Fair enough. Perhaps I'll do a little bit more research on those topics before bringing it up again.Quote:
My friend, you have no idea what you're talking about, Orthodoxy or monastics.
I'll leave it to say -- every monastery I've ever been to or heard of is completely self sufficient, and you have no idea about "dogma regarding minutia".
Why did the Reformers/Protestants change Mass ( service) proceedings so drastically?
12,276 Views |
249 Replies |
Last: 7 yr ago by texag_89
k2aggie07 said:
You're misconstruing my point. I wasn't a community baptist, I wanted God. I just had no means to find Him, because being a baptist isn't about that. It's about being saved, and then thanking God for that salvation. And then, having a "personal relationship" with Him. This is a relationship that exists two ways - He saves you, you praise Him, then you go to heaven. This is not what Orthodoxy teaches. It's a small sliver of Orthodox salvation.
So what were you doing during Bible studies, quiet times, and in your community groups (and whatever else you were active in)? I completely agree that the Protestantism you've described is an incomplete Christian life.
Furlock Bones said:
for evidence: see the slicing and dicing of faith post-Protestant Reformation.
The perspective of Protestantism is that it is better to seek and follow the Truth, even if that acts as a divisor, than it is to be united and off-path. I imagine Catholics and Orthodox feel the same way about other faiths and believers.
Quote:
What if tomorrow a council said that all real Christians wear purple underpants? Hypotheticals are just that, hypothetical. If your hypothetical were to happen, the Church (laity, monastics, priests, bishops) would laugh, because in no way is that the apostolic teaching. There's no discord there.
You know my perspective. I wrote the above to mirror a point in our earlier discussion. For instance, Sabbath keeping went from being a "variant" to being heterodox. Why would something be perfectly fine in the immediate wake of the Apostles and then hundreds of years later become heterodox? The roots of Christian vegetarianism are also ancient and noted, but they are not universally followed. Thought it made for an interesting contrast and hypothetical.
In regards to beliefs, I am still curious about that. I spoke of Nestor for a reason. He recieved the same teaching and was heir to the same Apostolic succession as anyone else. He did not believe his ideas were innovation, and he quoted predecessors whose similar ideas were tolerated. A large number of other ordained priests followed him even after excommunication and founded the Syrian Church of the East which still thrives. So we have the Syrian church, the East, and Rome who all claim exclusive guidance based on Apostolic succession and Tradition, but yet they don't all agree. So I'll ask again, if the traditions of the Apostles were so clear, uniform, standardized, rigid, and necessary, then how did the combination of Scripture, Tradition, and Apostolic succession lead to 3 separate, thriving Apostolic churches?
My opinion is that we care more about all these things than God does, and He blesses whoever loves Him and does His Will for them. As am example, I feel that Billy Graham could only have accomplished what he did by the grace and blessing of God. I feel that he and others like him have greatly expanded the Kingdom. You have stated on another occasion that Baptists "might as well be a different religion", and I would imagine you feel less joy (or maybe none) than I do when I read about his works. I think you even mentioned that spreading "half truth" was no better than doing nothing.
Since you felt free to counsel me on the "dangers" of my own style of worship, I will return the favor. You have a zeal for pure, undiluted, untarnished truth that is admirable. But Christians and Christianity have always been tarnished, dirty, gritty, and flawed. God makes miraculous use of flawed instruments on a regular basis. The only thing you get when you narrow your association is the loss of joy and fellowship of watching God work through people different than you.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
ramblin_ag02 said:Quote:
What if tomorrow a council said that all real Christians wear purple underpants? Hypotheticals are just that, hypothetical. If your hypothetical were to happen, the Church (laity, monastics, priests, bishops) would laugh, because in no way is that the apostolic teaching. There's no discord there.
You know my perspective. I wrote the above to mirror a point in our earlier discussion. For instance, Sabbath keeping went from being a "variant" to being heterodox. Why would something be perfectly fine in the immediate wake of the Apostles and then hundreds of years later become heterodox? The roots of Christian vegetarianism are also ancient and noted, but they are not universally followed. Thought it made for an interesting contrast and hypothetical.
In regards to beliefs, I am still curious about that. I spoke of Nestor for a reason. He recieved the same teaching and was heir to the same Apostolic succession as anyone else. He did not believe his ideas were innovation, and he quoted predecessors whose similar ideas were tolerated. A large number of other ordained priests followed him even after excommunication and founded the Syrian Church of the East which still thrives. So we have the Syrian church, the East, and Rome who all claim exclusive guidance based on Apostolic succession and Tradition, but yet they don't all agree. So I'll ask again, if the traditions of the Apostles were so clear, uniform, standardized, rigid, and necessary, then how did the combination of Scripture, Tradition, and Apostolic succession lead to 3 separate, thriving Apostolic churches?
My opinion is that we care more about all these things than God does, and He blesses whoever loves Him and does His Will for them. As am example, I feel that Billy Graham could only have accomplished what he did by the grace and blessing of God. I feel that he and others like him have greatly expanded the Kingdom. You have stated on another occasion that Baptists "might as well be a different religion", and I would imagine you feel less joy (or maybe none) than I do when I read about his works. I think you even mentioned that spreading "half truth" was no better than doing nothing.
Since you felt free to counsel me on the "dangers" of my own style of worship, I will return the favor. You have a zeal for pure, undiluted, untarnished truth that is admirable. But Christians and Christianity have always been tarnished, dirty, gritty, and flawed. God makes miraculous use of flawed instruments on a regular basis. The only thing you get when you narrow your association is the loss of joy and fellowship of watching God work through people different than you.
I don't think the position on sabbath keeping changed. It was a thing people could do provided they didn't preach the necessity for salvation. I think Pope gregory's letter follows the same tradition. Vegetarianism is alive and well in Orthodoxy - all monastics are full time vegetarians.
I have much more respect for the nestorians than Protestants. What we can say, then, is that up to Chalcedon is 100% apostolic, eh? Because all apostolic churches accept that. But that's ok, even if we say that they speak of the nature of Christ different than we do (and Coptic I believe generally is a linguistic misunderstanding, but what do I know) they believe a great deal more in common with me than a, say, baptist does. I think it's a testament to pride that when the rest of Christendom said no you're wrong Nestor said no I'm right. We bear those scars today, sadly.
I don't think efficacy is a measure of God's blessing, unless we are willing to give the same nod to Muslims, Buddhist, etc..?
There is a wide gulf between saying Christians are flawed and Christianity is flawed. The former I agree with, the latter I reject. It's ok with me if you don't believe in an absolute truth or guidance: I think this nominalistic approach to Christianity is an error, though.
Christianity isn't flawed. Man-made Christian institutions are.
There is definitely a singular Truth we ought to be seeking and practicing.
There is definitely a singular Truth we ought to be seeking and practicing.
Yes, lets do put my personal spiritual life under the microscope.
What is the Truth? Obviously it is Christ. And how can you follow Christ outside of His church? The idea is flatly unscriptural.
It is simply not Biblical to say that "all that believe in Christ..."JJMt said:The Church is all that believe in Christ, not just those that believe in EO theology.k2aggie07 said:
What is the Truth? Obviously it is Christ. And how can you follow Christ outside of His church? The idea is flatly unscriptural.
Quote:
Matthew 7:22-23 English Standard Version (ESV)
22 On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' 23 And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'
"You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder."
But yeah. The entire concept of the invisible church is (surprise!) the same age as the reformation. Protestants had to justify their schism. No problem, make the church invisible and then anyone whoever wants to say they're in it can be in it.
But yeah. The entire concept of the invisible church is (surprise!) the same age as the reformation. Protestants had to justify their schism. No problem, make the church invisible and then anyone whoever wants to say they're in it can be in it.
Quote:
Christianity isn't flawed. Man-made Christian institutions are.
On this earth only Christ in flawless. Since Christianity also involves men it must also be as flawed as we are. Perhaps there is some Platonic ideal of flawless Christianity, but like any Platonic ideal it exists only in our imagination.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
The church is spotless and perfect.
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless.
Cleansed is past tense.
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless.
Cleansed is past tense.
1 Kings 15:5 For David had done what was right in the eyes of the LORD and had not failed to keep any of the LORD's commands all the days of his life--except in the case of Uriah the Hittite.
Job 1:1 In the land of Uz there lived a man whose name was Job. This man was blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil.
Luckily, sometimes God is merciful and sees us for better than we are. Are we supposed to think that David really only sinned once or that Job was perfect? I don't think anyone reads those verses and comes to that conclusion. Similar language is used for the Church, but that doesn't mean we should take it any more literally than we should for David or Job.
Heck, we have the entire history of the Church, and I can tell you right now it's not perfect no matter how you define the Church. The only way you can say the Church is perfect is either tautologically (the Church is perfect because the Church is perfect) or by selectivity (only my Church is perfect and anything not perfect is not part of my Church)
Job 1:1 In the land of Uz there lived a man whose name was Job. This man was blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil.
Luckily, sometimes God is merciful and sees us for better than we are. Are we supposed to think that David really only sinned once or that Job was perfect? I don't think anyone reads those verses and comes to that conclusion. Similar language is used for the Church, but that doesn't mean we should take it any more literally than we should for David or Job.
Heck, we have the entire history of the Church, and I can tell you right now it's not perfect no matter how you define the Church. The only way you can say the Church is perfect is either tautologically (the Church is perfect because the Church is perfect) or by selectivity (only my Church is perfect and anything not perfect is not part of my Church)
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
The idea has "always been around"? Please demonstrate this.JJMt said:That idea has always been around, although your statement on the advent of the term may be correct - I don't know. If your statement of history is even semi-accurate, I suspect that the Reformers adopted the terminology simply as a push back against the teachings of the RCC that you had to be a member of the RCC in order to be a Christian.Quote:
The entire concept of the invisible church is (surprise!) the same age as the reformation. Protestants had to justify their schism. No problem, make the church invisible and then anyone whoever wants to say they're in it can be in it.
You surely don't agree with the RCC on that, do you? If not, why is the RCC wrong and you are right?
And you seem to have a strong distaste for the Protestant reformers. Surely you don't endorse the conditions within or the teachings of the RCC at that time? Believing what you believe now, what would you have done if you were in Germany or France at that time? Surely you wouldn't have simply acquiesced to the RCC? If not, wouldn't you then be guilty of the same arrogance of which you accuse the Reformers?
The truth is, you must be baptized into Christ to be a part of the church, because the Church is the Body of Christ. This will rapidly become a discussion of baptism. This is a source of distinction (I think) between east and west. The east, I believe, has recognized baptism in the name of the Trinity by economy (more on this later), but has still chrismated members upon joining the church. The RCC no longer practices chrismation, I believe, and also does not re-baptize or re-chrismate people who join (not positive). Regardless, baptism is a mystery, just like the Eucharist, and can only properly be performed by the Church.
I do have a strong distaste for the doctrine of the reformers, particularly that of Calvin and Zwingli. Their actions have nothing to do with judgment on or against the Church. The reformation is a misnomer, it was not about reforming the church. The reformers had a problem with the Church's teaching. Otherwise, the schism would have gone away, as the Roman church met many of their demands in the counter-reformation, as it is called. They didn't want to reform the church, they wanted to make it over the way they thought it should be from the beginning. They didn't just dislike the pope, they also wanted to be popes, each one. The Lutherans wrote the eastern Church, thinking their doctrine was the same. It wasn't. Finding themselves on the outs with literally all Christians in the world, did they stop? No; their hubris was too strong. They separated themselves from everyone, making a church of themselves. That's not how it works.
There is a massive difference between reforming the church from within (this is what martyrs and confessors do, and have done, and continually do) and schism.
There is no salvation outside of the Church. However, there is no limit to God's grace and mercy. I believe (personal opinion) that by economy people who are outside of the fullness of truth through no fault of their own are not doomed. God is a saving God and loves mankind. But this doesn't remove all of our obligation to seek Him in the fullness of truth. I liken it to alchemy versus chemistry. Alchemists can and did get results, but their methodology was flawed. True science, true faith, is found in the church. In other words, the fullness of truth doesn't preclude others from having some truth.
David and Job were not under the new Covenant. Hebrews makes this explicitly clear -- no one achieved the glory that Christians are promised before Christ.
The Church is perfect because Christ is perfect and the Church is the Body of Christ. People separated from Christ's Church are separated from Christ.
The Church is perfect because Christ is perfect and the Church is the Body of Christ. People separated from Christ's Church are separated from Christ.
No, this is not correct. The Church is perfect because Christ sanctified her and made her holy and blameless. We can participate in this, as we participate in Christ. There is no separation between Christ and His Church. There is only union there, this is where union is found... to be baptized into Christ is to have a union with Him by becoming part of His Church. However, our participation in this mystery is imperfect until we ourselves have been made perfect. The Church is perfect, we as individuals are not (yet).
The RCC actually does Chrismation more or less during Confirmation.
Thanks good to know.
JJMt said:
You know, I must have missed that verse or verses where the Bible also requires a belief in EO theology, or to be a member of the EO church or any other specific church or denomination, to be a Christian. Would you mind pointing it/them out to me?
I never realized that my pastor had to wear particular robes and follow particular ceremonies in order for me to be a Christian and our church to be part of the Church. Can you show that to me in the Bible as well?
So it seems that you hold that, to be a Christian, requires belief + works + membership in the EO church?
I guess that leaves out all of the apostles since there was no EO church, church hierarchy, or early church fathers during most or the entirety of their lives.
This is a bad post full of strawmen.
New Testament it is then:
How about Zecharaih and Elizabeth?
Luke 1:5-6 In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord's commands and decrees blamelessly
Or we can look at more of Paul's writings:
Titus 1:6 An elder must be blameless, faithful to his wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.
So elders must be perfect? Must be a drastic shortage
1 Thes 2:10 You are witnesses, and so is God, of how holy, righteous and blameless we were among you who believed.
Note that Paul says the witnesses were holy, righteous and blameless. Is he saying that he and his companions were perfect when among the believers? That is even stronger language than He used to describe Christ's Church.
I don't think any plain reading of Scripture would equate blameless and perfect in all of these instances. I also don't understand why this is a big deal. God is perfect, but Created imperfect men and an imperfect world. Christ is perfect, and He creates and redeems His imperfect Church.
How about Zecharaih and Elizabeth?
Luke 1:5-6 In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord's commands and decrees blamelessly
Or we can look at more of Paul's writings:
Titus 1:6 An elder must be blameless, faithful to his wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.
So elders must be perfect? Must be a drastic shortage
1 Thes 2:10 You are witnesses, and so is God, of how holy, righteous and blameless we were among you who believed.
Note that Paul says the witnesses were holy, righteous and blameless. Is he saying that he and his companions were perfect when among the believers? That is even stronger language than He used to describe Christ's Church.
I don't think any plain reading of Scripture would equate blameless and perfect in all of these instances. I also don't understand why this is a big deal. God is perfect, but Created imperfect men and an imperfect world. Christ is perfect, and He creates and redeems His imperfect Church.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
I remembered just now when I was a baptist arguing with a friend of mine who was orthodox. I said that the one thing that the apostle's had certainly passed down in their succession was the stupid arguing over who was greatest. I was speaking out of ignorance, because I literally had no idea what I was talking about. I genuinely believe that if folks had the opportunity to read what I have been able to read, I think they'd come to the same conclusions. Most people who argue so strongly against it are just ignorant to what they're talking about. Myself included.
Blameless in Titus 1:6 is anegkletos. It means without reproach, not convictable when properly tried. Luke 1:6 is stronger, though -- amemptos, not with blame. That is, they did what they were supposed to do. This could, for example, include making offerings for sin, but does not include sinlessness.
Let's contrast with Ephesians 5.
The Church is:
Sanctified (hagiazo) literally made holy, set apart, purified (hagios is the same word we use for the thrice holy, for a saint's honorific, etc)
Cleansed (katharizo) made clean ceremonially and or spiritually
Glorious (endoxos) exalted, in a high state of honor and repute
Without fault, stain, defect, flaw or any such thing
Holy - again
Blameless (amomos) unblemished, without spot, faultless
It's not the same.
Let's contrast with Ephesians 5.
The Church is:
Sanctified (hagiazo) literally made holy, set apart, purified (hagios is the same word we use for the thrice holy, for a saint's honorific, etc)
Cleansed (katharizo) made clean ceremonially and or spiritually
Glorious (endoxos) exalted, in a high state of honor and repute
Without fault, stain, defect, flaw or any such thing
Holy - again
Blameless (amomos) unblemished, without spot, faultless
It's not the same.
k2aggie07 said:
Yes, lets do put my personal spiritual life under the microscope.
I am seriously curious about what your former church fostered in its members as it sounds like there were various avenues. For example, Bible studies were only about thanking God for salvation?
k2aggie07 said:
What is the Truth? Obviously it is Christ. And how can you follow Christ outside of His church? The idea is flatly unscriptural.
Agreed. The disagreement comes when asking, "whose church is His Church?"
tehmackdaddy said:k2aggie07 said:
What is the Truth? Obviously it is Christ. And how can you follow Christ outside of His church? The idea is flatly unscriptural.
Agreed. The disagreement comes when asking, "whose church is His Church?"
When did the Church begin? Pentecost? Can we agree there?
I was outlining the basics of the faith.
There is no concept of theosis in baptist teaching. Justification and sanctification are condensed into a single event, belief and confession and repentance, and are then sealed with a symbolic baptism that they do not believe is salvific or a means of conveying grace.
Everything between baptism and death is vaguely understood as a walk or relationship with God, but all possible growth is limited to intellectual terms. Understanding, learning, knowledge, etc, because of the absence or deemphasis on sanctification.
There is no concept of theosis in baptist teaching. Justification and sanctification are condensed into a single event, belief and confession and repentance, and are then sealed with a symbolic baptism that they do not believe is salvific or a means of conveying grace.
Everything between baptism and death is vaguely understood as a walk or relationship with God, but all possible growth is limited to intellectual terms. Understanding, learning, knowledge, etc, because of the absence or deemphasis on sanctification.
JJMt said:Why? He is essentially arguing that one cannot be a Christian unless one belongs to the EO church, and possibly the RCC.Sq16Aggie2006 said:JJMt said:
You know, I must have missed that verse or verses where the Bible also requires a belief in EO theology, or to be a member of the EO church or any other specific church or denomination, to be a Christian. Would you mind pointing it/them out to me?
I never realized that my pastor had to wear particular robes and follow particular ceremonies in order for me to be a Christian and our church to be part of the Church. Can you show that to me in the Bible as well?
So it seems that you hold that, to be a Christian, requires belief + works + membership in the EO church?
I guess that leaves out all of the apostles since there was no EO church, church hierarchy, or early church fathers during most or the entirety of their lives.
This is a bad post full of strawmen.
I'm not going to speak for K-2, but what I would argue is that those who seek salvation outside of Christ's ordained medium are in a gravely disordered position, and can only loosely be called be Christian in the most general sense possible.
Holy Scripture itself states numerous times that knowledge of Christ's divinity is insufficient. The "where in the Bible?" mantra is tiresome, and irrelevant. Tradition illuminates and focuses the Bible, the Bible is a product of tradition. Christ didn't leave us a Bible, he left us a Church, and through their ministrations they gave to us a Bible.
I will note that the Reformers apparently took issue both with the Church that God ordained, and the Scripture that God organized through the workings of his Church, not just with RCC errors.
Thanks.k2aggie07 said:
I was outlining the basics of the faith.
There is no concept of theosis in baptist teaching. Justification and sanctification are condensed into a single event, belief and confession and repentance, and are then sealed with a symbolic baptism that they do not believe is salvific or a means of conveying grace.
Everything between baptism and death is vaguely understood as a walk or relationship with God, but all possible growth is limited to intellectual terms. Understanding, learning, knowledge, etc, because of the absence or deemphasis on sanctification.
Sq16Aggie2006 said:tehmackdaddy said:k2aggie07 said:
What is the Truth? Obviously it is Christ. And how can you follow Christ outside of His church? The idea is flatly unscriptural.
Agreed. The disagreement comes when asking, "whose church is His Church?"
When did the Church begin? Pentecost? Can we agree there?
We can start wherever, but we've all been down this road before and I doubt we'll arrive at a different destination.
AeroAg2012
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
14
AggieBucksJB
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
14
Angry Beaver
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
10
Aggball2010
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
10
missinAggieland
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
7
Bruce Almighty
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
7
AgEngr12
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
7
sealyag
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
5
country
we just won 4 straight series against 4 ranked opponents.
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
5
Harry Stone
we just won 4 straight series against 4 ranked opponents.
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
5