Quote:

---

How can you say we've added when you don't know what the teaching is?

---

My impressions of Orthodox teachings is what you've posted here and what other members of the Orthodox church have told me. But I very easily could have it all wrong and would be delighted to be corrected or better informed.

By the way, Evangelicalism isn't monolithic. So what you were or weren't taught in your Southern Baptist church may very well not be the belief of other evangelicals, including myself.

Quote:

---

Here's why baptism and the Eucharist are the litmus test. Because they are spoken of this way by St Paul, and because they are the fullness of circumcision and Passover.

---

What exactly do you believe St. Paul says about baptism and the Eucharist and in what way does the evangelical church stray from that teaching?

Quote:

---

Happy to discuss it it further, if you want to start another thread on that.

---

Hey, this is my thread so I can do what I want with it, no?

Jabin said:

---

Quote:

---

The legacy of the reformation is a shattering of western Christendom. That's not solely at Luther's feet, but he definitely played a major role.

---

The word "corruption" doesn't do justice to the evil that permeated the RCC at that time. The modern usage of corruption implies only some sort of financial dishonesty. As we know, the RCC was deeply depraved from the top down. The RCC hierarchy, at that time, had completely forsaken Christ.

That depravity coupled with the RCC's intransigence against reform made it inevitable that western Christendom would shatter. If not Luther, it would have been someone else. Luther was simply the spark that lit an already laid bonfire. And the evidence is the alacrity with which the shattering occurred and its widespread acceptance by all levels of northern European society. It seems that placing the blame on Luther is completely wrong; the blame lies almost entirely on the RCC of that day.

And I suspect that you would leave your particular congregation if your priest was involved in the type of heinous behavior that the RCC leadership was engaged in at the time of Luther. You might not leave your church, but I hope that you would leave your congregation. But that limited option was not available to Luther.

Finally, rather than re-litigating the spiritual wars of the past, it seems that we should be seeking unity now. However, it seems that both the RCC and Orthodox are unwilling to permit unity unless everyone else concedes on all points. In other words, it is the RCC and Orthodox that are perpetuating dis-unity. I would gladly worship with any of you guys and call you brother, but it seems that you would refuse to worship with me.

---

I usually tell people I want to be in communion with how evil they are too.
That aside we constantly pray for unity. If look at some of the threads where Catholics fight with each other it is about the implications of Vatican II. The reason for the changes to liturgy and practice if the was to bring you all back into the fold. I truly hope one day we get there, and everyday Christian unity is in my morning offering.

Asking about the teaching of the Church is being asked to write a book. I don't know what specifically you do or don't know.

You are correct evangelicals / Protestants aren't a bloc. But after college I went through Lutheran catechism, attended a Methodist church for a bit, etc. I have a good handle on the broad strokes of most Protestant denominations, and intimacy with the teachings of some. The variance makes it difficult to speak to specifics, so if I say something that isn't what you believe I apologize.

As for baptism and the Eucharist. St. Paul teaches that these are the hallmarks and means of being part of the Assembly of God, the Church, Israel. Just like circumcision is how you are joined to Israel, baptism joins you to the church. He makes this connection both explicitly and implicitly in several places. And, just as those who eat the Passover are part of the Qahal Israel, those who eat the Eucharist are the church. St Paul makes this identification explicit and implicit. The parallels between the blood of the covenant in Exodus and the meal with Yahweh and the elders of Israel and the Eucharist as instituted by the Lord on the night of His betrayal are clear. The teaching of the Lord on His body and Blood are clear, as is the continuation of that teaching by the Apostles and the Church. These are the most very basic elements of the faith - one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and we are one because we partake of the one bread, the one cup. That is the source of our unity, or disunity, as you like it.

Even the basic teachings of the apostles are there in Acts - the faithful continue in the teaching of the Apostles, the prayers, and the communion in the breaking of bread. All definite articles, all clear historical realities. Without unity here, there is no theological unity to be had.

I don't understand. Every active/devout evangelical I know believes in the importance of and practices baptism and the Eucharist (the Lord's supper). What's wrong with their belief and/or practice?

Quote:

---

I usually tell people I want to be in communion with how evil they are too.

That aside we constantly pray for unity. If look at some of the threads where Catholics fight with each other it is about the implications of Vatican II. The reason for the changes to liturgy and practice if the was to bring you all back into the fold. I truly hope one day we get there, and everyday Christian unity is in my morning offering.

---

I agree.

To some extent, the evil that is overtaking our culture is forcing us together and causing us to realize that we have more in common than our differences. As just one example, Catholics and Protestants stand shoulder to shoulder in the trenches fighting abortion. The differences between us seem to be more forms of practice than anything fundamental to salvation.

However, this forum depresses me. It seems like many RCC and Orthodox still want to fight the religious wars of centuries ago rather than recognizing that we all read the same Bible and worship the same Christ.

Quote:

---

The Bible is not the center of our faith.

---

Wow! That's what I've always suspected, but never seen articulated so explicitly.

Quote:

---

Our faith is older than the Bible.

---

What writing or provable church tradition do you have that is older than the Bible and not also described in the Bible?

And by asking that question I do not want to appear that I'm ceding that it is material. I'm simply curious.

Jabin said:

---

Quote:

---

The Bible is not the center of our faith.

---

Wow! That's what I've always suspected, but never seen articulated so explicitly.

---

Not sure why this is an issue. Christ crucified is the center of our faith. The Bible is an icon that points to the Word made flesh.

I attend mass weekly with my Catholic wife. I lead the high school age youth group and even teach them in Catholic way. I have a deep and strong faith in Christ and proudly, boldly say the Creed weekly (I skip the "for the forgiveness of sins" part relating to baptism and rather than "confess" one baptism I "profess" one baptism). I have encourage and lead my FIL (lifelong Catholic) in studying the Bible and we meet weekly. I enjoy the growth I can see in both our faiths and relationships with our savior. I challenge (very respectfully) others in an adult class following mass. I love discussing faith with priests. I was baptized in a Baptist church at the age of 17, but I find faults with that denomination as well.
I believe what matters with regard to eternity in the presence of God is simply did Christ know me (and I m Him); is my name written in the book of life.
I imagine many people were born into the RCC faith and were baptized as infants. As adults, that take the Eucharist weekly and yet, one that day, they may be chocked when Christ says, " Depart from me, I never knew you". It's one of the most alarming scriptures IMO.
I for one believe in the presence of Christ I. The Eucharist and I find it Pauling that some who are Catholic don't seem to have the proper reference for it. For example, I question why anyone would not take the cup but only the body (Pre Covid).
In fact, believing it to be transubstantiated to only being the body and blood of Christ, I don't understand the fear of Covid leading to withholding it all all the last couple years.

If the RCC allowed me to partake of the sacrament, I would do so according to Paul's teaching and with full belief in Christ's presence, with a proper heart and reverence.

Yet, the RCC will give the Eucharist to every 6 year old their parishioners have each year and, somehow trust, that they truly have an understanding and a faith / belief superior to my own, I guess.

I have asked before, why would you withhold the body and blood of Christ from anyone who seeks it earnestly. The usual answer is thAt out of compassion, they do not want one to take condemnation in himself. Yet every 6 YO is ok.
My wife teaches the confirmation-2 kids. 9 of 10 of them don't even come to mass, don't speak up in class, and don't do the work my wife (a very devout and faithful follower of Christ) gives them to do. There is no indication of a real faith in most of these kids. And often, they don't come to mass after confirmation either. It truly seems like they and their families just want to check the box. Yet, the RCC will gladly have these kids petals and share in the sacrament of the Eucharist.
To me, if a real faith and desire to follow Christ is not discernible by the priest, this should not happen or perhaps the church aiding in one taking condemnation on himself.

Oh, and I have zero belief in the infallibility of the RCC Pope and believe that one need look no further than Pope Francis for evidence of this being debunked. His statement and position on the death penalty which were based in morality, directly contradict the ordinance of the death penalty by God himself. I see this as nothing less than Pope Francis substituting his judgement of the justification of its application for that of God's.

I learn a lot form you guys in here and appreciate your sharing of your knowledge and faith. I have a great deal of respect for the exchanges in this forum. Thanks.

By your own admission you can't say the symbol of faith. You should not commune with people who are of a different faith than you.

You are coming across as being evasive.

You stated explicitly and without equivocation:

Quote:

---

Our faith is older than the Bible.

---

To which I asked:

Quote:

---

What writing or provable church tradition do you have that is older than the Bible and not also described in the Bible?

---

Which you didn't answer at all. You claim that your faith is older than the Bible and I'm asking for evidence to support that claim. You didn't provide any evidence.

But it does lead to your second question, which was:

Quote:

---

What was the center of the faith of the apostles and their gentile converts and Jewish adherents in the first century?

---

The answer is obviously God's word as revealed in the Old Testament and in the teachings of Christ. Those apostles put in writing, as led by God, those teachings of Christ that are important for us to know. What do you think was the center of their faith other than that? Do you think that the authors of the New Testament, as led by God, left out something critically important to salvation?

You seem to be claiming that they and God somehow missed something, that there is some sort of "secret" knowledge from before Christ's death and the Bible's writing that only your church knows.

ETA: Everything we know about Christ's teachings is from the accounts of the apostles and other NT writers. What else do you think that the early church relied upon? You seem to be suggesting that, within 70 years of Christ's death, that the Church had evolved to the point that the Bible was not sufficient? The books of the Bible were written within, and many near the end of that time period. If something critical was missing, why didn't the authors include it? Your perspective is actually pretty amazing.

And by the way, the RCC guys seem to like you EOs, but I get the sense that the feeling isn't mutual. Interesting.

Zobel said:

---

By your own admission you can't say the symbol of faith. You should not commune with people who are of a different faith than you.

---

You may need to explain this to me.
I simply think 'confess' is the wrong word. And,
Christ accepted the penalty for my sins and I wholeheartedly believe / profess this for forgiveness. I believe that John was offering a baptism of repentance. And, I believe Christ baptized with the Holy Spirit.
I profess this baptism.

ETA: Do you believe in Christ Baptizing with the Holy Spirit? Is our faith truly different?

Zobel said:

---

The orthodox faith is the faith of the apostles. We believe and teach what they did. We have unbroken continuity in this teaching. They were teaching the faith before the NT was written. Therefore our faith precedes the scriptures. Even further, the faith of the apostles is that of the prophets and patriarchs. We believe in the same God, the Word who became flesh, and the same Spirit. Yahweh of the OT is our God. So again, our faith is older than the scriptures.

You asked for some backwards idea that speaks to completeness, not age. You asked for a teaching we teach older than the scriptures but not in it. Baptism by immersion and three times is one, fasting is another, the form and details of the liturgy are another. But it's a bad argument, because the completeness of the scripture and whether they precede the faith or not are different questions.

I didn't claim anything about secrecy or incompleteness. You're making a separate argument that the scriptures alone are sufficient for salvation. The scriptures themselves never say this and in fact implicitly deny this. They make no claim to completeness, and in fact say they are not complete (end of John for example). The whole argument is completely anachronistic. Christ left us apostles and a church, not a book.

The center of the faith of the apostles was their experience of Yahweh in the person of Christ Jesus. Just as the patriarchs experienced Yahweh, and Moses, and the prophets. The scriptures are an expression of these experiences. The whole structure of your argument is backwards. They beheld
and so they teach. They didn't teach because of what they read.

---

So you're arguing that the apostles and the other NT writers wrote something that they knew to be incomplete and could lead to grave error if read by itself?

Also, which writings of the so-called "Fathers" from the 1st century support your theology and definition of what it is to be a Christian?

ETA: Do we have any written records of the earliest Church councils? If so, do we know what authority they relied upon to settle disputes?

ETA 2: To what authority did the early Church "Fathers" appeal or refer in their writings? It was entirely the Scriptures, not Church tradition, that is, not until much later when the organized Church had become bureaucratic and full of itself.

You said you don't say the part about the baptism for the remission of sins. It kinda doesn't matter why you object. You are saying that you don't believe that. You need to figure out what the reason is. You shouldn't commune with people of a different faith.

Did the apostles believe that forgiveness of sins was the result of baptism or that without baptism there was no forgiveness of sin?

Yes they believed baptism forgives sin. They would not at that was the only way God forgives sin. We don't put limits on God.

jrico2727 said:

---

Jabin said:

---

Also, which writings of the so-called "Fathers" from the 1st century support your theology and definition of what it is to be a Christian?

ETA: Do we have any written records of the earliest Church councils? If so, do we know what authority they relied upon to settle disputes?

---

You should read Polycarp and Ignatius of Antioch, both studied under St John the Evangelist. Also look into Clement of Rome. That would be a good start.

---

I have but admittedly some time ago.

It's hard reading them - they sound like regular guys that ramble all over. Very, very different from the Scriptures, a big step down. It doesn't take long in reading them to recognize that they were not inspired. Clement lost me when he used the example of the phoenix to prove Christ's resurrection.

ETA: When I read them, I didn't see anything to cause me to question my faith, nor do I remember anything at all relevant to what we're discussing here.

Quoted wrong post.

jrico2727 said:

---

Yes they believed baptism forgives sin. They would not at that was the only way God forgives sin. We don't put limits on God.

---

I'll quote Peter here on the day of Pentecost:
Acts 10:43 NASB
[43] All the prophets testify of Him, that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins."

It was during this speech that all those present received the Holy Spirit.

Peter followed this with:

Acts 10:47-48 NASB
[47] "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" [48] And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.


So, perhaps my faith is more different than I think from Catholics' and yours, but I don't think it is from the act of baptism itself that one receives forgiveness of sins but through believing in your heart that Christ is Lord and that God raised him from the dead.

These were true for me even prior to my baptism. It was because of these that I was baptized.

Now, beyond this, are you suggesting somehow that my faith in Christ is insufficient based on the above, for me to be able to commune with you or otherwise partake of Eucharist as a follower of Christ?
I don't believe Peter or Paul would have denied me this; but given it to all the 6 year olds who sat through a faith formation class.

I would refer you to the Catechism for full teaching on Baptism. I certainly am not trying to insult your belief.
From the CCC
Baptism in the Church

1226 From the very day of Pentecost the Church has celebrated and administered holy Baptism. Indeed St. Peter declares to the crowd astounded by his preaching: "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."26 The apostles and their collaborators offer Baptism to anyone who believed in Jesus: Jews, the God-fearing, pagans.27 Always, Baptism is seen as connected with faith: "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household," St. Paul declared to his jailer in Philippi. And the narrative continues, the jailer "was baptized at once, with all his family."28

1227 According to the Apostle Paul, the believer enters through Baptism into communion with Christ's death, is buried with him, and rises with him:

Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.29
The baptized have "put on Christ."30 Through the Holy Spirit, Baptism is a bath that purifies, justifies, and sanctifies.31

1228 Hence Baptism is a bath of water in which the "imperishable seed" of the Word of God produces its life-giving effect.32 St. Augustine says of Baptism: "The word is brought to the material element, and it becomes a sacrament."33

Strange.
CCC 1226 restates Acts 10 rather differently than the Bible including the RCC - New American Bible.

Further, much of this is very much in line with what I believe.

1226 From the very day of Pentecost the Church has celebrated and administered holy Baptism. Indeed St. Peter declares to the crowd astounded by his preaching: "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Not how it happened in the Bible!


26 The apostles and their collaborators offer Baptism to anyone who believed in Jesus: Jews, the God-fearing, pagans.27 Always, Baptism is seen as connected with faith: "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household," St. Paul declared to his jailer in Philippi. And the narrative continues, the jailer "was baptized at once, with all his family."28

So this is consistent with my understanding that BELIEF in Christ should come first. And since we know anyone who believes in Christ will receive forgiveness of sins, then it seems rather clear that baptism isn't what forgives sins.

How many times did Christ say to someone, "Your sins are forgiven"? One example
is the 10 lepers. And it wasn't because they had been baptized.

Anyway, I take seriously the faith and hence I'm careful why I say in church as I don't wish it to be just some habit. I do it each time with sincerity and reverence.

Catag94 said:

---

Strange.
CCC 1226 restates Acts 10 rather differently than the Bible including the RCC - New American Bible.

---

Here are the references
26 Acts 2:38.
27 Cf. Acts 2:41; 8:12-13; 10:48; 16:15.
28 Acts 16:31-33.