My mistake, I was not talking to you about "your" church; although I did reference "your" at times. Since day one my comments have been towards the RCC. Those who "appear" to support the RCC and come to their defense, I just thought you somehow were related. My mistake.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: All things Christianity
- Thread starter PaulF
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
- Status
My mistake, I was not talking to you about "your" church; although I did reference "your" at times. Since day one my comments have been towards the RCC. Those who "appear" to support the RCC and come to their defense, I just thought you somehow were related. My mistake.
If they are not dying....no, there is not anything else they need to do to enter into His kingdom.
They must turn from their sin and sin sin no morel Justification is the salvation aspect, sanctification is the process (one can say) of living out of (away from) sin. Sanctification, when truly thought about, is the afterbirth of salvation. Once you have been justified (saved) you are saved and will go to heaven. Sanctification may determine your rewards in heaven; through the works you do (God speaks about rewards in heaven).
Faith without works is dead; however it is not the works that gets you to heaven.
I think it is fair to say that Orthodoxy and the RCC are "related" - probably more closely than the various Protestant denominations. As an RC, I value foszoe's comments and insight on tradition, because the 2 branches share a healthy percentage of it.
I don't really have much to add to his comments from an RCC perspective, other than your posts and blue falcon's exhibit both a lack of familiarity with RC doctrine and an unwillingness to consider the righteousness of the RCC tradition. The former is something I am very willing to help with, in the absence of the latter.
Oh, quite the contrary! I absolutely accept that you hold an artificially narrow (and unbiblical) view!
I can't remember if you were around for the earlier discussions of that, but I believe that question has been covered. There IS scriptural support for it. You may not accept it as doctrine, but that doesn't rob the idea of scriptural support.
Lest I be accused of holding myself to a different standard, part of why I value honest, open-minded conversations about this kind of thing is that I am willing to consider the righteousness of other people's beliefs, without adopting them or even approving of them.
The reality is that none of us will know the truth until we pass to the other side. Until then, we really only have faith in the truth.
Zig,
You really need to study Orthodoxy to understand their position on this, and this is coming from a life-long Protestant in a holiness denomination who has a growing affinity of the Orthodox perspective. Put aside your ingrained notions about Orthodoxy, dive in to what they actually believe from their perspective, not just the stereotypes that we, as Protestants, have painted on them.
On a side note, Scripture itself is handed-down tradition which was canonized by the church.
GTM
Foszoe, I watched those videos and, while I personally disagree with the practice, I am enlightened to Orthodox practices. There's certainly a lot to like about the Othordox church in terms of reverence that has been lost in the American Protestant church. Tradition helps people remember, "This is important". Without it, it's easy to throw that overboard in favor of slick sermon series about "getting through life", i.e. "What can God do for me?" (Question: does communion take place at Joel Osteen's megachurch?)
The counter is, "are you trying to sew up the curtain in the temple?" From our perspective, the answer is yes. All the extra traditions, the simple involvement of the priest beside you at confession, the icons, the rituals... right or wrong, that's our perception.
A reminder to all, that while may disagree, let's do so as Christians should do, with generous love and understanding. Part of the goal of this discussion is to understand each other. That can't be accomplished by yes/no Q&A, but by patient, and respectfully, listening to the deep convictions of the other person. If you're goal here is to prove you're right and they're wrong, I suggest you visit another thread.
We all have our own biases and need to see past them - Orthodox against those loose & helter skelter Protestants, Fund. Baptist against anything organized, robed or excessively learned, RCC about anything trying to ignore the essentials of works, Reformed against any that even hints at blocking free Grace, Episcopalian about any talk about having to follow the Bible...
PS - when I saw Foszoe's "Father Ted" video I got excited for this:
[video=youtube;nmfLS1hWO94]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmfLS1hWO94[/video]
EDIT: I found my answer about Lakewood... weird... not so much heretical, but just twisted to meet their skewed, enjoyable theology:
[video=youtube;P3BSK-nOWT8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3BSK-nOWT8[/video]
The counter is, "are you trying to sew up the curtain in the temple?" From our perspective, the answer is yes. All the extra traditions, the simple involvement of the priest beside you at confession, the icons, the rituals... right or wrong, that's our perception.
A reminder to all, that while may disagree, let's do so as Christians should do, with generous love and understanding. Part of the goal of this discussion is to understand each other. That can't be accomplished by yes/no Q&A, but by patient, and respectfully, listening to the deep convictions of the other person. If you're goal here is to prove you're right and they're wrong, I suggest you visit another thread.
We all have our own biases and need to see past them - Orthodox against those loose & helter skelter Protestants, Fund. Baptist against anything organized, robed or excessively learned, RCC about anything trying to ignore the essentials of works, Reformed against any that even hints at blocking free Grace, Episcopalian about any talk about having to follow the Bible...
PS - when I saw Foszoe's "Father Ted" video I got excited for this:
[video=youtube;nmfLS1hWO94]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmfLS1hWO94[/video]
EDIT: I found my answer about Lakewood... weird... not so much heretical, but just twisted to meet their skewed, enjoyable theology:
[video=youtube;P3BSK-nOWT8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3BSK-nOWT8[/video]
Last edited:
You guys are better than us then.
As a kid, I used to ask the question (was raised that cursing was a sin) what happens to the person who in an accident swears just prior to dying and has no chance of confessing it (In a Wesleyan sense not an Orthodox sense)?
When you said must sin no more, that reminded me of that question.
One of the main differences between us (and most Protestants, for most preach eternal security with no option of "backsliding" which I think you believe in) is that salvation is a series of steps. Once a step is completed then there is no need to return to that step.
So you are saved (justified), then you are sanctified either by a second work of grace, Wesley's position, or as part of a lifetime process. So generally that is why you and others would say "saved" past tense.
In Orthodoxy it is much more fluid and you move back and forth between the steps, what Protestants call hills and valleys. Some Protestants talk of justification as God puts on these glasses and sees Christ instead of you. Orthodoxy would not ever use such language for salvation is a process of transformation of YOU.
The steps are catharsis or purification (from sin), theoria or illumination ("knowledge" of God through experience not book learning), and theosis or divinization (partakers of the divine nature, not in essence but in energy). This distinction between essence and energy is a distinctly Orthodox doctrine that has only recently, in the last 100 years, gained respect in the west.
Your entire life in Christ is spent moving back and forth between these steps.
For TLex, theoria is often compared to the Catholic doctrine of the Beatific Vision of God but there are key differences. Notably the Beatific Vision is more of a contemplation of God than a direct experience of God. This is due to the essence and energies paradigm. Our St Gregory Palamas was the one who expounded on this distinction. He was accused of Pelagianism and until the last century was not regarded well by the RCC. That has begun to change and now there is heightened interest in Palamas. At one time it was called the Palamite heresy in the west I believe but that view has begun to soften.
The key distinction is for the Orthodox, energies is sorta equivalent to grace. However in the east grace is uncreated. In the west grace is considered created and then grace becomes multifaceted even among protestants, I believe there are conversations about the "types" of grace. This is foreign to Orthodoxy.
As a kid, I used to ask the question (was raised that cursing was a sin) what happens to the person who in an accident swears just prior to dying and has no chance of confessing it (In a Wesleyan sense not an Orthodox sense)?
When you said must sin no more, that reminded me of that question.
One of the main differences between us (and most Protestants, for most preach eternal security with no option of "backsliding" which I think you believe in) is that salvation is a series of steps. Once a step is completed then there is no need to return to that step.
So you are saved (justified), then you are sanctified either by a second work of grace, Wesley's position, or as part of a lifetime process. So generally that is why you and others would say "saved" past tense.
In Orthodoxy it is much more fluid and you move back and forth between the steps, what Protestants call hills and valleys. Some Protestants talk of justification as God puts on these glasses and sees Christ instead of you. Orthodoxy would not ever use such language for salvation is a process of transformation of YOU.
The steps are catharsis or purification (from sin), theoria or illumination ("knowledge" of God through experience not book learning), and theosis or divinization (partakers of the divine nature, not in essence but in energy). This distinction between essence and energy is a distinctly Orthodox doctrine that has only recently, in the last 100 years, gained respect in the west.
Your entire life in Christ is spent moving back and forth between these steps.
For TLex, theoria is often compared to the Catholic doctrine of the Beatific Vision of God but there are key differences. Notably the Beatific Vision is more of a contemplation of God than a direct experience of God. This is due to the essence and energies paradigm. Our St Gregory Palamas was the one who expounded on this distinction. He was accused of Pelagianism and until the last century was not regarded well by the RCC. That has begun to change and now there is heightened interest in Palamas. At one time it was called the Palamite heresy in the west I believe but that view has begun to soften.
The key distinction is for the Orthodox, energies is sorta equivalent to grace. However in the east grace is uncreated. In the west grace is considered created and then grace becomes multifaceted even among protestants, I believe there are conversations about the "types" of grace. This is foreign to Orthodoxy.
This didn't strike me until I read foszoe's response to it:
I don't think I've heard before of this notion in Christianity that different souls may have different "rewards" in Heaven. Can you elaborate?
Like, Dante's Paradiso is familiar to me, but I don't necessarily take that as doctrine.
To me, Heaven is a union with God's love. All souls who get to Heaven have that same union.
Or is this a variation of purgatory? As in, it is a 'reward' to get to purgatory, because we know we'll get to Heaven at some point.
Apologies if this has been covered already in this thread. I recall a discussion of purgatory, but don't recall the corollary idea of different rewards as being part of Protestantism.
Maybe this is a beatitudes thing? A citation may be helpful to me.
Concur.
I don't think I've heard before of this notion in Christianity that different souls may have different "rewards" in Heaven. Can you elaborate?
Like, Dante's Paradiso is familiar to me, but I don't necessarily take that as doctrine.
To me, Heaven is a union with God's love. All souls who get to Heaven have that same union.
Or is this a variation of purgatory? As in, it is a 'reward' to get to purgatory, because we know we'll get to Heaven at some point.
Apologies if this has been covered already in this thread. I recall a discussion of purgatory, but don't recall the corollary idea of different rewards as being part of Protestantism.
Maybe this is a beatitudes thing? A citation may be helpful to me.
Concur.
Biases are difficult to recognize which can make difficult. Just like personal sins are difficult to recognize which is why confession is necessary, but I digress
Actually I will drop a couple of bombshells. I believe this is unique to Orthodoxy but TLex can respond for the RCC practice.
These videos are introductory and meant for inquirers who probably are going to an Orthodox Parish BUT
In Orthodoxy you do not have to confess to a priest as Blue Falcon was trying to pin me down on In Orthodoxy a confessor/spiritual father or mother must be blessed by a Bishop to hear confessions. This is a safeguard that I am sure I don't need to detail out here why. You can confess to a monk (which in Orthodoxy actually applies to men and women but in our culture we have adapted to monk or nun depending on gender).
So in Orthodoxy not all priests can hear confessions. In the greek practice, they sometimes have roaming confessors going from parish to parish. Therefore it is not necessary to confess to a priest.
Protestants have had the notion of an accountability partner around for some time now which mimics confession even if they don't want to admit it.
So then how is the priest involved?
After confession (if you are not confessing to a priest) you are sent to the priest who prays the following prayer over you.
So why do people believe that Orthodox teach a man forgives sins when the final prayer CLEARLY states that is not the teaching?
Because the RCC prayer after confession is
And to most people, Orthodox = Roman Catholic.
Finally as to the veil and Blue Falcons accusation of not reading Hebrews. I found that very amusing. If not for the Orthodox, Hebrews would not be in the NT canon while if not for the West the Apocalypse (or Revelation) would not be in. Those were the last two books to make it into the canon.
lNow why did we fight so hard for Hebrews. Because it is a description of our worship, quite literally.
On our altar, think parallels to the ark of the covenant, is the manna (communion), the ten commandments (the gospel), the rod that budded (the cross gives us life) and I could go on and on ....Hebrews 11? The cloud of witnesses? Well they are all around us and we join them in their heavenly worship at every Divine Liturgy.
But anyway enough for now.
Actually I will drop a couple of bombshells. I believe this is unique to Orthodoxy but TLex can respond for the RCC practice.
These videos are introductory and meant for inquirers who probably are going to an Orthodox Parish BUT
In Orthodoxy you do not have to confess to a priest as Blue Falcon was trying to pin me down on
In Orthodoxy a confessor/spiritual father or mother must be blessed by a Bishop to hear confessions. This is a safeguard that I am sure I don't need to detail out here why. You can confess to a monk (which in Orthodoxy actually applies to men and women but in our culture we have adapted to monk or nun depending on gender). So in Orthodoxy not all priests can hear confessions. In the greek practice, they sometimes have roaming confessors going from parish to parish. Therefore it is not necessary to confess to a priest.
Protestants have had the notion of an accountability partner around for some time now which mimics confession even if they don't want to admit it.
So then how is the priest involved?
After confession (if you are not confessing to a priest) you are sent to the priest who prays the following prayer over you.
So why do people believe that Orthodox teach a man forgives sins when the final prayer CLEARLY states that is not the teaching?
Because the RCC prayer after confession is
And to most people, Orthodox = Roman Catholic.
Finally as to the veil and Blue Falcons accusation of not reading Hebrews. I found that very amusing. If not for the Orthodox, Hebrews would not be in the NT canon while if not for the West the Apocalypse (or Revelation) would not be in. Those were the last two books to make it into the canon.
lNow why did we fight so hard for Hebrews. Because it is a description of our worship, quite literally.
On our altar, think parallels to the ark of the covenant, is the manna (communion), the ten commandments (the gospel), the rod that budded (the cross gives us life) and I could go on and on ....Hebrews 11? The cloud of witnesses? Well they are all around us and we join them in their heavenly worship at every Divine Liturgy.
But anyway enough for now.
Same in RCC, basically.In Orthodoxy you do not have to confess to a priest as Blue Falcon was trying to pin me down on
I do think that's different, in that all Catholic priests can hear confession. I'm not TOTALLY sure about that, as there are some orders that I just don't know much about.
Yeah, while I don't understand why people get that confused, I do feel bad about it when it happens.
A quick note about the RCC prayer after the confession. Like foszoe alluded to earlier, confession is only part of the equation. There are other elements, such as repentance and penance. But, the part about absolving/absolution is key. God forgives. That's specific to the individual's relationship with God. The priest is not there to grant forgiveness.
However, sin not only separates us from God, but from the church. Receiving absolution rectifies the relationship with the church. The priest's role in the church gives him that authority to absolve.
Again, this is an explanation in my own words - church doctrine likely uses different words.
And I don't usually quote pics, but whenever foszoe goes full Orthodox, this is exactly how I picture him reacting.
this thread
Same in RCC, basically.
I do think that's different, in that all Catholic priests can hear confession. I'm not TOTALLY sure about that, as there are some orders that I just don't know much about.
Yeah, while I don't understand why people get that confused, I do feel bad about it when it happens.
A quick note about the RCC prayer after the confession. Like foszoe alluded to earlier, confession is only part of the equation. There are other elements, such as repentance and penance. But, the part about absolving/absolution is key. God forgives. That's specific to the individual's relationship with God. The priest is not there to grant forgiveness.
However, sin not only separates us from God, but from the church. Receiving absolution rectifies the relationship with the church. The priest's role in the church gives him that authority to absolve.
ng.
Yes one thing I find when I'm talking to a protestants is just as their relationship with Christ as personal so are their sins. That means the horizontal relationship between people is neglected in their theology whereas it is an emphasis for the Roman Catholic and orthodox. Yeah and I'm not speaking for people here however in my experience with protestants many feel a great impetus to get people saved but many people who get saved feel like they are neglected after their salvation experience. I personally believe that this occurs due to their understanding of ecclesiology.. once the church becomes invisible then the sense of community is diminished.
I can't argue with any of that, but I find part of it ironic. That is, reputationally, certain Protestant denominations do a GREAT job with the community-building exercises - pot luck dinners, all the casserole jokes, social activities. That's why it surprises me a bit to, every once in awhile, see this shadow of how it doesn't extend as deeply into the faith formation exercises.
Present company likely excluded, naturally. The participants in this thread seem to heartily engage in faith formation. No exceptions.
Well, that gets awkward with PaulF, but I think y'all know what I mean.
I can't argue with any of that, but I find part of it ironic. That is, reputationally, certain Protestant denominations do a GREAT job with the community-building exercises - pot luck dinners, all the casserole jokes, social activities. That's why it surprises me a bit to, every once in awhile, see this shadow of how it doesn't extend as deeply into the faith formation exercises.
Present company likely excluded, naturally. The participants in this thread seem to heartily engage in faith formation. No exceptions.
Well, that gets awkward with PaulF, but I think y'all know what I mean.
In the future please refrain from responding to my post until you see that I have edited it at least once. It is usually better to wait until the third. That way my spelling errors due to talking to this phone can be corrected. Sometimes for understanding it may be better just to read it out loud figure it out phonetically. :-)
So...as the wayward Protestant wandering around...
I think that we are coming back to some of the more formal aspects of worship (as a rule of thumb, I'm sure they exist in Zigs and BF's perfect churches already).
My dad and I frequently lament that some aspects of "high church" were thrown out with the bad doctrine during the Reformation. Liturgies are coming around again as are catechisms. We did the Heidelberg Catechism with the kids last year and are doing the New City Catechism this year. Next year will probably be Westminster (although I'm still trying to find a commentary version of it for the year).
I think that we are coming back to some of the more formal aspects of worship (as a rule of thumb, I'm sure they exist in Zigs and BF's perfect churches already).
My dad and I frequently lament that some aspects of "high church" were thrown out with the bad doctrine during the Reformation. Liturgies are coming around again as are catechisms. We did the Heidelberg Catechism with the kids last year and are doing the New City Catechism this year. Next year will probably be Westminster (although I'm still trying to find a commentary version of it for the year).
- Status
Site Supporter
Staff online
-
d.kaufmanStill Here
Members online
- 11infantryb
- Meena
- mamesquirk89
- badmotorscooter
- profjeremy
- Bucky623
- pewpewINpewpew
- FireBirdDS
- Capvideo
- dan45
- EPeter213
- jt1975
- tangleridgeslim
- 76caprice
- Flingarrows
- Hoosierdood
- jagee
- tsm
- d.kaufman
- MinuteManMike
- Doug
- Hillbilly
- Pyro
- littletommy
- Ozzy17
- papa6x
- swamptick
- BluePig
- Hop
- MrHank
- 92FSTech
- miguel
- Zackerpacker002
- Wstar425
- ancjr
- keeph8n
- Born2vette
- ChooterMcGavin1973
- jtmiller951
- Simon6101
- Firehawk
- Squid556
- HoosierLife
- JimH
- jbm1521
- F1Fanatic
- Indyhd
- deo62
- rkwhyte2
- doddg