a part of that. There are thinkers of the faith that have harmony in their works even though they happen to be part of different denominations.

And I do affirm Truth. Which reminds me, I have a question for you about something I just learned about the RCC that I sincerely disagree with. Your church seems to have close ties with the RCC so I am curious. The RCC claims that some Muslims, Hindus, Buhddists, or people of other faiths are saved. I find this a HUGE diservice to the Truth. It's a direct contradiction to John 14:6. It is very relativistic in thinking. Do you agree with the RCC's stance on this?

 

[Guest]

Veritas,

You know, I agree with this. I'm just saying that if a person suddenly believed, then lost their life before being able to get a water baptism or recieve the Lords Supper--they would still be saved. The theif on the cross next to Jesus was.

I agree with you as well. But, I also stated that this is an exception, not the rule. I would not be so bold as to take God for granted in that I would have had the opportunity to be baptised and that thinking it was not necessary, nor something He actually commanded, to think I might still be saved.
God will do what God desires. If He has other means by which men can enter into His Kingdom, other than Baptism, so be it. But that is not what He has revealed and commanded of all believers.
It is the very defintion the Bible uses for a believer to be a believer.

Well great! I really don't know enough about the Orthodox church to really disagree much with it at the moment. The only thing I know about it is from talking with you. But I still do disagree in that I belive that Christ's Church is embodied in churches outside the Orthodox church too. I don't believe His church to be limited to any earthly representation of it.

It might not be. But that is not what He also has revealed in Scripture. The Church, as it is manifested in this world is not a nebulous, mythical entity that has no physicality. The Church, is the embodiment of Christ. It is the extension of His Incarnation. Christ became man, a physical man, assumed our human natures in every respect. Why? Because we are human beings, not a Spirit as God.
Your understanding of the Church does not follow the Christological understanding of who He is as well as the Trinity. Everything in Christianity is tied to those two doctrines. Also, all the commands that Christ gave to His Church, is totally impossible unless there is a physical manifestation of it.
What you are actually proposing is that Christ is many bodies. There can be many varied faiths, all not quite His Faith, the ONE Faith which He imparted and is preserving. He is not preserving a multitude of immitations of faiths, or churches or similtudes of faiths.
There is a heaven part of His Church, it is called the Church Triumphant. The Church is both. Christ is Lord of the Living, not the dead. We beleive in the communion of the Saints. Both here and in Heaven. We worship with the Church in Heaven every time the Liturgy is done.

There is only ONE Truth. All is NOT relative. Now what you said is that there is only one way to Christ, I'm a bit curious about that. Are you speaking of traditions and doctrines now? I believe the way to Christ is simply a personal relationship with Him (after being born again).

I'm speaking of Holy Tradition, the ALL TRUTH given to the saints for all men for all time.

If it only relies on a personal relationship without the requirements that Christ demands, it has no meaning. This is why every personal interpretation also carries with it membership in the Body of Christ. You are simply placing yourself in that Body by your declaration. So have the Jehovah Witnessess, So have the Mormons as just what you would call extreme edges of faith, but their faith is also based on Scripture as well, though each has additional support.
However, Christ imparted His Authority to His Church, His Body, of which He is head. Part of that authority is to bind or loose here on earth THROUGH HIM. Excommunication is not an idle event. It has meaning within the Body of Christ. Declaration of heresies is real within that Body of Christ. Can your mythical Body perfom these functions in perserving that faith, and Church?

What I AM saying is that the Holy Spirit leads each and every person differently into HIS UNIQUE TRUTH.

I would say that is not quite correct. The Holy Spirit works in the lives all every human being, leading them to that Truth. Once that person enters into that relationship, becomes a member of the Body of Christ, that person is lead to understand Truth. That leading is different for each, but it is ONE Truth. The difference is the word "into". One is lead 'to' Truth, then lead to 'understand' Truth. That Truth is a given, All Truth was given to the Disciples 2000 years ago.

The two (the Bible and the Gospel) are hand in hand arent they? Or maybe I should ask, what do you know about the Gospel that I don't?

that might be obvious already from our discussion. The Bible is part of the Gospel. It is both, the Bible in Tradition. It is not the Bible and Tradition which is how the RCC views it. Nor is it only Bible as Protestants view it. But the Bible is IN Tradtion. The Holy Tradition. The Bible is only the part that got written down by the Apostles. Must more was written, recorded from the Oral teachings that occured before anything was written that we have in the Canon. All the fullness of the Gospel is preserved, guarded by the Holy Spirit within Christ's Body.

Well, I'm not worried. I'm IN Christ. But I am worried about others, so I spread the Good News

His Gospel according to Him, or only His written portion with your interpretation. All the rest of the different faiths say the same thing, including the Mormons.

Can't you discern between Calvin and Joseph Smith? Or Luther and Joseph Smith. God gave you a brain and the Holy Spirit to guide you and give you discernment. It's rather obvious who is onto the Truth, and who is not.

And that is precisely why I am Orthodox. You say obvious, but I'll bet all those hundreds of different faiths say the same thing as well. It is quite obvious to them that their personal interpretation is that of the Holy Spirit, as if the Holy Spirit is only right with them and all others wrong. You must remember, you are using the same method to arrive at your truth. Scripture and your interpretation. So far, that number is becoming quite burdensome as to who each thinks is obvious.
To be quite frank, I can also discern the vast difference between Calvinism and Orthodoxy.

I don't think its our place to determine how things should be. But, yes, it is MY Good News, I hope and pray it's YOUR Good News, and then we can SHARE the Good News with others.

It can never be my Gospel. I accept the Gospel of Christ. It is His Gospel that I proclaim, not mine.

And no, again, I'm not saying that truth is relative. It's not. Intellect plays a part, but ultimately the Holy Spirit guides to the Truth. You can have a personal relationship with the Truth. The Lords Supper is a part of that. There are thinkers of the faith that have harmony in their works even though they happen to be part of different denominations.

Yes, Guides to the Truth, but He guides all men to that Truth. One must accept it completely. There is no room for personal reservations, or only take part of that Truth. He also guides us to understand that Truth. There is no question that many of all faiths have a part of that True faith, but they do not have the fullness of that Truth. Otherwise as a former protestant I would never have arrived to Orthodoxy.

And I do affirm Truth. Which reminds me, I have a question for you about something I just learned about the RCC that I sincerely disagree with. Your church seems to have close ties with the RCC so I am curious. The RCC claims that some Muslims, Hindus, Buhddists, or people of other faiths are saved. I find this a HUGE diservice to the Truth. It's a direct contradiction to John 14:6. It is very relativistic in thinking. Do you agree with the RCC's stance on this?

First, what do you mean by close ties?
Context is everything. But in general, no I do not personally believe that. But you can have a fallen Hindo,for example, who though no longer a faithful Hindu, and having not ever heard of the Gospel as yet, would fall under the terminology and saving Grace of God that Paul speaks about in Romans 1-2. After all, it is only in the Church Age that the term Gospel is used and we are the ONLY ones that have witnessed the Word become Flesh. Many, possibly in Abraham's time will be saved, who did not know God as the Isrealites. After all, Abraham did not know God as the Isrealites did.
John 14:6 is referencing those who have heard the Gospel, the same way we have. We will not be judged by our consciences, but on what we did with the fullness of the Truth, imparted by Christ to mankind. Those who heard it will be judged by it.

In the end, we are not the Judge of mankind. We can only know what our relationship is with Christ.

 

[francisdesales]

francisdesales,

I know that the RCC looks at it as development. The Truth does not need development. It needs to be defended, safeguarded and defined as Truth when false teachings encrouch.
This development took off after the Roman See split from the Church in 1054. Not only is there no reason the Holy Spirit stopped, but we know He continues to preserve both His Body, His Church and the Truth. The Orthodox have remained faithful to that Truth once given.
I think you are right in that in the grass roots the RCC members have seen that the Truth lies in the Orthodox Church. That is why the large numbers that are coming over. I see this as the only hope for those in the RCC Church. The Pope is not going to give up his office, nor all the power, riches, glory he now possessess.

sojourner

What is one Church's "remaining steadfast to the Traditions" is another's "changing the doctrines once given". I think in the "family feud", some have forgotten that theology in the East and the West developed slightly differently. There are slight differences in a number of subjects that we hold to. In most cases, we can legitimately say they are complimentary views - a different way of saying the same thing. I am in agreement with that and do not wish to nitpick between the East's view over the West's view on theosis and so forth...

I am not going to argue about the faithfulness of the East or the West. It is pointless. The East admits that the West is an Apostolic Church and vice versus. Neither Church uses the "heresy" word for the other, but rather, schism. There is no point in arguing who left whom. However, if, as you say, the Spirit guides and guards the Church, He will continue to do so. Thus, the development found in the West is legitimately guided by the Spirit. No theologian in Orthodoxy is about to say that the Bishop of Rome is teaching error. This is unheard of and, as they will admit, has not happened during the period of united Christendom. If God guided the Church under the visible shepherd of Peter the first 1000 years, I don't think we can say that He has now stopped doing so, despite your personal feelings towards the particular Popes that have held the office.

Large numbers are entering the Catholic Church, as well. Praise God that our Churches are growing and more are coming to Christ through the Eucharist, the ultimate sign of unity.

That wall of icons is called the iconostasis.

Thanks. I wasn't sure on the spelling. I went to Washington DC and went to the Immaculate Conception Basillica and it had a side altar dedicated to the Ruthenian Eastern Catholic Church, I think. Beautiful Liturgy.

Brother in Christ

 

[Veritas]

sojourner wrote:
But that is not what He also has revealed in Scripture. The Church, as it is manifested in this world is not a nebulous, mythical entity that has no physicality. The Church, is the embodiment of Christ. It is the extension of His Incarnation. Christ became man, a physical man, assumed our human natures in every respect. Why? Because we are human beings, not a Spirit as God.

You've misunderstood what I've meant. People are physical, therefore the church is physical in that sense. But...

...true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth. John 4:23-24

Only God sees who is worshiping in sprit and in truth, that is the invisible (not mythical) church I speak of.

sojourner wrote:
Your understanding of the Church does not follow the Christological understanding of who He is as well as the Trinity. Everything in Christianity is tied to those two doctrines.

What two doctrines? Could you explain them please? Preferably in a simple manner.

sojourner wrote:
What you are actually proposing is that Christ is many bodies. There can be many varied faiths, all not quite His Faith, the ONE Faith which He imparted and is preserving. He is not preserving a multitude of immitations of faiths, or churches or similtudes of faiths.

We're not perfect. We are still growing into Him who is the Head. Ephesians 4:15 But at the same time, no, I'm not proposing that Christ is many bodies. Rather, there are many parts to His body. And again, I do NOT mean this in a relativistic way.

All who have been born again and have a relationship with Jesus make up the different parts of His body.

But, please, keep the following in mind:

For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. 1 Corinthians 13:9-12

sojourner wrote:
If it only relies on a personal relationship without the requirements that Christ demands, it has no meaning.

What requirements? He saved us.

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast. Ephesians 2:8-9

sojourner wrote:
You are simply placing yourself in that Body by your declaration. So have the Jehovah Witnessess, So have the Mormons as just what you would call extreme edges of faith, but their faith is also based on Scripture as well, though each has additional support.

Yes, I declare Jesus my Lord and Savior and I worship Him in spirit and in truth. The denominations you've mentioned (the Jehovah Witnessess and the Mormons) firstly, do NOT have a reasonable outworking from Scriptures. And this can be proven because "reason" is absolute. After all, "reason" has it's foundation in Truth (and that is absolute). In addition to that, and more importantly, the Holy Spirit gives discernment on such matters...

I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. As for you, the anointing you recieved from Him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit - just as it has taught you, remain in Him. 1 John 2:26-27

sojourner wrote:
However, Christ imparted His Authority to His Church, His Body, of which He is head. Part of that authority is to bind or loose here on earth THROUGH HIM. Excommunication is not an idle event. It has meaning within the Body of Christ. Declaration of heresies is real within that Body of Christ. Can your mythical Body perfom these functions in perserving that faith, and Church?

Seems like a power trip going on to me. Does your church claim to have the power to take away people's salvation?

[quote:1aea7]Veritas wrote:
...Or maybe I should ask, what do you know about the Gospel that I don't?

sojourner replied:
that might be obvious already from our discussion. The Bible is part of the Gospel. It is both, the Bible in Tradition. It is not the Bible and Tradition which is how the RCC views it. Nor is it only Bible as Protestants view it. But the Bible is IN Tradtion. The Holy Tradition. The Bible is only the part that got written down by the Apostles. Must more was written, recorded from the Oral teachings that occured before anything was written that we have in the Canon. All the fullness of the Gospel is preserved, guarded by the Holy Spirit within Christ's Body. [/quote:1aea7]

That didn't really answer my question. Why aren't you sharing the Gospel that you know about that I don't? Can you answer me succintly what is not included in the Bible?

[quote:1aea7]Veritas wrote:
Well, I'm not worried. I'm IN Christ. But I am worried about others, so I spread the Good News

sojouner wrote:
His Gospel according to Him, or only His written portion with your interpretation. All the rest of the different faiths say the same thing, including the Mormons.[/quote:1aea7]

Yes, I am spreading His Gospel according to Him and His Word. Ultimately, you don't NEED to depend on what others in your church tell you as I've shown by 1 John 2:26-27. The Holy Spirit makes it plain to you and you should be able to discern the Truth within your church as well.

[quote:1aea7]Veritas wrote:
Can't you discern between Calvin and Joseph Smith? Or Luther and Joseph Smith. God gave you a brain and the Holy Spirit to guide you and give you discernment. It's rather obvious who is onto the Truth, and who is not.

sojourner wrote:
And that is precisely why I am Orthodox. You say obvious, but I'll bet all those hundreds of different faiths say the same thing as well. It is quite obvious to them that their personal interpretation is that of the Holy Spirit, as if the Holy Spirit is only right with them and all others wrong. You must remember, you are using the same method to arrive at your truth. Scripture and your interpretation. [/quote:1aea7]

It is not the same method. You must remember what "Truth" is. When you use 'reason' or 'logic' or 'truth' you are NOT using something that is relative. Even that which we know as a "rational principle" is part of His Truth. Much ground can be made in discernment based on this principle alone. The method is NOT the same with beliefs outside the realm of "Truth". They do not even use the fundamentals of "Truth" as a method to arrive at their conclusions.

sojourner wrote:
So far, that number is becoming quite burdensome as to who each thinks is obvious. To be quite frank, I can also discern the vast difference between Calvinism and Orthodoxy.

I'm sorry that's burdensome for you. But ultimately, remember this:

Jesus said, "for whoever is not against you is for you." Luke 9:50

[quote:1aea7]Veritas wrote:
I don't think its our place to determine how things should be. But, yes, it is MY Good News, I hope and pray it's YOUR Good News, and then we can SHARE the Good News with others.

sojourner wrote:
It can never be my Gospel. I accept the Gospel of Christ. It is His Gospel that I proclaim, not mine. [/quote:1aea7]

I meant His Good News is Good News to me; that's why I said MY Gospel.

sojourner wrote:
Yes, Guides to the Truth, but He guides all men to that Truth. One must accept it completely. There is no room for personal reservations, or only take part of that Truth. He also guides us to understand that Truth. There is no question that many of all faiths have a part of that True faith, but they do not have the fullness of that Truth. Otherwise as a former protestant I would never have arrived to Orthodoxy.

Well I hope you are born again and have a personal relationship with Jesus rather than just having a set of rituals and mere men you follow there at that church.

sojourner wrote:
First, what do you mean by close ties? Context is everything. But in general, no I do not personally believe that. But you can have a fallen Hindo,for example, who though no longer a faithful Hindu, and having not ever heard of the Gospel as yet, would fall under the terminology and saving Grace of God that Paul speaks about in Romans 1-2.

What do you really mean by this? Explain what you mean please.

sojourner wrote:
After all, it is only in the Church Age that the term Gospel is used and we are the ONLY ones that have witnessed the Word become Flesh. Many, possibly in Abraham's time will be saved, who did not know God as the Isrealites. After all, Abraham did not know God as the Isrealites did. John 14:6 is referencing those who have heard the Gospel, the same way we have. We will not be judged by our consciences, but on what we did with the fullness of the Truth, imparted by Christ to mankind. Those who heard it will be judged by it.

So, by holding this view, it means that you do not believe Jesus is always the Truth, the Way, and the Life. Apparently, for you, He's not for those who have not heard the Gospel. THAT is relativism. Which is NOT the Truth.

sojourner wrote:
In the end, we are not the Judge of mankind. We can only know what our relationship is with Christ.

Yes, this is true, but we also know what Truth is and will always be. Jesus.