Learning about Orthodoxy

[Lizbeth]

Indeed it has a beginning and an end in this life which in the rebellion church denies. But you have contradicted yourself by saying IF we remain on the narrow path, or works thereof, when the fully sanctified have the testimony that they had a magnificent fall prior to the full work.

I have only ever heard one person talk about that.......and the narrow path is the way of the cross and "dying" to our old fleshly nature and enduring the chastisements which bring about that death, learning obedience by things which we suffer, so maybe that wouldn't be too surprising in that sense. I have wondered if something like that is what it means about the ten virgins ALL falling asleep.

Sister you are arguing a subject that you have not studied. They believe in water baptism saving because in the early years, which they have stumbled on, a water baptised person would have hands lain on him and the Holy Spirit would fall on them (not infants as today).

It is Jesus who sends the Holy Spirit to baptise, not the will of man. This is the point of being born again and previous to this, one still sinned. A new creature is one so unlike the old that it is significant, not because of what they believe but how they are - holy as He is holy, and I have gone to great lengths to deny that I am undermining the start of the process.

Regardless of their past or origins in the dust and sands of time, which I don't know much about, I have been talking about the present day EO church.....it's not a place to be recommended to anyone, but needs to be exposed and warned about.

I thought you were implying that one does not have salvation and eternal life unless they are entirely sanctified....sorry if I misunderstood.

Jesus was often critical of the underlying effect and motivation of an act rather than the act itself. He is warning people against inaccurately attributing fatherhood of a particular kind or degree of fatherhood to those who do not have it, and not to the literal meaning otherwise we could not call our earthly seed donators, fathers.

He is said not to call any man teacher.

In acts 7:2 Stephen refers to our father Abraham.
In Romans 9:10 Paul speaks of our father Isaac.

Paul regularly referred to Timothy as His child 1 Cor 4:17, 1Tim 1:2, 2Tim 1:2. And he often referred to himself as a father.

We can know in our heart by the Spirit exactly what Jesus meant when He said that. And He wouldn't have us trying to justify or excuse disobeying it. Paul did not give himself titles, his use of the term father applied to himself was merely descriptive. And same with our earthly fathers, none of us go around calling our earthly Dads by the title, "Father So and So".

They were so fallen, the EO that is, that they preached the necessity of full surrender to Christ to be baptised and become holy (?) whereas the rest of Christendom only did it now and again. The early writings were rich in it.

The EO church produced a place of beauty, once they could have buildings so that the presence of God could be experienced which would bring man to repentance. Maybe they overdid it once that apostacy came in I don't know, but there were plenty of holy men about known as saints. They did not all fall into flesh.

Really sis you are giving your opinions which are not factual history.

Whatever their past might have been, I can't say, but I wouldn't trust a group that trusts in outward things to be holding the truth in spirit. They may have some bits of truth but that doesn't mean we should go looking to them for it.....that is always the bait that leads to false things. It ws the "good" part of the Tree of Knowledge of Good&Evil that deceived Eve. Only because of extremity did God feed Elijah a morsel of bread with a raven...an unclean bird...but he wasn't meant to swallow the raven, only the morsel of bread. And neither should we go looking to get our food from ravens, but from God.

 

[Behold]

But this has led to a lack of charity towards the poor, lack of care for widows and orphans, huge buildings that feed and house no one.

What you posted is more then likely, related to a Protestant Pulpit that is too far gone into the 'prosperity gospel" teaching.......as this obsesson leads their congregation into greed, and greed never helps anyone else.

Does God want us to Prosper?
Of course......as how can we give to the poor, if we are broke?
So, that is just common sense.

And on the other side you have something worse......and that is the "poverty gospel".
Thats the one that teaches that "God makes you more spiritual, by causing you to be sick and broke and miserable".
And thats not true, as all that causes is BITTERNESS and ANGER and an early Death.

The reality is.......if we Put God first....in our thinking, in our decisions, and in our Life....... then God "adds all these things to you, according to His riches in Glory".

We can't out-give God, but we can block the flow from Heaven, if we dont understand what we have to know regarding serving God and receiving from God.

 

[Lizbeth]

I think the study of Church history is a great way to avoid deception. A lot of the arguments against Eastern Orthodoxy Im reading here seem dependent on not knowing Church history or even what Orthodoxy is.

Careful of looking for truth in all the wrong places. I'm not against knowing church history per se, but it doesn't really matter what the history of a place is, what matters is how/what they are doing now.

 

[Hepzibah]

I have only ever heard one person talk about that.......and the narrow path is the way of the cross and "dying" to our old fleshly nature and enduring the chastisements which bring about that death, learning obedience by things which we suffer, so maybe that wouldn't be too surprising in that sense. I have wondered if something like that is what it means about the ten virgins ALL falling asleep.

I don't know.

Regardless of their past or origins in the dust and sands of time, which I don't know much about, I have been talking about the present day EO church.....it's not a place to be recommended to anyone, but needs to be exposed and warned about.

Although they (when I say they I do not know how many) may have some things wrong, it is still far better to join it if the Lord leads than the utterly apostate west where you will not hear about the need to be ES'ed which is number one. There is nothing in their service that is not scripture. You will hear far more scripture than the western churches and be amongst people who strive to be obedient. If you want to skip the infant baptisms fine. I am not in any church by the way.

I thought you were implying that one does not have salvation and eternal life unless they are entirely sanctified....sorry if I misunderstood.

No you were right first time.

We can know in our heart by the Spirit exactly what Jesus meant when He said that. And He wouldn't have us trying to justify or excuse disobeying it. Paul did not give himself titles, his use of the term father applied to himself was merely descriptive. And same with our earthly fathers, none of us go around calling our earthly Dads by the title, "Father So and So".

• In 1 Corinthians 4:15, Paul writes, "For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel."
  
  
• This statement signifies that Paul considers himself their spiritual father because he introduced them to the Christian faith through his preaching of the gospel.
  
  
• Jesus's teaching in Matthew 23:9 warns against using "father" as a religious title to elevate oneself above others, not against acknowledging a literal or spiritual father.
  
  
• Paul's use of "father" is in the context of spiritual guidance and mentoring, not as a claim to a higher religious authority.
  
  
• In 1 Corinthians 4:16, Paul encourages the Corinthians to imitate him as their spiritual father.
• I suspect you are thinking of the RCC where the title Father denotes someone who is higher then others in authority, which was not taking place in the early church or even today in the EO where the laity is considered much more important. We do not actually know whether Paul was not known as Father Paul. This is one of the problems of sola scriptura. There is much in holy tradition that was handed down, which was the teaching of holy men who were ES'ed and taught from the Spirit, not like the rebellious RCC.
• 
  
• The thing is, that scripture was never meant to be our only guide, and says itself that Jesus said many things that could not be written as books could not contain that amount. The church must be authoritative for interpretation (added to the direct individual personal guidance of the Holy Spirit) but only those who are truly walking in the Spirit have that authority and knowledge to discern on finer points, and God has chosen to put them on hold I believe, for such a time as this. This is what dark times means.
  
  
  
  sorry for this gap
  
  
  
  
  
  Whatever their past might have been, I can't say, but I wouldn't trust a group that trusts in outward things to be holding the truth in spirit. They may have some bits of truth but that doesn't mean we should go looking to them for it.....that is always the bait that leads to false things. It ws the "good" part of the Tree of Knowledge of Good&Evil that deceived Eve. Only because of extremity did God feed Elijah a morsel of bread with a raven...an unclean bird...but he wasn't meant to swallow the raven, only the morsel of bread. And neither should we go looking to get our food from ravens, but from God.
  
  
  What they teach is not their individual interpretation like in the west. They teach what the church has always taught - its in the creeds and liturgy BUT there is now the idea of a gradual sanctification which is complete at death - the error of the western church in the main but that is also found in the west so unless God reveals the truth about this, there is no difference, apart from there being a much more devout people to fellowship with.
  
  
  
  

 

[Lizbeth]

be amongst people who strive to be obedient.

But do they know the Lord...do they have the Spirit...are they born again if all they have is infant baptism? What fellowship is there with those who don't have (genuine) faith? I can't see the Lord leading any of HIS people to that, when He tells us the opposite....to come out from among unbelievers and not to touch the unclean (mixture) thing in order that He might receive us. I'm not just picking on the EO....many protestant evangelical groups are to be avoided as well. The HOLY Spirit departs when there is apostasy...false Christs, false gospel and false spirit.

 

[Hepzibah]

But do they know the Lord...do they have the Spirit...are they born again if all they have is infant baptism? What fellowship is there with those who don't have (genuine) faith? I can't see the Lord leading any of HIS people to that, when He tells us the opposite....to come out from among unbelievers and not to touch the unclean (mixture) thing in order that He might receive us. I'm not just picking on the EO....many protestant evangelical groups are to be avoided as well. The HOLY Spirit departs when there is apostasy...false Christs, false gospel and false spirit.

There are 'cradle believers' amongst them yes, but there are also what you call born again's there - many in fact and a lot coming out of Protestantism , in fact in their droves.

I do not have extensive experience with them but see many who are true believers who perhaps agree with me regarding infant baptism. They are not however, following a false gospel like evangelicals believing sola scriptura.

 

[Lizbeth]

There are 'cradle believers' amongst them yes, but there are also what you call born again's there - many in fact and a lot coming out of Protestantism , in fact in their droves.

I do not have extensive experience with them but see many who are true believers who perhaps agree with me regarding infant baptism. They are not however, following a false gospel like evangelicals believing sola scriptura.

Sister, I had to look up what sola scripture entails:

{{ The term "sola scriptura" (Latin for "by Scripture alone") originated during the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century, primarily with Martin Luther. It became a foundational principle for many Protestant denominations, asserting that the Bible is the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice. }}

Going by this definition, it is one thing the early reformers got right, it seems to me. That was not a false gospel but a return to the gospel according to scripture....oh my, they sure got that right to get out from under the teachings and writings of churchmen and theologians, and praise God for that. They threw open the rotting old shutters and let the sunlight and fresh clean air in, for a very badly needed fresh start, even if they didn't get everything right. It loosed the gospel from shrouds of bondage and captivity and decay to be preached and received once again!

The gospel is founded on the prophets and apostles with Christ as the chief cornerstone. Everything else needs to be tested against the plumbline of the writings of the apostles and prophets and teachings of Jesus....aka scriptura. The writings of the "early church fathers" after the apostles can't be considered infallible, whereas the word of God is 100% trustworthy (apart from minor translation difficulties). Jesus Himself said scripture cannot be broken and Paul wrote that all scripture was given by inspiration of God.