Post: #51

(10-05-2019 10:19 PM)wwtl Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 01:13 PM)scorpion Wrote:  In this view, God is not just the creator of the universe but the author of history, and his will is invariably done in all things. In other words, everything that has happened in the history of the world has happened because God either made it happen directly, or he allowed it to happen because it would serve his plan in some way.

With this understanding you can see how the question of the compilation of the Bible being done by men becomes ludicrous. As if the men were exercising their free will undirected by the Holy Spirit!? In other words, the Bible could not have ended up any other way than it did. God's will was done. So when you ask, "What is the New Testament?" I answer flatly: it is the New Testament. The New Testament that God wanted us to have and which we have today. He directed the authorship of the original epistles/gospels through inspiration by the Holy Spirit, he directed their early distribution and preservation, and he directed their ultimate selection and compilation into the New Testament we have today. This was done by the power and the will of God and is just one example of how God directs history toward his desired purposes. This is the concept of Divine Providence.

For my conversion God provided me with a literal translation of the Textus Receptus. One thing I was very concerned about especially before conversion was that I actually have a non-corrupted and complete version of God's word. I didn't want to read some happy daisy advertising flyer depicting Christianity in the best light possible while leaving out or euphemizing the parts I might not like, one which tries to convince me to join and pay for some happy megachurch (you see I didn't really intend to convert at first...)

After a discussion in church yesterday I brought this issue up with the Lord again and He reminded me of my own research two years ago and asked me: Do you think God makes mistakes? Do you seriously believe He is unable to provide you with the exact Bible translation you need(ed)?

Great points, although I suspect that for most members of this forum a literal, correct translation of the Bible would be much less a problem than it would be for the typical "Churchian" as mainstream American churchgoers are sometimes called. I think most guys on this forum would be less likely to squirm uncomfortably at Jesus coming not to bring peace but a sword, women not being permitted to speak in church, men lusting after other men being sinful, and so on.

Post: #52

(10-05-2019 01:13 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 09:33 PM)Aboulia Wrote:  Those books and many others you're referring to were collected, and evaluated and they interpreted them in a specific way by many men. Those that fit properly with the conception of God were included, those that were not, were discarded , and when contentions came up that were threatening to break the unity of the church, the king called an ecumenical synod to resolve the main issues. To reject this, is in essence, taking centuries of collected knowledge about the nature of the world, which people fought and died to maintain, and throwing it to the wayside, because people feel they can interpret a book how they see fit.

I think this is a good example of the Orthodox tendency to elevate the church itself and especially the great saints and patriarchs to a higher level than they deserve. Because what you're asserting here is that it was MEN who decided what would be in the Bible. This is completely antithetical to my understanding and belief not only in God himself, but particularly in the method in which he chose to reveal himself to the great majority of those who would believe in him (the written scriptures).

There is no need for the bad faith understanding of my statement. It's implicit that these men were guided by the Holy Spirit in the quest for truth, for men can do nothing good apart from God. Just as in the scriptures, whenever someone does something right, it generally doesn't include that they were guided by the Holy Spirit at every statement.

Since I need to emphasize this, men didn't decide what qualified as Holy Scripture in the manner of a person that decides what to have for dinner. They decided in a manner according to the truth which exists outside man and, like it or not, they all agreed upon (with the same Holy Spirit, the spirit of truth) the interpretation of the words contained. As I stated in that exact same post you replied to but chose to ignore, a man has no power over what is truth or not, he can only point to what is true, the men compiling the scriptures had no personal self serving influence in the matter.

(10-04-2019 09:33 PM)Aboulia Wrote:  The garments people wear do not make them worthy to declare what is and what is not true, they have no jurisdiction over it, they can only point to where it lies.

Post: #53

(10-06-2019 02:10 PM)bucky Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 10:19 PM)wwtl Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 01:13 PM)scorpion Wrote:  In this view, God is not just the creator of the universe but the author of history, and his will is invariably done in all things. In other words, everything that has happened in the history of the world has happened because God either made it happen directly, or he allowed it to happen because it would serve his plan in some way.

With this understanding you can see how the question of the compilation of the Bible being done by men becomes ludicrous. As if the men were exercising their free will undirected by the Holy Spirit!? In other words, the Bible could not have ended up any other way than it did. God's will was done. So when you ask, "What is the New Testament?" I answer flatly: it is the New Testament. The New Testament that God wanted us to have and which we have today. He directed the authorship of the original epistles/gospels through inspiration by the Holy Spirit, he directed their early distribution and preservation, and he directed their ultimate selection and compilation into the New Testament we have today. This was done by the power and the will of God and is just one example of how God directs history toward his desired purposes. This is the concept of Divine Providence.

For my conversion God provided me with a literal translation of the Textus Receptus. One thing I was very concerned about especially before conversion was that I actually have a non-corrupted and complete version of God's word. I didn't want to read some happy daisy advertising flyer depicting Christianity in the best light possible while leaving out or euphemizing the parts I might not like, one which tries to convince me to join and pay for some happy megachurch (you see I didn't really intend to convert at first...)

After a discussion in church yesterday I brought this issue up with the Lord again and He reminded me of my own research two years ago and asked me: Do you think God makes mistakes? Do you seriously believe He is unable to provide you with the exact Bible translation you need(ed)?

Great points, although I suspect that for most members of this forum a literal, correct translation of the Bible would be much less a problem than it would be for the typical "Churchian" as mainstream American churchgoers are sometimes called. I think most guys on this forum would be less likely to squirm uncomfortably at Jesus coming not to bring peace but a sword, women not being permitted to speak in church, men lusting after other men being sinful, and so on.

Indeed, that's exactly where some of my fellow Christians get uncomfortable, when I state that I accept the Bible as truth in the whole and have absolutely no issues with the content of God's word.

In the end it's about not having a "feel good" gospel and instead accepting the fact, that God demands things you might not like, because they are still good.

Post: #54

(10-02-2019 12:13 PM)Augustus_Principe Wrote:  Catholic & Orthodox since they were both were in communion with one another up until the Schism.

By that logic, you could say Catholic and Protestant, too, since they were in Communion up until the Reformation....

bucky Wrote:Can those of you who are more knowledgeable about the scriptures tell me what the scriptural basis is for the belief that there is only one true church? ....

Also, if you believe your church is the only true church, what are the consequences for those who believe in Christ but never eventually convert to it? What about non-Christians who do good works without believing in Christ? Will they burn in hell for all eternity, or something else?

In response to the first question, about one true Church...the Scriptures are clear regarding "One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism." The Church is the new Israel, and the Lord has only One Bride, not many. There are many false Churches (see: Whore of Babylon) who pride themselves in being the Queen, but they are not. That being said, the Church is made up of every tribe, language, people, and nation, and even your institutional churches like Rome and the East acknowledge the incorporation of other religious traditions into the One True Church.

As for the second question about unbelievers, the Lord Himself is quite to the point when He says: "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." What of the ignorant remote tribes? They are without excuse, as the Apostle says: "For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened."

Those who have not heard the Gospel can understand God's existence from nature, and further have the Law written in their hearts, as the Apostle goes on to say:

"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel."

It is my firm belief that, if an unbeliever strives to know God, He will reveal Himself to him, as we have seen take place on this forum. We have glimpses of this in the Scriptures, such as the Egyptians who followed the Israelites out of Egypt after the plagues, the prostitute Rehab who was saved from Jericho, the Queen of Sheba who visited Solomon, the people of Nineveh who were saved from destruction through Jonah's preaching, the Magi who came to worship the newborn Christ, and the Ethiopian eunuch who was baptized by St. Philip. God works in ways to bring the truth to unlikely people who earnestly seek Him (as well as those who do not), and His Word will always "accomplish the purpose" for which He sends it.

Post: #55

I did not read this thread nor do I intend to. I always try to reduce even the most complex down to its essence. "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." You look at the current state of Christianity in general and the Roman Catholic Church in particular and then remain honest with yourself and you are going to have an internal crisis of the highest order. The current reality is just so far separated from the words.

Post: #56

I think we can remove the Evangelical Lutheran Church from the list of candidates.

Post: #57

It's that cuck face again.

Someone need to remake Ridley Scott's Alien but instead of a xenomorph bursting out of the chest, it's a brain virus causing low T men to do the soy grin.

Post: #58

(10-15-2019 06:11 AM)loremipsum Wrote:  It's that cuck face again.

Someone need to remake Ridley Scott's Alien but instead of a xenomorph bursting out of the chest, it's a brain virus causing low T men to do the soy grin.

I'm not even sure which one is the "pastor" in that photo

Post: #59

One looks lesbian. And the other cuckface

Post: #60

My understanding is that the Roman Catholic Church teaches it is the One True Church via apostolic succession from St. Peter, although someone more knowledgeable in that could probably explain it better than I.

On the other hand, I actually think it would be strange for a particular branch of Christianity to not to consider itself the One True Church. How can a particular Church claim to teach God's commandments on subjects of such cosmic significance as morality, life and death, the creation of the universe, God, the nature of reality, etc. but not claim it is the One True Church? It seems to me that not doing so would undercut its own answers.

Post: #61

(11-29-2019 04:30 PM)Diocletian Wrote:  My understanding is that the Roman Catholic Church teaches it is the One True Church via apostolic succession from St. Peter..

Google "who founded the Catholic Church". Then, google "who founded (any other denomination) church"

Just sayin

Post: #62

Biblically a church just means a congregation. A gathering of believers under one roof. I think the more important question to ask is...is there one true belief that gets you into heaven. You have to do stuff to get into heaven, or you don't? Only two options.

Post: #63

All institutions can be subverted. So the visible isnt so likely a reliable indicator.

And as I speak efforts to subvert roman catholicism and eastern orthodoxy is ongoing.

Vatican 2 didnt spring out of nowhere.

Post: #64

(10-12-2019 12:14 PM)Scorpio Rising Wrote:  I did not read this thread nor do I intend to. I always try to reduce even the most complex down to its essence. "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." You look at the current state of Christianity in general and the Roman Catholic Church in particular and then remain honest with yourself and you are going to have an internal crisis of the highest order. The current reality is just so far separated from the words.

Well then, if that's the path you wish, let's reduce the complex down to it's essence. When Christ said this to Peter, the very next thing Peter said to him lead Christ to call Peter, "Satan". In this he was demonstrating the very short-sighted, unstable nature of humanity. This is the rock on which the church is built, the man who boldly confesses his faith, only to fall shortly thereafter, repent, and the cycle repeats, but with generally longer durations between the confession of faith, and sin, ending with the confession of faith with the man who endures. Peter had that constant cycle throughout his life, he was bold, walking on water, only to cry out for Christ to save him moments later, then when they're in the Mount of Olives, Peter says he will never stumble, Christ tells him that he will deny him 3 times before the cock crows. We all know how that ends, even after the resurrection, Christ asks Peter 3 times if he loves him, Peter affirms it, then is immediately concerned with the fate of John, Christ again gives him a slight rebuke. Later in the Epistles, you have Paul rebuking Peter in 2 Galatians. In the end, Peter followed the Lord, he was crucified upside down, because he didn't think he was worthy to be crucified in the same manner as the Lord.

I hope this illustrates this more clearly.

(12-02-2019 12:20 AM)Spectrumwalker Wrote:  Biblically a church just means a congregation. A gathering of believers under one roof. I think the more important question to ask is...is there one true belief that gets you into heaven.

There is one true belief, and it shapes how you interact with the world. The most important thing is not a confession of faith to a worldly ecclesiastical hierarchy, but how you view, and interact with the world. There are many good followers of all faiths, but their perception of the world is dependent on what they believe, and by their own sins.

The issues I take with what you said, "is there one true belief that gets you into heaven" is that if you're only concerned with getting yourself into heaven, you're not getting there with that state of mind. Acquire the spirit of peace and a thousand souls around you will be saved.

(12-02-2019 12:20 AM)Spectrumwalker Wrote:  You have to do stuff to get into heaven, or you don't? Only two options.

You do. both physically, and spiritually.

(12-02-2019 12:21 AM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  All institutions can be subverted. So the visible isnt so likely a reliable indicator.

And as I speak efforts to subvert roman catholicism and eastern orthodoxy is ongoing.

Vatican 2 didnt spring out of nowhere.

You're right that wherever there is power, corruption follows. This is why the primary duty of the church is to proclaim and hold fast to the truth, the more power can be gained by a position in a church, the more people with selfish ambitions will desire that position. On the flipside, it's impossible to get away from this because larger projects such as church building require an organizational structure to function.

There were political considerations in Vatican 2, as there were political issues in the Orthodox world with the introduction of the Gregorian calendar. Ecumenism and branch theory is a heresy, for to believe in it carries the implication that the gates of hades have prevailed over the Church, that there's no real universal truth.

Post: #65

@Aboulia

The advantage of having many cells networked together is that corruption is easier to isolate and disconnect. When something is over-centralized. Then having the center be corrupted will ensure that the entire body be unable to escape said corruption.

Post: #66

(10-01-2019 07:38 PM)MichaelWitcoff Wrote:  I believe that the Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church referenced in the Bible and the Nicene Creed. I believe there is ample evidence that the One Church is a external (and internal) theanthropic (Divine and human) institution, since it is the Body of Christ, which cannot be divided.

I also believe God is all-powerful, all-merciful, all-just, and absolutely perfect in all His ways and judgments, able to save or destroy anyone He sees fit for any reason He sees fit, and that it’s not for man to judge the salvation, or lack thereof, of any other person (or even ourselves).

Can I say Orthodoxy is the truth? Yes. Can I say everyone outside Orthodoxy is automatically condemned? No.

I would have given anything for this mentality years ago when I grew up in an ultra legalistic heavy doctrine based (John Campbell doctrine )church of Christ. I legitimately was a believer in the doctrine and killed off so many friendships growing up because of all the other "sinner types" at "unfit churches". I guess we just get older and learn the hard way sometimes.

Post: #67

(12-02-2019 08:53 AM)Aboulia Wrote:  The issues I take with what you said, "is there one true belief that gets you into heaven" is that if you're only concerned with getting yourself into heaven, you're not getting there with that state of mind. Acquire the spirit of peace and a thousand souls around you will be saved.

Can you back this up with scripture? Or is this just your personal opinion?

Post: #68

“if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” (1 Tim 3:15)