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.

 

[amigo de christo]

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.

Spot on right sister .
Many are now using this church history stuff . But the many have no idea
what is really been going on at all .
This church history is all about really getting them back into
the church they claim is the church and has been the church throughout all of said so called history .
What folks dont realize is
that EVEN THE ORTHODOX has bowed the knee to the same agenda from the same harlot
who simply desires to have all children back to her again .
Actually the phrase church history aint new at all . The progressive liberal led
which darn sure has infiltrated the evangelical realm
and scores of other places , has been used under the guise of brining all back to the one .
ONLY IT AINT THE ONE TRUE GOD or HIS CHRIST . its back to mama .
People are blind as can be sister . But as you rightly said
DONT LOOK at the churches history
HOW MANY times have we seen truths posted on the wall
and yet THEY DONT EVEN FOLLOW that truth they posted .
Many might have started out with Truth , BUT IS todays generation sitting in said place
STILL EVEN praticing such truth . NO mam, THEY AINT .
What matters is HOW and what DO THEY DO NOW and teach now .
Many can lip verbatum all the right stuff
but its only lip . THEN all they do is really pump out the love potion of the well favored harlot .
I could care less if for a thousand years a church had all things right .
WHAT IS IT DOING TODAY RIGHT NOW will prove very clearly IF IT BE A church and if it even still
pratices those truths it once held too . THE HARLOT is using history
OF the church , but does so in a way
THAT , SO SORRY is pointing them back to , not the church , BUT THE HARLOT herself .
People have no idea Even key leaders of The orthodox eastern church , so called ,
BOWED TO POPE FRANCIS and HIS UNITY . I SEEN THEM DO IT . BUT it did not suprise me .
ITS INFILTRATED ALL REALMS NOW . MAMA wants her children back and if she has to KILL
anything and everyone that gets in the way , SHE GONNA DO IT . but that cometh when the crusades begin .
AND THEY WILL . AND they will again .

 

[amigo de christo]

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.

Sister, any dedicated true solider of the RCC
already knows in part exactly what is going on .
MAMA has infiltrated and is leading the blind back to mama . ITS WHY you dont see
the hard core dedicated soliders of the RCC
GOING after such ideas at all .
MAMA has come for her children . but the sheep aint hers , so they wont be falling for her ruses and her ways .
BUT MANY DO BIG TIME . Sister i wrote this a bit back , but
its true . What people truly love and desire , THEY GONNA FALL FOR its fable .
I seem to notice that i can say the same identical thing that another sister wrote .
I TOO learned the bible and it sure did help me stay far from the RCC
and even from the protesetant . BUT , ask yourself , HOW COME I AINT RUNNING to the GREEK ORTHODOXY
Because THE SAME TRUTH IN those scrips and the same GOD that inspired them
SAYS , DONT EVEN DARE ENTER INTO IT . I SEE what it is . SO as i wrote to you , WHAT PEOPLE LOVE
is where they head too . Be in prayer for this other one . BUT I AM VERY WORRIED NOW
and i have been seeing subtile changes for some time . STAY IN PRAYER . Keep speaking the truth .
OUR desire IS ONLY GOOD for the peoples .

 

[amigo de christo]

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.

I notice , and that by grace , that those who often preach against Sola scriptura
DO so cause they no likey things in that bible and had rather preach what men taught
WHICH darn sure contradicts the Scrips . I have noticed something else . A LOT .
Anytime one brings the truth of scrips , and even dares to remind us of the urgency to get back into scripure reading
THOSE who attack often do so with accusations such as YE worship a book , YE this and ye that .
BUT THEY DARN SURE cannot bring scrips to point out any error . It just accusations .
At most its emotions and plenty of feelings . BUT what they dont realize is
THERE IS a way WHICH SEEMS RIGHT , YOU bet it feels right , But the end is death .
Todays mindset in large is
no longer man shall live by bread alone but by EVERY WORD of GOD
ITS man shall live by what SEEMS right in his eyes , by this lovey do . WHICH upon simple examination
MUCH of what they love IS CONTRARY TO GOD ALL MIGHTY , THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST . that is WHAT I NOTICE big time .

 

[Hepzibah]

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.

Sister, the reformers were refuting the RCC, who followed and still follow the traditions of men and especially since they left the one true catholic church, and threw the baby out with the bathwater and ignored the true early church stance on this issue. (from the orthodoxbridge.com site) following one unholy man - Augustine of Hippo. And eventually we were left with a Protestantism that has no idea about church history apart from what a few men say it was without looking for themselves, and, men who were not walking in the Spirit (ES'ed) and therefore did not have the discernment it brings.

It is a huge error to not take into account the interpretations of such holy men, not to say they were infallible, but when they all (apart from the few which were in the church with their apostacy from the start) agree on something, and the doctrine they teach is the most most prominent of the first few hundred years, till apostacy increased, and keep the humility that knows that ones own interpretation could be off due to sin abiding, one is pandering to the devil who hates this doctrine and it disempowers him.

Do you really think that God left men in ignorance till the 16th century?

"The evidence show that the Church Fathers made no clear cut distinction between written and oral tradition. J.N.D. Kelly in Early Christian Doctrines noted that the early Church understood “tradition” as the doctrine of Christ and his apostles transmitted orally or in written form (1960:30-31). W.H.C. Frend in his The Rise of Christianity noted that by the year 200 the formation of the New Testament canon was near completion and had begun to take its place alongside the regula fidei, the episcopacy, and the liturgy as the basis for a unified church (p. 251). (See End Note #1) Therefore, the early Church acknowledged both oral tradition and the New Testament writings as authoritative sources. It did not draw any distinction between the two but saw them as interdependent.

'Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.' Jude 1:3

Note that Jude says 'saints' and not all followers were known as saints but divided up into carnal and spiritual..

"Irenaeus’ complains that if one confronts the Gnostics with Scripture they accuse the Scriptures of being ambiguous, and if one confronts the Gnostics with the tradition of the Apostles preserved through apostolic succession they claim a superior knowledge." (orthodoxbrudge.com archives)

Indeed this is what we have today, those who cry 'scripture says' when what they mean is their interpretation of scripture or another carnal man's interpretation, hence we have tens of thousands of Protestants denominations. Sola scriptura is the main reason why so many are now leaving and going to Orthodoxy.

If you wish to debate sola scriptura, then I suggest that you do your homework so that you have a lot more clarity on what the opposition with their scriptural evidence say, which is a prerequiset for any informed discussion and may I suggest this excellent Book Review: The Shape of Sola Scriptura. By Keith A. Mathison. (2001) (Archives – Orthodox-Reformed Bridge) refuted by ex Protestant Robert Arikaki, the author of the site. Or any of the folloowing:

• A Response to Tim Enloe’s “An Interesting Defense of Sola Scriptura“
• Response to Robin Phillips’ “Questions About Sola Scriptura“
• Contra Sola Scriptura (4 of 4): Protestantism’s Fatal Genetic Flaw: Sola Scriptura and Protestantism’s Hermeneutical Chaos
• Contra Sola Scriptura (3 of 4): Where Does Sola Scriptura Come From? The Humanist Origins of the Protestant Reformation
• Contra Sola Scriptura (2 of 4): If Not Sola Scriptura, Then What? The Biblical Basis For Holy Tradition
• Contra Sola Scriptura (1 of 4): Book Review: The Shape of Sola Scriptura by Keith A. Mathison

 

[Lizbeth]

Sister, the reformers were refuting the RCC, who followed and still follow the traditions of men and especially since they left the one true catholic church, and threw the baby out with the bathwater and ignored the true early church stance on this issue. (from the orthodoxbridge.com site) following one unholy man - Augustine of Hippo. And eventually we were left with a Protestantism that has no idea about church history apart from what a few men say it was without looking for themselves, and, men who were not walking in the Spirit (ES'ed) and therefore did not have the discernment it brings.

And yet there are protestants that do talk about and have experienced walking in the Spirit and second blessing or other ways of terming it, as I've heard testimonies and am reading some writings now.

Do you really think that God left men in ignorance till the 16th century?

No, He always has a remnant.

"The evidence show that the Church Fathers made no clear cut distinction between written and oral tradition. J.N.D. Kelly in Early Christian Doctrines noted that the early Church understood “tradition” as the doctrine of Christ and his apostles transmitted orally or in written form (1960:30-31). W.H.C. Frend in his The Rise of Christianity noted that by the year 200 the formation of the New Testament canon was near completion and had begun to take its place alongside the regula fidei, the episcopacy, and the liturgy as the basis for a unified church (p. 251). (See End Note #1) Therefore, the early Church acknowledged both oral tradition and the New Testament writings as authoritative sources. It did not draw any distinction between the two but saw them as interdependent.

Any TRUE oral teaching/doctrine would simply be transmitting and expounding what we have in the written word, not adding to it I hope. The Lord is reminding me of 1 Cor 4:6, where in the context of divisions in the church because of people favouring and identifying with one teacher over another, Paul reminds them to not go beyond, or think beyond, or think of men beyond what is written. And printing presses had not been invented yet and people did not typically have written copies of scripture to pore over, so God's word was read and taught orally. I'm sure singing scripture was used as a way of teaching and helping the people to learn and remember key passages too. But "liturgy" as the basis for a unified church...? See there is a way that seemeth right to man....institutionalized religion. It always sounds so well meaning and "reasonable". Only one minor problem there......Jesus and the apostles didn't teach liturgy was the basis for unity. Anyway God already knew that men were going to do as men do.....take matters into their own hands and out of God's living way, the way of the Spirit and simplicity of Christ.

"Irenaeus’ complains that if one confronts the Gnostics with Scripture they accuse the Scriptures of being ambiguous, and if one confronts the Gnostics with the tradition of the Apostles preserved through apostolic succession they claim a superior knowledge." (orthodoxbrudge.com archives)

The problem with apostolic succession is that men start to choose men to be "apostles" instead of the Holy Spirit giving that gift to whoever He wills.

Indeed this is what we have today, those who cry 'scripture says' when what they mean is their interpretation of scripture or another carnal man's interpretation, hence we have tens of thousands of Protestants denominations. Sola scriptura is the main reason why so many are now leaving and going to Orthodoxy.

Yes, because they are being deceived and seduced....part of the falling away of this age. And it's very true that many go by men's interpretations of scripture instead of learning to look to and rely on the Lord and seeking Him for understanding. That's one reason they go to institutionalized religion...........that and also to be affirmed in seeking to establish their own righteousness instead of submitting to the righteousness of Christ. They want certainty and control and affirmation. And for some, uncertainty and lack of affirmation is anxiety producing....they need emotional healing.....this is why it says to let the lame be healed lest they be turned out of the way.

And I want to mention that Christian growth is not just a matter of knowing the letter of the word well......understanding is also a function of the Lord working in one's life and heart. The two go hand in hand. Truth must be "bought"......scripture says to "buy the truth but sell it not"....we pay a price for understanding and personal growth as we follow the Lord on the narrow way. A church and people that has things too easy is not growing. But we in our flesh can't tolerate the messiness of how things go in an organically growing family....the old man carnal nature of the flesh always wants to control everything and have everything neatly tied up with a bow.

If you wish to debate sola scriptura,

No honestly I don't want to debate sola scriptura....it isn't a term found in the bible and it depends on what it means to any individual. But I will happily discuss what scripture witnesses to and attests about itself. Luther was absolutely doggone right to not pass "Go" but go directly back to the plumbline of God's word and take a detour and wide berth around the teachings of the RCC.....I don't doubt it was the Lord illuminating him by His Spirit with His glorious light.

 

[Hepzibah]

And yet there are protestants that do talk about and have experienced walking in the Spirit and second blessing or other ways of terming it, as I've heard testimonies and am reading some writings now.

The ones I have read, I believe had reached the stage of Illumination, whereby they had the truth revealed about crucifixion with Christ, and had the cleansing to be able to overcome deliberate sin. George Fox reached that stage but recorded in his Journal that there was another higher stage which put him more in line with the early church..

No, He always has a remnant.


Any TRUE oral teaching/doctrine would simply be transmitting and expounding what we have in the written word, not adding to it I hope.

Indeed. It is not spoken v written word. They support each other, but the depth of the spiritual meaning needs to come from those in the same spirit as the writers of scripture and they are the remnant.

The Lord is reminding me of 1 Cor 4:6, where in the context of divisions in the church because of people favouring and identifying with one teacher over another, Paul reminds them to not go beyond, or think beyond, or think of men beyond what is written. And printing presses had not been invented yet and people did not typically have written copies of scripture to pore over, so God's word was read and taught orally.

As was contained in the Divine Liturgy with its emphasis on Theosis to memorise. The aim of which is to bring men to the point where they need a teacher no more:

1 John 2:27: "But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie—just as it has taught you, abide in him".

I'm sure singing scripture was used as a way of teaching and helping the people to learn and remember key passages too. But "liturgy" as the basis for a unified church...?

Indeed it did and the church was unified wherever it existed for those who had no access themselves to a Bible, and still contains pure scripture so your idea of it is not reality.

See there is a way that seemeth right to man....institutionalized religion. It always sounds so well meaning and "reasonable". Only one minor problem there......Jesus and the apostles didn't teach liturgy was the basis for unity. Anyway God already knew that men were going to do as men do.....take matters into their own hands and out of God's living way, the way of the Spirit and simplicity of Christ.

So how is it that the simplicity of Christ is in 40,000 or so denominations? Jesus and His disciples, remember, attended the synagogues and preached there, not 'coming out of them'. It is not the 'organisation' that is the problem, it is that the truth is made accessible for others to hear.

The problem with apostolic succession is that men start to choose men to be "apostles" instead of the Holy Spirit giving that gift to whoever He wills.

It did deteriorate into this agreed to some extent though God was still doing a lot of the choosing and the true followers recognised the real thing.

Yes, because they are being deceived and seduced....part of the falling away of this age. And it's very true that many go by men's interpretations of scripture instead of learning to look to and rely on the Lord and seeking Him for understanding.

Even the Reformers who had this attitude could not agree amongst themselves. It cannot work unless men are truly in the Spirit which they were not. Indeed the falling away has increased greatly.

That's one reason they go to institutionalized religion...........that and also to be affirmed in seeking to establish their own righteousness instead of submitting to the righteousness of Christ.

Sister you have not studied history and it shows in that you come out with so much that is not how things were.

They want certainty and control and affirmation. And for some, uncertainty and lack of affirmation is anxiety producing....they need emotional healing.....this is why it says to let the lame be healed lest they be turned out of the way.

And I want to mention that Christian growth is not just a matter of knowing the letter of the word well......understanding is also a function of the Lord working in one's life and heart. The two go hand in hand. Truth must be "bought"......scripture says to "buy the truth but sell it not"....we pay a price for understanding and personal growth as we follow the Lord on the narrow way. A church and people that has things too easy is not growing. But we in our flesh can't tolerate the messiness of how things go in an organically growing family....the old man carnal nature of the flesh always wants to control everything and have everything neatly tied up with a bow.

Once again you have it in your own mind how things functioned which is not the reality plus a mixture of what you have learned about the RCC, adding that into the mix which has nothing to do with the functioning of a Spirit led church led by holy men.

No honestly I don't want to debate sola scriptura....it isn't a term found in the bible and it depends on what it means to any individual.

Yes exactly, nowhere does it say that all authority is given to the written word. All authority is given to Christ and His spokesmen who paid the ultimate price in losing their lives. Paul repeats many times about the tradition which is handed down verbally.

But I will happily discuss what scripture witnesses to and attests about itself. Luther was absolutely doggone right to not pass "Go" but go directly back to the plumbline of God's word and take a detour and wide berth around the teachings of the RCC.....I don't doubt it was the Lord illuminating him by His Spirit with His glorious light.

Not many have been less illuminated, but he was after all, a Roman Catholic in rebellion, missing out on the true gospel. You really are in a confusion of theological systems that do not add up and contradict themselves.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

It's our study of the Word that has led to us seeing a lot of issues with modern church.

And joining so called "orthodox"churches will reveal all the issues with so called "orthodox"churches

One would already know something is amiss by the things they add to the Gospel which are not taught by Jesus and His teachings thru the writings of the New Testament thru His real Apostles.

ALL of the early church teachings and activities are not scripture.

Sadly departing from the teachings of scripture will be in your future if joining up with so called "orthodox"churches

 

[amigo de christo]

And yet there are protestants that do talk about and have experienced walking in the Spirit and second blessing or other ways of terming it, as I've heard testimonies and am reading some writings now.


No, He always has a remnant.


Any TRUE oral teaching/doctrine would simply be transmitting and expounding what we have in the written word, not adding to it I hope. The Lord is reminding me of 1 Cor 4:6, where in the context of divisions in the church because of people favouring and identifying with one teacher over another, Paul reminds them to not go beyond, or think beyond, or think of men beyond what is written. And printing presses had not been invented yet and people did not typically have written copies of scripture to pore over, so God's word was read and taught orally. I'm sure singing scripture was used as a way of teaching and helping the people to learn and remember key passages too. But "liturgy" as the basis for a unified church...? See there is a way that seemeth right to man....institutionalized religion. It always sounds so well meaning and "reasonable". Only one minor problem there......Jesus and the apostles didn't teach liturgy was the basis for unity. Anyway God already knew that men were going to do as men do.....take matters into their own hands and out of God's living way, the way of the Spirit and simplicity of Christ.


The problem with apostolic succession is that men start to choose men to be "apostles" instead of the Holy Spirit giving that gift to whoever He wills.


Yes, because they are being deceived and seduced....part of the falling away of this age. And it's very true that many go by men's interpretations of scripture instead of learning to look to and rely on the Lord and seeking Him for understanding. That's one reason they go to institutionalized religion...........that and also to be affirmed in seeking to establish their own righteousness instead of submitting to the righteousness of Christ. They want certainty and control and affirmation. And for some, uncertainty and lack of affirmation is anxiety producing....they need emotional healing.....this is why it says to let the lame be healed lest they be turned out of the way.

And I want to mention that Christian growth is not just a matter of knowing the letter of the word well......understanding is also a function of the Lord working in one's life and heart. The two go hand in hand. Truth must be "bought"......scripture says to "buy the truth but sell it not"....we pay a price for understanding and personal growth as we follow the Lord on the narrow way. A church and people that has things too easy is not growing. But we in our flesh can't tolerate the messiness of how things go in an organically growing family....the old man carnal nature of the flesh always wants to control everything and have everything neatly tied up with a bow.


No honestly I don't want to debate sola scriptura....it isn't a term found in the bible and it depends on what it means to any individual. But I will happily discuss what scripture witnesses to and attests about itself. Luther was absolutely doggone right to not pass "Go" but go directly back to the plumbline of God's word and take a detour and wide berth around the teachings of the RCC.....I don't doubt it was the Lord illuminating him by His Spirit with His glorious light.

I truly believe it should be so simple .
And by simple i mean this .
If any man , woman or child
comes and speaks , teaches anything contrary to what is written
and thus in effect DO call GOD a liar , NEEDS TO NOT be heeded but rather corrected .
And this is one simple walk . but men have complicated it .
But why . why would one complicate , twist , bend tug and pull at any scripture .
WELL TO FIT what their flesh DESIRES IT TO BE MEAN and or to say .
But sheep . They dont twist the scrips to serve the flesh .
THEY do not use the Words of GOD and alter and change , omit and make cliams
THEY SIMPLY BELEIVE THE TRUTH and they LOVE IT . And in time
understanding does increase .
I truly beleive that this should be the heart of the beleiver right here ...........
WE SHOULD HAVE LOVED HE WHO SAVED US
WE SHOULD have HONORED HIM in all we did , do and say .
WE should have not done , taught anything that brought DISHONOR in anway to GOD .
ITS HE WE OWE ALL TO .
WE should have looked out for the brethren too .
WE should have LOVED GOD , HIS CHRIST , ABOVE ALL
allowing nothing contrary to him to be entertained , to be praticed , to be accepted
WE SHOULD HAVE LOVED GOD , not the flesh , not our self first .
NO . We should have LOVED , LOVED HE who had saved us . the thing is
THAT IS THE LOVE that GOD SHEDS UPON the heart .
I mean , ITS WHAT HE DID FOR ME on day one . HE , not me , HE not my flesh , HE not my thoughts
HE called me out of darkness , HE put a LOVE FOR HIM upon my heart
and no suprise HE PUT ME RIGHT into the bible to learn .
ANY love THAT DOES NOT HONOR GOD is no love OF GOD .
ANY LOVE that does not HONOR THE SON , but rather calls GOD A LIAR , YEAH IT HONORS NOT GOD .
ANY love that overlooks sins and evil , THAT I DO KNOW dishonors GOD
is not love of GOD and that love is no love for its neighbor either
SEEING IT ALLOWS THEM TO REMAIN IN SIN ,
THE LOVE OF GOD is not like the love of the world . The LOVE OF GOD
does not pander to the flesh of men . because GOD KNOWS those who walk after the flesh , WILL SURELY DIE .
IT WOULD HAVE CORRECTED . IT WOULD HAVE CORRECTED had it been the LOVE OF GOD .
AND THAT LOVE WOULD HAVE HONORED GOD , not sin , not unbeleif . GOD .

 

[amigo de christo]

Any love that dishonors the SON is NOT OF GOD .
I dont care how loving the devil makes it sound with his big of fat road of sin accepting
unbelief accepting lie .
ANY LOVE that can omit the FACT ONE MUST BELIEVE IN JESUS THE CHRIST , HAS ALREADY DISHONORED THE SON
How bout that INTERFAITH INTERRELIGIOUS ANTI CHRIST LIE .
Many DO NOT HONOR the SON , they do NOT BELIEVE HIS WORDS , they DO NOT BELIEVE HIM .
THUS they call HIM A Liar , EVEN IF THEY DO claim to believe on HIM .

OOPS sounds like we got many now loving a lie that sure seems to NOT CORRECT thy neighbor
THAT darn sure allows sin and unbelief upon him .
And that darn sure has made the road to GOD very sin accepting , very very BROAD and inclusive .
BUT OOPSY , that broad love that wont correct squat , wont even remind of the aboslute dire need TO BELEIVE ON JESUS
YEAH its of the devil and HIS ROAD IS VERY VERY BROAD , but it ends IN destuction .

 

[amigo de christo]

And yet there are protestants that do talk about and have experienced walking in the Spirit and second blessing or other ways of terming it, as I've heard testimonies and am reading some writings now.


No, He always has a remnant.


Any TRUE oral teaching/doctrine would simply be transmitting and expounding what we have in the written word, not adding to it I hope. The Lord is reminding me of 1 Cor 4:6, where in the context of divisions in the church because of people favouring and identifying with one teacher over another, Paul reminds them to not go beyond, or think beyond, or think of men beyond what is written. And printing presses had not been invented yet and people did not typically have written copies of scripture to pore over, so God's word was read and taught orally. I'm sure singing scripture was used as a way of teaching and helping the people to learn and remember key passages too. But "liturgy" as the basis for a unified church...? See there is a way that seemeth right to man....institutionalized religion. It always sounds so well meaning and "reasonable". Only one minor problem there......Jesus and the apostles didn't teach liturgy was the basis for unity. Anyway God already knew that men were going to do as men do.....take matters into their own hands and out of God's living way, the way of the Spirit and simplicity of Christ.


The problem with apostolic succession is that men start to choose men to be "apostles" instead of the Holy Spirit giving that gift to whoever He wills.


Yes, because they are being deceived and seduced....part of the falling away of this age. And it's very true that many go by men's interpretations of scripture instead of learning to look to and rely on the Lord and seeking Him for understanding. That's one reason they go to institutionalized religion...........that and also to be affirmed in seeking to establish their own righteousness instead of submitting to the righteousness of Christ. They want certainty and control and affirmation. And for some, uncertainty and lack of affirmation is anxiety producing....they need emotional healing.....this is why it says to let the lame be healed lest they be turned out of the way.

And I want to mention that Christian growth is not just a matter of knowing the letter of the word well......understanding is also a function of the Lord working in one's life and heart. The two go hand in hand. Truth must be "bought"......scripture says to "buy the truth but sell it not"....we pay a price for understanding and personal growth as we follow the Lord on the narrow way. A church and people that has things too easy is not growing. But we in our flesh can't tolerate the messiness of how things go in an organically growing family....the old man carnal nature of the flesh always wants to control everything and have everything neatly tied up with a bow.


No honestly I don't want to debate sola scriptura....it isn't a term found in the bible and it depends on what it means to any individual. But I will happily discuss what scripture witnesses to and attests about itself. Luther was absolutely doggone right to not pass "Go" but go directly back to the plumbline of God's word and take a detour and wide berth around the teachings of the RCC.....I don't doubt it was the Lord illuminating him by His Spirit with His glorious light.

To the trenches my dear sister . the hour is late and the delusion has grown great
and all who loved and made a lie the lake of fire will be their fate .
SEEING GOD desires not the death of the wicked but rather repentance .
The sheep got a lot of work to do , doing all to save some with compassion
and others with fear , pulling them out of the fire , hating and NOT accepting , even the spot on the garment .
The more i do warn and by grace shall warn , the more i will be hated sister .
But dont let that bring you down . IF the world hates us , IT DID HATE JESUS first
And it will hate his sheep . The many have loved the false
but the sheep which be few have loved the Truth .
There simply is nothing new under the sun .
What became of Jerusalem , minus the sheep that were in it ,
Has become of Christnedom , minus the sheep scattered within it .
THE MANY HAVE LOVED the wicked things the wicked men of belial do teach
as they promise them ye shall have peace .
And the few have warned and resisted and the many have hated the few , as they did CHRIST .
vapor life will soon come to an end sister . Our work in the LORD is not in vain .
Vain and vanity is what cometh of men who do the works of darkness and the winds of vaintiy they sowed too
shall indeed reap the TORNADOE of destruction upon them all , ON the day of the LORD who they REJECTED .

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

Diving into this one.

The first UN-scriptural thing this "orthodox" preacher guy is doing is having people call him "father"
If he loved Jesus, he would honor Jesus' instructions but sadly does not:

Matthew 23:8-10
But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.

This guy claims to be following what the Apostles taught but obviously ignores what Jesus teaches in Matthew 23:8-10
If choosing to ignore what Jesus tells us to do is not a gigantic red flag of false teaching, what is?

This is one way we know so called "orthodox" so called churches don't actually love, honor, and follow the Lord Jesus as they claim. It;s comical how they knock protestant churches for this as they themselves are doing the same thing.

Another UN-scriptural thing the "orthodox" church teaches is for their church ministers are to not marry, although unlike the catholics if a guy is married before converting to "orthodox" he is allowed to remain married.

1 Timothy 4:1-3
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

Forbidding their ministers to marry is a doctrine of devils according to 1 Timothy 4:1-3 - so much for being "orthodox"

Another UN-scriptural thing the "orthodox" church teaches is infant baptism (by triple immersion no less!) which Jesus and His Apostles never taught

Another UN-scriptural thing the "orthodox" church teaches is praying to Mary which Jesus and His Apostles never taught

Another UN-scriptural thing the "orthodox" church teaches is prayers for the dead as they believe in purgatory which Jesus and His Apostles never taught

Another UN-scriptural thing the "orthodox" church teaches is their priest dude actually changes the crackers and juice at communion into the LITERAL Flesh and Blood of Jesus which Jesus and His Apostles never taught - and just like the catholics they refuse to have the crackers and juice submitted for scientific testing because they know it's still just the crackers and juice after their priest dude does his little hocus pocus magic act

Another UN-scriptural thing the "orthodox" church teaches is that God's Word is not final Authority but "orthodox" church claims to be the final Authority which Jesus and His Apostles never taught - Just like the catholics they do not believe God's Word IS Truth in opposition to Jesus saying God's Word IS Truth (John 17:17)

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

Another UN-scriptural thing the "orthodox" church teaches is Mary worship.

They are clearly engaging in idolatry concerning Mary - Jesus said all idolators go to hell in Revelation 21:8

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

Is The Orthodox Church Heretical?​

​