Is RightIdea a Protestant?

[Amazing Rando]

This is a continuation of a discussion in another thread that branched waaaaaaay :offtopic:

RightIdea said Since he's not a Protestant (nor am I), I'm sure he's sympathetic but won't believe he is connected to such an evil act.

This of course peaked my interest, because as far as I knew, RI was neither Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox. According to my working definition of Protestantism, as "A Christian who is neither Catholic nor Orthodox," this makes RighIdea a Protestant, a charge which he denies.:ahem: It is clear that RI is operating under a different definition of Protestant than I am, which is why he reaches a different conclusion on this matter than I. So what we have here is, in essence, a petty semantic disagreement. I just love those, don't you? :wink:

So without further ado, I present the poll question for the ages: "Is RightIdea a Protestant?" :egad:

A simple yes or no answer in the poll followed by an explanation of why you voted the way you did would be helpful. While we're at it, please explain what being a "Protestant" means to you. Thanks! This should be an interesting discussion! :teeth:

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Well, he certainly protests about stuff enough.

I guess being a convert from a non-Christian background who has no strong denomination-affiliation would make sense of none-of-the-above.

dlw

[spl_cadet]

Catholic definition of Protestant: You are Christian but you aren't Catholic or Orthodox or one of the groups that split after an ecumenical council prior to the Photian Schism.

[Dave G]

Methinketh RightIdea protesteth a lot.

Seriously, RightIdea says he is part of an unbroken tradition from the time of the early church, a sect of "Baptists," I think he said. We went a little off topic in a thread of Bob Jenkins's where he was trying to get some help with sectarian doctrine. I haven't checked that thread, but last I saw he didn't follow up with any historical evidence.
If there was an actual verifiable tradition that survived, then he wouldn't be a Protestant since his tradition didn't stem from the Reformation.
Of course, if this is a historical tradition, I'd also be interested in what theological differences it holds since Eastern Orthodox theology is markedly different from Western theology.

[rocketman]

If ya ain't Catholic, and ya ain't EO, then in today's world you are de facto Protestant, regardless of the origin of the term.

"They don't make Protestants like they used to..." :hehe:

[Amazing Rando]

Methinketh RightIdea protesteth a lot.

:rofl:

Seriously, RightIdea says he is part of an unbroken tradition from the time of the early church, a sect of "Baptists," I think he said. We went a little off topic in a thread of Bob Jenkins's where he was trying to get some help with sectarian doctrine. I haven't checked that thread, but last I saw he didn't follow up with any historical evidence.

Seriously? I think you might be misunderstanding RI here a bit. He'd never call himself a Baptist first of all, because he believes baptism died away and was part of the Old Dispensation, and he refuses to get baptized because of it. But that's not a matter for this thread. Secondly, I doubt RI would ever claim to be part of any unbroken apostolic tradition. Perhaps you're just misreading him a bit? :nsm:

If there was an actual verifiable tradition that survived, then he wouldn't be a Protestant since his tradition didn't stem from the Reformation.
Of course, if this is a historical tradition, I'd also be interested in what theological differences it holds since Eastern Orthodox theology is markedly different from Western theology.

I pointed out in the other thread that he believes in the three main pillars of Protestantism: sola scriptura, justification by faith alone, and rejection of the authority of the Pope. I know this is just a silly dispute over the definition of a word, but it's a wierd one. I've never seen any Christian besides RI and Jude3b claim to not be a either a Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox Christian.

But maybe I just don't get out enough. :wink:

[Amazing Rando]

If ya ain't Catholic, and ya ain't EO, then in today's world you are de facto Protestant, regardless of the origin of the term.

"They don't make Protestants like they used to..." :hehe:

Those are precisely my thoughts, Rocketman. :yes:

[Amazing Rando]

Catholic definition of Protestant: You are Christian but you aren't Catholic or Orthodox or one of the groups that split after an ecumenical council prior to the Photian Schism.

Please explain Photian Schism?

[Dave G]

Seriously? I think you might be misunderstanding RI here a bit. He'd never call himself a Baptist first of all, because he believes baptism died away and was part of the Old Dispensation, and he refuses to get baptized because of it. But that's not a matter for this thread. Secondly, I doubt RI would ever claim to be part of any unbroken apostolic tradition. Perhaps you're just misreading him a bit? :nsm:

You're right about him not being a baptist, because I went back and checked the thread. I guess I got confused because I also don't see how he would not be a Protestant when the only alternative is the baptist tradition he asserted here:http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=294902&postcount=16
As for it being unbroken from the apostles, he simply said it existed apart from the RCC "the whole time," which is a little ambiguous. He could have meant from Constantine, for example.

[Amazing Rando]

You're right about him not being a baptist, because I went back and checked the thread. I guess I got confused because I also don't see how he would not be a Protestant when the only alternative is the baptist tradition he asserted here:http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=294902&postcount=16
As for it being unbroken from the apostles, he simply said it existed apart from the RCC "the whole time," which is a little ambiguous. He could have meant from Constantine, for example.

Wow- how did I ever miss that one? He was even responding to me in that post. Perhaps he'd like to explain why Baptists aren't Protestant?

[brother vinny]

I voted Protestant, but I actually think RightIdea is a proto-Catholic. He's slowly adopting Catholic tenets-- he started with his acceptance of their New Testament canon and belief in the literal resurrection of Christ-- and I daresay by the time he gets settled in Heaven, he'll be fully converted and honoring Mary as Queen.

:teeth:

[Amazing Rando]

:lmbo:

[Jaltus]

Actually, wouldn't anabaptists consider themselves separate from both EO and RCC without being Protestants since technically the Protestant movement is limited to those who were forced out of the RCC after the 95 thesis?

[brother vinny]

Actually, wouldn't anabaptists consider themselves separate from both EO and RCC without being Protestants since technically the Protestant movement is limited to those who were forced out of the RCC after the 95 thesis?

So really what you're saying is, the Anabaptists are a cult!

I knew it all along!

:teeth:

[Ric]

This is a continuation of a discussion in another thread that branched waaaaaaay :offtopic:

RightIdea said

This of course peaked my interest, because as far as I knew, RI was neither Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox. According to my working definition of Protestantism, as "A Christian who is neither Catholic nor Orthodox," this makes RighIdea a Protestant, a charge which he denies.:ahem: It is clear that RI is operating under a different definition of Protestant than I am, which is why he reaches a different conclusion on this matter than I. So what we have here is, in essence, a petty semantic disagreement. I just love those, don't you? :wink:

So without further ado, I present the poll question for the ages: "Is RightIdea a Protestant?" :egad:

A simple yes or no answer in the poll followed by an explanation of why you voted the way you did would be helpful. While we're at it, please explain what being a "Protestant" means to you. Thanks! This should be an interesting discussion! :teeth:


I can't answer.

Let me explain...
Using myself for the explanation... I am a Christian. I am not Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. For argument's sake I will say that I am a Protestant - just to identify myself as not being Roman Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox.
I became a Christian on November 07, 1982 - I did not split, break away, leave or excommunicate myself from the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox church, but I did become a member of Christ's true Body on November 07, 1982.

So am I a Protestant? No. I'm just a Biblical Christian! :thumb:

[brother vinny]

I can't answer.

Let me explain...
Using myself for the explanation... I am a Christian. I am not Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. For argument's sake I will say that I am a Protestant - just to identify myself as not being Roman Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox.
I became a Christian on November 07, 1982 - I did not split, break away, leave or excommunicate myself from the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox church, but I did become a member of Christ's true Body on November 07, 1982.

So am I a Protestant? No. I'm just a Biblical Christian! :thumb:

Question begging. The Catholic and Orthodox would insist that they're no less biblical than you, would claim that their interpretation of what a "biblical Christian" is is the more historically correct one, and have a great deal more history to back their claim up.

[Ric]

Question begging. The Catholic and Orthodox would insist that they're no less biblical than you, would claim that their interpretation of what a "biblical Christian" is is the more historically correct one, and have a great deal more history to back their claim up.

All I can say is that anyone can write their own history, I'll stick with what the Bible tells us over history recored by mere men. :smile:

[brother vinny]

All I can say is that anyone can write their own history, I'll stick with what the Bible tells us over history recored by mere men. :smile:

All the while unwittingly lending credence to the institution (to wit, the RCC and EOC before they split in two) that passed down to you the Bible you hold. Game, set, and match.

[rocketman]

I re-iterate for Ric...

Regardless of the origin of the term Protestant, it has today come to mean any Christian who is not Orthodox or Roman Catholic or one of the small sects in the Middle East (aka Coptics and Melchites). Protestants can be identified by their reliance on sola scriptura to some degree or another, a general denial of the transubstantiation of the Eucharist (this a tenet of the RCC and EO), and their distrust of heirarchy. Beyond that, just about anything goes theologically.

[Ric]

All the while unwittingly lending credence to the institution (to wit, the RCC and EOC before they split in two) that passed down to you the Bible you hold. Game, set, and match.

OK, you win, God had nothing to do with that!

89 Your word, O LORD, is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens. 90 Your faithfulness continues through all generations; you established the earth, and it endures.

6 A voice says, "Cry out." And I said, "What shall I cry?"
"All men are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field.

7 The grass withers and the flowers fall, because the breath of the LORD blows on them. Surely the people are grass.

8 The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God stands forever."

Oh, nevermind - I was wrong, you did not win! :doh:

[brother vinny]

OK, you win, God had nothing to do with that!


Oh, nevermind - I was wrong, you did not win! :doh:

You don't think God can act through a Church He calls "the pillar and ground of truth," eh?

You have interesting god, but I think I stick with God of Bible!

[elysian]

Many Baptists do not consider themselves Protestant because they were not necessarily a group derived from the Reformation-

http://www.bbc-cortland.org/faith-distinctives.php

The term "Protestant" was initially understood to mean the Reformed churches- Anglicans (Episcopal,) Presbyterian, Methodist. However its more general and accepted usage today is "any Christian who is not Roman Catholic or Orthodox."

Interestingly many Lutherans chafe at the term Protestant as well (I am not one of them) because we are still part of the universal (catholic with a small "c") church and we share much of our tradition with the universal Christian church. So we are a catholic church but not Roman Catholic. The Reformation according to Luther basically meant that any tradition that was contradicted by Scripture was thrown out- he retained much of Roman Catholic tradition (the basic structure of the liturgy, or Mass, two of the sacraments, etc.) but without the allegiance to Rome and Rome's Pope. He wanted to fix what he saw as being wrong with the church, to reform the existing church rather than "starting his own." I don't mind the Protestant label (because the Reformation pretty much began in earnest with Luther's protests against Rome) because to me it's accurate- we are not Roman Catholic, and Luther certainly was protesting Roman authority.

The Anabaptists weren't Reformers- (though they did end up adopting much from the Reformation.) They believed the entire system of the church was corrupt and they never claimed or sought unity with other Christian churches. So many modern-day Baptists reject the Protestant designation because the Anabaptists were around long before the Reformation. The Anabaptists' intent was never to reform Roman Catholicism, but to replace it entirely. Some "old-time" Baptist churches still teach that theirs is the only One True Faith and that all others are apostates and fools, etc. but this view is becoming less and less common. (unless you're Fred Phelps, but most Baptist groups don't claim him as one of theirs)

I almost joined a Baptist church at one point and I have several relatives who are Baptist. I have a great deal of respect for their emphasis on Bible study and on living as you believe (though I disagree with them on a few theological issues.)

[themuzicman]

There are those who say that the Charismatics are a third arm of Christianity, not really Catholic or Protestant, but just catholic. Maybe RI thinks he's part of that?

Michael

[elysian]

There's the Landover Baptist Church www.landoverbaptist.org and the Westboro Baptist Church www.godhatesamerica.com and I wouldn't know how to characterize either one of them. I certainly wouldn't want to call them Protestant or even Christian...and most Baptists probably wouldn't claim them either! :lol: :lol:

[Amazing Rando]

Many Baptists do not consider themselves Protestant because they were not necessarily a group derived from the Reformation-

http://www.bbc-cortland.org/faith-distinctives.php

Hehe. I found it amusing the site you linked to- it said:

Historically, Baptists find their origins in the Free (Anabaptist) Churches. These churches existed from the time of the apostles. Even though the name "Baptist" was not used until the 1600's, the Baptist Distinctives were practiced by small, persecuted groups during the Dark Ages and the Reformation. Biblical faith and practice forced these to separate from two powerful traditional groups: the Roman Catholic Church, and the Protestant Churches. (During the Protestant Reformation, these formerly Catholic churches tried to return to a more Biblical pattern. They still rejected most of the Baptist Distinctives.) For this reason, Bible-centered Baptist Churches are not Protestant churches. They existed long before the Reformation.

:rofl:
To me, that just seems like a smug way of saying "we're the Real Church(tm)." :smug: Making their faith tradition out to be the heroes and inheritors of the real faith directly from the apostles, cruelly squashed by the evil Catholics is a common way of revising history!

The term "Protestant" was initially understood to mean the Reformed churches- Anglicans (Episcopal,) Presbyterian, Methodist. However its more general and accepted usage today is "any Christian who is not Roman Catholic or Orthodox."

Yep- it's that more general (and modern) second definition that I'm using.

Interestingly many Lutherans chafe at the term Protestant as well (I am not one of them) because we are still part of the universal (catholic with a small "c") church and we share much of our tradition with the universal Christian church. So we are a catholic church but not Roman Catholic. The Reformation according to Luther basically meant that any tradition that was contradicted by Scripture was thrown out- he retained much of Roman Catholic tradition (the basic structure of the liturgy, or Mass, two of the sacraments, etc.) but without the allegiance to Rome and Rome's Pope. He wanted to fix what he saw as being wrong with the church, to reform the existing church rather than "starting his own." I don't mind the Protestant label (because the Reformation pretty much began in earnest with Luther's protests against Rome) because to me it's accurate- we are not Roman Catholic, and Luther certainly was protesting Roman authority.

Yeah- Luther started the Protestant Reformation, so one would think followers of Luther would think themselves Protestant, but I guess not. I believe that every biblical church is in essence, a "catholic" church because we're all members of the body of Christ! It transcends manmade ecclesiastical divisions, yet we, the individual believers, do not.

The Anabaptists weren't Reformers- (though they did end up adopting much from the Reformation.) They believed the entire system of the church was corrupt and they never claimed or sought unity with other Christian churches. So many modern-day Baptists reject the Protestant designation because the Anabaptists were around long before the Reformation. The Anabaptists' intent was never to reform Roman Catholicism, but to replace it entirely. Some "old-time" Baptist churches still teach that theirs is the only One True Faith and that all others are apostates and fools, etc. but this view is becoming less and less common. (unless you're Fred Phelps, but most Baptist groups don't claim him as one of theirs)

:rofl:

What is the etymology behind "anabaptist?" Why did modern Baptists drop the "Ana?"

Anyway, it's interesting, but not really pertinent to the question at hand because RightIdea would never, as far as I know, identify himself as a Baptist because he believes baptism was part of the Old Dispensation and is not for us believers today. He refuses to be baptised for this reason. :nsm:

I almost joined a Baptist church at one point and I have several relatives who are Baptist. I have a great deal of respect for their emphasis on Bible study and on living as you believe (though I disagree with them on a few theological issues.)

I attended a Baptist church for the six months I was studying abroad in Australia, and I loved it too! It was really refreshing! I'm a United Methodist at the moment, and I'm firmly a Protestant if for no other reason than I'm neither Orthodox nor Catholic.

[Amazing Rando]

There are those who say that the Charismatics are a third arm of Christianity, not really Catholic or Protestant, but just catholic. Maybe RI thinks he's part of that?

Michael

I'm not sure if RI would consider himself Charismatic or not. He's definitely a cessassionist in regards to baptism, so perhaps he is in regards to tongues, prophecy, healing, etc. I dunno.

[themuzicman]

Actually, being a dispensationalist, he's probably not Charismatic, now that I think about it.

[Amazing Rando]

I wish he would drop in and tell us himself so we don't have to keep speculating! :frown:

[truthman]

There's the Landover Baptist Church www.landoverbaptist.org and the Westboro Baptist Church www.godhatesamerica.com and I wouldn't know how to characterize either one of them. I certainly wouldn't want to call them Protestant or even Christian...and most Baptists probably wouldn't claim them either! :lol: :lol:
Just so you know, Landover Baptist is a parody site about Christianity, not a real church.

Westboro Baptist Church is the one that protested Matthew Shephard after his death. Nobody but Bob Enyart and Randall Terry would claim them.

Third, we have to be careful folks not to paint with a broad brush. There are many flavors of Baptists (I grew up Southern Baptist) and they all believe different things.

Fourth, as RI is a very, very good, personal friend of mine, I have spoken with him about this issue. His real beef is that he doesn't want to be called anything that seems to go after traditions of men or that is named after a man. That would apply to Lutheran (after Luther), Wesleyan (after Wesley), and also this includes Protestant, Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, and what not. I went to church with him for a year and it is a Dispensational, grace church which I believe is now affiliated with the Grace Gospel Fellowship (http://www.ggfusa.org).

My words might be confusing, because I haven't been able to give this post much thought, but I wanted to answer for him so that too much speculation wasn't given by you all before he could answer.

To sum it all up, Jim believes a lot like Ric, "I'm a Biblical Christian" he'll tell you. Now, they obviously interpret the Bible differently, but it doesn't change the claim.

truthman

[spl_cadet]

Please explain Photian Schism?

Power hungry "Patriarch" of Constantinople who caused a schism between Rome and the East. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12043b.htm) This one was patched up, but it led directly to the schism of 1054 (led by another power-hungry and unGodly patriarch of Constantinople).

[elysian]

Just so you know, Landover Baptist is a parody site about Christianity, not a real church.

Westboro Baptist Church is the one that protested Matthew Shephard after his death. Nobody but Bob Enyart and Randall Terry would claim them.

Third, we have to be careful folks not to paint with a broad brush. There are many flavors of Baptists (I grew up Southern Baptist) and they all believe different things.

Fourth, as RI is a very, very good, personal friend of mine, I have spoken with him about this issue. His real beef is that he doesn't want to be called anything that seems to go after traditions of men or that is named after a man. That would apply to Lutheran (after Luther), Wesleyan (after Wesley), and also this includes Protestant, Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, and what not. I went to church with him for a year and it is a Dispensational, grace church which I believe is now affiliated with the Grace Gospel Fellowship (http://www.ggfusa.org).

My words might be confusing, because I haven't been able to give this post much thought, but I wanted to answer for him so that too much speculation wasn't given by you all before he could answer.

To sum it all up, Jim believes a lot like Ric, "I'm a Biblical Christian" he'll tell you. Now, they obviously interpret the Bible differently, but it doesn't change the claim.

truthman

I am very aware that Landover is a parody, and when I first saw Phelps' site I thought it was too. Unfortunately it's not. He's very serious about both his motivation and his methods, I simply don't agree with his methods, but that's a whole 'nother issue.

My sister is a Southern Baptist and her church is not strictly Calvinist nor is it exclusionary. The same is true of the Regular Baptist church my Dad and Grandma belonged to. I have to agree that my own personal experiences with Baptist churches and Bible studies have been very positive. Believe it or not I think within each denomination there's a wide variety of differing individual opinions (that are still within the parameters of that denomination.) I'm rather on the conservative side of the spectrum for a Lutheran- there are those among us who are far more politically and socially liberal than I am- but our interpretations of Scripture and definition of Christian living allow for that. It's probably good for me in a way because my tendencies toward legalism get amplified if everyone around me agrees with me on everything.

It's great that RI has taken the time in study and prayer to invite the Holy Spirit into the process to clarify his beliefs. It is amazing how many people claim to subscribe to a belief and then not be able to know what they believe and why they believe it. This is why I've done so much study and soul-searching and praying to find out where as C.S. Lewis puts it "which room in the house" I belong in. I believe I'm in the right room, not so much denominationally (though to me Lutheranism makes sense simply because there is room for individual investigation and growth and intelligent dissent) but because of the local church I belong to. Peace Church is awesome just on its merits as a Christian church, the fact that it happens to be Lutheran is secondary.

As long as we are keeping our eyes focused on the Cross, and living to glorify God, the rest is secondary.

[Amazing Rando]

Third, we have to be careful folks not to paint with a broad brush. There are many flavors of Baptists (I grew up Southern Baptist) and they all believe different things.

Yup- my fiance grew up in a Baptist church and made a public profession of her faith at age 12 when she was baptized during a worship service. We have quite a few theological differences (myself growing up Methodist), but that doesn't stop us from remembering what unifies us.

Fourth, as RI is a very, very good, personal friend of mine, I have spoken with him about this issue. His real beef is that he doesn't want to be called anything that seems to go after traditions of men or that is named after a man.

Not even "Christian" after Christ? :grin:

Just kiddin. I think I understand him a little better.

That would apply to Lutheran (after Luther), Wesleyan (after Wesley), and also this includes Protestant, Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, and what not. I went to church with him for a year and it is a Dispensational, grace church which I believe is now affiliated with the Grace Gospel Fellowship (http://www.ggfusa.org).

How about you, Truthman? I remember you saying once you're a pastor. What type of church is it? And can you explain why you voted for Protestant? I'm just interested in hearing why. Don't answer if you think it'll get in the way of your friendship with RI.

My words might be confusing, because I haven't been able to give this post much thought, but I wanted to answer for him so that too much speculation wasn't given by you all before he could answer.

To sum it all up, Jim believes a lot like Ric, "I'm a Biblical Christian" he'll tell you. Now, they obviously interpret the Bible differently, but it doesn't change the claim.

truthman

That's always been an interesting one to me. People will sometimes describe their church as a "Bible-believing" church. What's left unsaid in such a statement is the implied "Your church is not a Bible-believing church." It's can be somewhat of a slap in the face to folks like me from mainline Protestant churches. I can think of no orthodox Christians who would say that they don't believe the Bible. We hold the Bible in the same esteem as do "Biblical Christians." The only difference is in interpretation.

[Ric]

You don't think God can act through a Church He calls "the pillar and ground of truth," eh?

You have interesting god, but I think I stick with God of Bible!

My God is the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. :smile:

[Jezz]

Power hungry "Patriarch" of Constantinople who caused a schism between Rome and the East. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12043b.htm) This one was patched up, but it led directly to the schism of 1054 (led by another power-hungry and unGodly patriarch of Constantinople).
Power hungry? If it was power that the patriarch of Constantinople was after, they would have claimed to be the supreme bishop over all of Christendom. Much like some other power-hungry bishops that I know of... bishops who not only thought that they had power over Christendom, but over emporers as well... :wink:

[Jezz]

I re-iterate for Ric...

Regardless of the origin of the term Protestant, it has today come to mean any Christian who is not Orthodox or Roman Catholic or one of the small sects in the Middle East (aka Coptics and Melchites). Protestants can be identified by their reliance on sola scriptura to some degree or another, a general denial of the transubstantiation of the Eucharist (this a tenet of the RCC and EO), and their distrust of heirarchy. Beyond that, just about anything goes theologically.
Hmm, that's not all that accurate. For one thing, while the EO do hold to "true presence" in the Eucharist, they do not believe in "transubstantiation", exactly.

Also complicating the matter is the fact that Lutherans believe in true presence, and Anglicans believe in the episcopate (church hierarchy).

There are also "Christian" groups that deny the Trinity and/or incarnation, and these are generally considered to be outside of Christianity by most Protestant groups. JWs, Christadelphians, etc.

I think perhaps the best definition of "Protestantism" might be something like "Upholds the Nicene Creed, but cannot trace its faith back through apostolic session." This definition is perhaps problematical, because would mean that the Anglicans are not Protestant. However, there are some that separate the Anglicans from the other Protestant denominations anyway.

Basically, Protestant is a pretty slippery term. :smile:

[Solly]

Many Baptists do not consider themselves Protestant because they were not necessarily a group derived from the Reformation-

http://www.bbc-cortland.org/faith-distinctives.php

The term "Protestant" was initially understood to mean the Reformed churches- Anglicans (Episcopal,) Presbyterian, Methodist. However its more general and accepted usage today is "any Christian who is not Roman Catholic or Orthodox."

Interestingly many Lutherans chafe at the term Protestant as well (I am not one of them) because we are still part of the universal (catholic with a small "c") church and we share much of our tradition with the universal Christian church. So we are a catholic church but not Roman Catholic. The Reformation according to Luther basically meant that any tradition that was contradicted by Scripture was thrown out- he retained much of Roman Catholic tradition (the basic structure of the liturgy, or Mass, two of the sacraments, etc.) but without the allegiance to Rome and Rome's Pope. He wanted to fix what he saw as being wrong with the church, to reform the existing church rather than "starting his own." I don't mind the Protestant label (because the Reformation pretty much began in earnest with Luther's protests against Rome) because to me it's accurate- we are not Roman Catholic, and Luther certainly was protesting Roman authority.

The Anabaptists weren't Reformers- (though they did end up adopting much from the Reformation.) They believed the entire system of the church was corrupt and they never claimed or sought unity with other Christian churches. So many modern-day Baptists reject the Protestant designation because the Anabaptists were around long before the Reformation. The Anabaptists' intent was never to reform Roman Catholicism, but to replace it entirely. Some "old-time" Baptist churches still teach that theirs is the only One True Faith and that all others are apostates and fools, etc. but this view is becoming less and less common. (unless you're Fred Phelps, but most Baptist groups don't claim him as one of theirs)

I almost joined a Baptist church at one point and I have several relatives who are Baptist. I have a great deal of respect for their emphasis on Bible study and on living as you believe (though I disagree with them on a few theological issues.)
:thumb: Not Protestant either; definitely Anabaptist in personal convictions, though Calvinist with it. Our "denomination" isn't actually one, just as association of Independant Baptist churches - the way it used to be - but personally, since I did not grow up in one of the assoc churches, I have found my own path, and that has gravitated towards the Peace churches/Anabaptists. Reformed yes,, but like most Baptists reformed in ecclesiology as well as theology, whereas the Presbyterian/Reformed churches just baptised Catholic national ecclesiology.
However, I do not believe in the "apostolic succession" of "baptist" churches; most of the groups linked with this were quite heretical. I am apostolic as per Acts 2.42.

[Amazing Rando]

=Amazing Rando]Please explain Photian Schism?Power hungry "Patriarch" of Constantinople who caused a schism between Rome and the East. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12043b.htm) This one was patched up, but it led directly to the schism of 1054 (led by another power-hungry and unGodly patriarch of Constantinople).

Yeesh! 950 years and still bitter! :wink:

[bar Jonah]

Yes, I'd be a pretty bizarre creature indeed, if I was a Baptist who opposes water baptism today. :lol:


I voted Protestant, but I actually think RightIdea is a proto-Catholic. He's slowly adopting Catholic tenets-- he started with his acceptance of their New Testament canon and belief in the literal resurrection of Christ-- and I daresay by the time he gets settled in Heaven, he'll be fully converted and honoring Mary as Queen.

:teeth:
Uhmmmmmm.... no. :doh: Besides which, I do not accept the RCC's authority to canonize. I hold to canonization apart from RCC, as you well know. :ahem:


Just so you know, Landover Baptist is a parody site about Christianity, not a real church.

Westboro Baptist Church is the one that protested Matthew Shephard after his death. Nobody but Bob Enyart and Randall Terry would claim them.

Third, we have to be careful folks not to paint with a broad brush. There are many flavors of Baptists (I grew up Southern Baptist) and they all believe different things.

Fourth, as RI is a very, very good, personal friend of mine, I have spoken with him about this issue. His real beef is that he doesn't want to be called anything that seems to go after traditions of men or that is named after a man. That would apply to Lutheran (after Luther), Wesleyan (after Wesley), and also this includes Protestant, Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, and what not. I went to church with him for a year and it is a Dispensational, grace church which I believe is now affiliated with the Grace Gospel Fellowship (http://www.ggfusa.org).

My words might be confusing, because I haven't been able to give this post much thought, but I wanted to answer for him so that too much speculation wasn't given by you all before he could answer.

To sum it all up, Jim believes a lot like Ric, "I'm a Biblical Christian" he'll tell you. Now, they obviously interpret the Bible differently, but it doesn't change the claim.

truthman
Right on! And for the purposes of authority or the discerning of doctrinal truth, I don't give a fig if my church is part of a fellowship. (That has different purposes, just not these two.)

Indeed, I have no desire to be part of a man-made and man-maintained tradition going back to the 1st century. I never said I believe there is an intrinsic value in this characteristic of the Baptist tradition. I simply stated it as historical fact.

One of my greatest pet peeves, indeed, is looking to men for true authority on doctrine.

[Amazing Rando]

Yes, I'd be a pretty bizarre creature indeed, if I was a Baptist who opposes water baptism today. :lol:

:hi: Hey RI! glad you could drop in and participate in the democracy! :wink:

Right on! And for the purposes of authority or the discerning of doctrinal truth, I don't give a fig if my church is part of a fellowship. (That has different purposes, just not these two.)

Indeed, I have no desire to be part of a man-made and man-maintained tradition going back to the 1st century. I never said I believe there is an intrinsic value in this characteristic of the Baptist tradition. I simply stated it as historical fact.

Ah, that explains it a bit better. :yes:

The rationale that some, like the RCC and the EO, use is that their faith traditions can be traced directly back to the original apostles. By inference, they would then be tracing their roots directly back to Jesus as well. But I agree with you that such claims are pretty goofy, and I don't think that any particular body can claim direct apostolic succession.

One of my greatest pet peeves, indeed, is looking to men for true authority on doctrine.

Yep- Bible is number one. But how do you ensure that you're interpreting the Bible correctly? How do you know you're not making a grave error somewhere? In matters of interpretation, we ought to look to the advice of those who are wiser or more studied in the Scriptures than we are. Always critically, of course, but you can't say that you don't rely on any tradition in forming your interesting :whistle: theology. Did you come to the conclusion that you were a Mid-Acts Dispensationalist just by reading the Bible, as if you were entirely in a vacuum? Or did you read an influential work or meet an influential person who helped you interpret the scriptures to formulate your theology? If you did, then you relied on some tradition.

Plus, then there's the whole matter of the Bible itself being tradition. The only people in the NT who received their theology directly from God were Jesus, the Twelve, and Paul.

[bar Jonah]

:hi: Hey RI! glad you could drop in and participate in the democracy! :wink:



Ah, that explains it a bit better. :yes:

The rationale that some, like the RCC and the EO, use is that their faith traditions can be traced directly back to the original apostles. By inference, they would then be tracing their roots directly back to Jesus as well. But I agree with you that such claims are pretty goofy, and I don't think that any particular body can claim direct apostolic succession.



Yep- Bible is number one. But how do you ensure that you're interpreting the Bible correctly? How do you know you're not making a grave error somewhere? In matters of interpretation, we ought to look to the advice of those who are wiser or more studied in the Scriptures than we are. Always critically, of course, but you can't say that you don't rely on any tradition in forming your interesting :whistle: theology. Did you come to the conclusion that you were a Mid-Acts Dispensationalist just by reading the Bible, as if you were entirely in a vacuum? Or did you read an influential work or meet an influential person who helped you interpret the scriptures to formulate your theology? If you did, then you relied on some tradition.

Plus, then there's the whole matter of the Bible itself being tradition. The only people in the NT who received their theology directly from God were Jesus, the Twelve, and Paul.
:argh:

Dude, I love ya to death! But you are seriously one of the most frustrating people I discuss things with, here at Tweb. :lol: You constantly change definitions around, and put words in my mouth!

:doh:

You're accusing me of throwing the baby out with the bath water. Did I become Mid-Acts or Open as a result of ONLY reading the Bible? Of course not! Do I throw out all teachings of all mean? My gosh, of course not!

I've seen and heard the writings of men which purpose were to persuade toward their view. None of them were worth their weight in feathers (nevermind gold) except that they agree with the Bible. Men are not authority on doctrine. Only the Bible is authority on doctrine. Does that mean we can't learn from men who point things out in the Bible? Of course not; of course we can! I've learned much from many men, from Josh McDowell to Dr. Jonathon Sarfati to C.R. Stam to Bob Enyart to Chuck Colson to C.S. Lewis.... and the list is lonnnnng!

But they aren't the AUTHORITY.

You ask how I know that my interpretation of the Bible is correct. But by going to other men, you only extend the problem! How do I know that some of these other men are right, and some are wrong? You see, no matter whose shoulders you unload the burden onto, I/me/myself am still responsible for discerning truth! How do you know any of them are true?

How do you know? The Bible. No matter how much you agree or disagree with mere men and their creeds and credos and legendary confessions... they are only as good as the scripture they are based on. And that scripture is gold.

So, please stop pawning your responsibility onto great men. YOU are responsible for showing yourself a workman approved to rightly divide the word of truth, whether you are a Catholic, E. Orthodox, Protestant, Baptist or a non-denom like me.

[truthman]

Ri's a non-demoninational Christian :grin:

Actually, it's my fault :hi: that you're a dispy, right? Or is my history messed up.

[Tercel]

To me "Protestant" brings to mind a person who gives no or little creedance to the official historical church, and has separated themselves from the official church hierarchy on the grounds that they have decided their own interpretation or their denomination's interpretation of the Bible is superior, who will often hold to the view that they are the REAL church in TRUE continuity with the NT church.

Thus any Christian who is not Roman Catholic, Eastern Othodox Catholic, or a member of one of the lesser eastern churches is a Protestant. Anglicans could be, perhaps, considered a special case as they historically have oscillated between Protestant and Roman Catholicism.

Certainly anyone who claims to be "just a Christian" who "just believe the bible" who are "non-denominational" is very definitely a Protestant. I know some people don't like the idea of being put in a box, but the very idea that they are "just a Christian" and aren't in any box puts them very definitely in the Protestant box and likely in the Evangelical one.

Any claim by a person such as RightIdea that he is not a Protestant, I would regard as somewhat fascinating - akin to if he'd stated that he truly believed 2 + 2 = 5.

[bar Jonah]

Tercel, you willfully mischaracterize non-denoms. The vast majority of them/us DON'T believe our own little group/church/whatever is the ONLY true church. Nor do any Prots that I know of. In fact, the primary guilty part of that little bit of hubris is... oh wait, that would be the RCC! :doh:

Tercel, the "true church" is the Body of Christ. I am a member. I hope you are, too. :ripurple:

[elysian]

Agreed we are part of the Body of Christ, or the universal church if we trust Jesus and believe He was Who He said He was.

I like what C.S. Lewis says in Mere Christianity about the different churches being different rooms in God's house. Believe me growing up between Roman Catholics and Baptists... well you get the picture. "Diametrically opposed" is putting it lightly but both "sides" have valid points, just different emphases and traditions. Both are Christian.

We all subscribe to at least some traditions and teachings of fallible men, but the validity of tradition has to be informed by Scripture. If the tradition contradicts Scripture then the tradition has to go, and that is an idea very consistent with the Reformation (but not exclusive to it.)

[bar Jonah]

Agreed we are part of the Body of Christ, or the universal church if we trust Jesus and believe He was Who He said He was.

I like what C.S. Lewis says in Mere Christianity about the different churches being different rooms in God's house. Believe me growing up between Roman Catholics and Baptists... well you get the picture. "Diametrically opposed" is putting it lightly but both "sides" have valid points, just different emphases and traditions. Both are Christian.

We all subscribe to at least some traditions and teachings of fallible men, but the validity of tradition has to be informed by Scripture. If the tradition contradicts Scripture then the tradition has to go, and that is an idea very consistent with the Reformation (but not exclusive to it.)
Indeed, we can look past differences to love and fellowship with brothers and sisters in Christ.

But Catholics and Baptists can't both be right about all these things. And surely you don't believe that God wants many people to believe things that are wrong. Your reference to Lewis seems to infer that. That every mutually exclusive denomination is just a "room in God's house," and that this is what He wishes.

Diversity of Christian culture and sub-culture can be a good thing, if done right. But mutually exclusive beliefs about doctrine... is another matter. We should have unity, indeed. But please be careful not to' excuse such differences as being God's will. God doesn't will for us to believe false things. :rigreen:

[brother vinny]

RightIdea is a heretic, and thus deserves to be burned at the stake, but not before a lenghty torturing in the hopes he'll recant his heresies.

[elysian]

Indeed, we can look past differences to love and fellowship with brothers and sisters in Christ.

But Catholics and Baptists can't both be right about all these things. And surely you don't believe that God wants many people to believe things that are wrong. Your reference to Lewis seems to infer that. That every mutually exclusive denomination is just a "room in God's house," and that this is what He wishes.

Diversity of Christian culture and sub-culture can be a good thing, if done right. But mutually exclusive beliefs about doctrine... is another matter. We should have unity, indeed. But please be careful not to' excuse such differences as being God's will. God doesn't will for us to believe false things. :rigreen:

This is a difficult issue for me too- what you can say is covered by Romans 14 and what is positively essential. For me I couldn't reconcile certain aspects of Roman Catholic tradition because they contradict Scripture, but I also had problems with certain aspects of Baptist doctrine as well. I don't believe any one denomination (no, not even Lutherans) is 100% right either and it is well to be open minded and learn from all Christian traditions as viewed through the lens of Scripture. This means I can agree with most other Christian believers on the essentials of faith and still have serious doctrinal disputes with them.

No I don't think it's God's will for us to disagree, but the challenge we find in those disagreements is "how do we handle our disagreements?" Do we handle them in a spiteful nasty way or do we handle them in love? Are we challenged by each other and do we learn from and respect each other even in our disagreement? Because while I believe it is important to seek the Holy Spirit's discernment in learning right doctrine and to seek God's grace so that we may live to glorify Him, the most important questions that will be asked of us at the End of Days are: Do you love God? Do you love your neighbor as yourself? Did your life reflect this?

Jesus had the harshest of criticism for the Pharisees who had all the rules and regs down right and looked really good, but on the inside they were "full of dead men's bones and unclean things." If we love God we will earnestly seek His truth as revealed in Scripture. We will surrender our hearts and minds to the Holy Spirit so He may transform them to God's will (Romans 12:1-2.) If we love each other we will learn and grow and encourage each other. If our lives reflect this, then we have lived according to God's purpose for us.

[Amazing Rando]

:argh:

Dude, I love ya to death! But you are seriously one of the most frustrating people I discuss things with, here at Tweb. :lol: You constantly change definitions around, and put words in my mouth!

:doh:

You're accusing me of throwing the baby out with the bath water. Did I become Mid-Acts or Open as a result of ONLY reading the Bible? Of course not! Do I throw out all teachings of all mean? My gosh, of course not!

I've seen and heard the writings of men which purpose were to persuade toward their view. None of them were worth their weight in feathers (nevermind gold) except that they agree with the Bible. Men are not authority on doctrine. Only the Bible is authority on doctrine. Does that mean we can't learn from men who point things out in the Bible? Of course not; of course we can! I've learned much from many men, from Josh McDowell to Dr. Jonathon Sarfati to C.R. Stam to Bob Enyart to Chuck Colson to C.S. Lewis.... and the list is lonnnnng!

But they aren't the AUTHORITY.

You ask how I know that my interpretation of the Bible is correct. But by going to other men, you only extend the problem! How do I know that some of these other men are right, and some are wrong? You see, no matter whose shoulders you unload the burden onto, I/me/myself am still responsible for discerning truth! How do you know any of them are true?

How do you know? The Bible. No matter how much you agree or disagree with mere men and their creeds and credos and legendary confessions... they are only as good as the scripture they are based on. And that scripture is gold.

Hey, if Strawman Smiting was an Olympic Event, I'd be the gold medalist! :rofl:

Anyway, I'll try to not read things into your statements that aren't there if you'll make them a little less cryptic and flesh them out a little more, sound fair?

So, please stop pawning your responsibility onto great men. YOU are responsible for showing yourself a workman approved to rightly divide the word of truth, whether you are a Catholic, E. Orthodox, Protestant, Baptist or a non-denom like me.

You make a good point. It's untimately down to the individual to determine how to interpret the bible.

































But I still say you're a Protestant! :eek:

[Amazing Rando]

RightIdea is a heretic, and thus deserves to be burned at the stake, but not before a lenghty torturing in the hopes he'll recant his heresies.

BV, you and Robyn Banks are the most ambiguous people I know on TWeb. More often than not, I can't tell if you're being serious or not. :nsm:

[Columba]

I'm Eastern Orthodox. In the Orthodox view, if one is not Orthodox, one is classified as "non-Orthodox". Also, if one is not "Catholic" in communion with Rome, and is also non-Orthodox but is professing Christ, then officially speaking they would be a "schismatic". In my personal opinion, if one is neither RC or EO, and one is not also for example LDS, or other Bible based cult, then one is a Protestant. If one is non-denominational, in mainstream Protestant America, we still see you as "Protestant"

A person is certainly free to determine their own "label". But it won't change how we see you doctrinally. Since Orthodoxy does not practice ecumenism I'm sure our opinion is totally irrelevant to you. LOL! :)

[Amazing Rando]

I'm Eastern Orthodox. In the Orthodox view, if one is not Orthodox, one is classified as "non-Orthodox". Also, if one is not "Catholic" in communion with Rome, and is also non-Orthodox but is professing Christ, then officially speaking they would be a "schismatic". In my personal opinion, if one is neither RC or EO, and one is not also for example LDS, or other Bible based cult, then one is a Protestant. If one is non-denominational, in mainstream Protestant America, we still see you as "Protestant"

Agreed- I'd call them a "non-denominational Protestant."

A person is certainly free to determine their own "label". But it won't change how we see you doctrinally. Since Orthodoxy does not practice ecumenism I'm sure our opinion is totally irrelevant to you. LOL! :)

Sure it's important to me. If you guys don't want to accept the hand of fellowship I'm offering to you as part of the Body of Christ, that's your perrogative. If you sincerely believe in the resurrected Savior, then I consider you just as Christian as I consider myself, even if you're not willing to return the favor.

[brother vinny]

BV, you and Robyn Banks are the most ambiguous people I know on TWeb. More often than not, I can't tell if you're being serious or not. :nsm:

Tell you what. Treat that post as if I were being serious, and we'll see together if the position is defensible or not. :wink:

[Amazing Rando]

Tell you what. Treat that post as if I were being serious, and we'll see together if the position is defensible or not. :wink:

Hmm. Can't do that anymore because it's been zapped by some anonymous mod!

[brother vinny]

Hmm. Can't do that anymore because it's been zapped by some anonymous mod!

That's just peachy! :rant: Never mind the fact that a) I possibly didn't mean what I said, and b) there might have been valid theological points to be made concerning the post. :rant:

I'll restate that post, then:

The aforementioned anonymous moderator is a heretic, and thus needs to be put to death painfully, but not before a long and brutal session of torture aimed at getting the heretic to recant.

How's that?

[brother vinny]

BTW, according to my wife, who is a moderator, arbitrary editing of posts is not supposed to occur. The anonymous moderator should come forward and cite the particular rule that was broken.

And, because the moderator chose to remain anonymous, I'd say he's a chicken, to boot.

No complaining about mods in a thread. If you need to vent, take it to the locker room (which you have already done). Come on, BV, you know better than this!

And for the record, I did not in fact moderate you previously in this thread (or even in the last few months that I remember).

Jaltus

[brother vinny]

All right, now that I've calmed down, allow me to take what I said about RightIdea piece by piece. Maybe a fleshed-out theological treatise would be preferable to a reactionary post.

RightIdea is a heretic. . . RightIdea promotes a few odd brands of heresy. Dry bone dispensationalism is a paradigm that asserts that water baptism is not required for admission into the Body of Christ. Mid-Acts dispensationalism finds its roots in the Marcionite heresy. And Open Theism is a reworking of a heresy called Socinianism.

. . . and thus deserves to be put to death, . . . The dry-bone doctrine is worthy of a death sentence in-and-of-itself. The efficacious role of baptism in the regeneration of the believer is a doctrine held by the Church since biblical times. Thus, if RightIdea is promoting a Christianity that excludes water baptism, he is working directly counter to the Gospel by preventing himself and others from getting baptised. It would be better if RightIdea were put to death before he could spread these ideas further, than to allow him to lead souls to hell.

. . . but not before a long session of torture to see if he would recant his heresy. Obviously, if RightIdea truly believes the heresies he teaches, he himself is not on the path to righteousness, and thus should be given every opportunity to repent before being put to death. It profits him little to keep his bodily health up to the minute of his execution if he's just going to hell, anyway, and he's too bullheaded to be convinced by reason. So a session of bodily torture or two might be what it takes to either harden his heart further or get him to repent.

I'm not going to say I believe all of what I just wrote, but it was the thinking behind my (now deleted) post.

[Amazing Rando]

That raises some interesting questions- at what point does doctrinal error become heresy rather than simple misunderstanding or innocuous error?

What exactly constitutes heresy? Is heresy anything that goes against what the Bible teaches? If that's the case, I suppose we're all heretics to some degree or another. If not, where's the line to be drawn between simple doctrinal error and to quote Dee Dee's sig, "foul heresy which [we] will fight until [our] dying breath?"

Is OEC a heresy? How about Open View? Mid-Acts Dispensationalism? :egad: Calvinism? Papal infallability? Bibliolatry? Where do we draw the line between heresy and mistakenness? It certainly can't be in the sincerity of the believer, because even JW's and Mormons are sincere in their beliefs. Is it where said divergence from orthodoxy threatens to undermine one's salvation that it crosses into the realm of heresy? I dunno.

[brother vinny]

That raises some interesting questions- at what point does doctrinal error become heresy rather than simple misunderstanding or innocuous error?

What exactly constitutes heresy? Is heresy anything that goes against what the Bible teaches? If that's the case, I suppose we're all heretics to some degree or another. If not, where's the line to be drawn between simple doctrinal error and to quote Dee Dee's sig, "foul heresy which [we] will fight until [our] dying breath?"

Part of the difficulty of having sola Scriptura as a tentpole, isn't it? If one has no living authority to appeal to, then one can define heresy and/or doctrinal error to one's heart's content based upon one's (perhaps unique) interpretation of Scripture.

No one who wears mixed fabrics is going to Heaven.

[bar Jonah]

But Vinny, we war not against flesh but against principalities and powers. We wage a spiritual war today, not a physical one. :rigreen:


*gets ready for some green wood* (Hey, it'll match my hair!) :lol:

[brother vinny]

But Vinny, we war not against flesh but against principalities and powers. We wage a spiritual war today, not a physical one. :rigreen:


*gets ready for some green wood* (Hey, it'll match my hair!) :lol:

But your spirit is encased in a bunch of flesh, which we'll have to saw through in order to effectively get at your spirit! :wink:

[bar Jonah]

But your spirit is encased in a bunch of flesh, which we'll have to saw through in order to effectively get at your spirit! :wink:
:lmbo:

Pearls for a Christian swine! :rithumb:

[Columba]

Agreed- I'd call them a "non-denominational Protestant."



Sure it's important to me. If you guys don't want to accept the hand of fellowship I'm offering to you as part of the Body of Christ, that's your perrogative. If you sincerely believe in the resurrected Savior, then I consider you just as Christian as I consider myself, even if you're not willing to return the favor.

Dear Amazing Rando:
It's important to me too....I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I don't accept other Christians...this is not the case at all...I was sort of making a bad joke reference to our Church. (The RC'er's here probably would get it and laugh...sorry that you didn't and that I offended...I didn't mean to.)...I'm really beginning to see how little we ourselves have done to make ourselves understood. This is our fault and not yours. I hope you will let me explain...
In my other post, I was only stating the "official" position. In Orthodoxy we peasants (the average Orthodox like me) are "bound" by the Church not to compromise on doctrine. There are some in the Church who are so legalistic about this they can't even dialogue with other Christians. In my own view, this is plainly counterproductive.

It is also my own view, that it is plainly stupid to think that only Orthodox will be "saved". Obviously this is an absurd assertion. Our Lord Jesus is ALL MERCIFUL. My personal opinion only: Even if a Protestant for example (or non-denominationalist) does not necessarily subscribe to any creeds, if they can agree with the truths contained in the Nicene Creed (both versions) then I would consider that person a "Christian" of belief. I would not say that they are "heretics"...
I am always ready to accept an olive branch (especially at Great Lent!) from other Christians outside the Church but I am even more ready to offer one of my own! I truly do apologize for making a bad joke...

Just in the way of explanation: some Orthodox have by necessity for their own survival had to adopt these legalist viewpoints. These are for the most part, severely persecuted churches who have had to deal with Communism, Atheism, infiltration by secret police. Their priests have been tortured and killed for the faith. In recent years, since the "Wall" came down, many of them now have to deal with "sheep stealing" from Protestant denominations, the Roman Catholic church, and most importantly Bible based cult groups such as the LDS. I understand why they feel the way they do.

Orthodoxy as a whole is not an "ecumenical" faith. It doesn't OFFICIALLY recognize non-Orthodox faiths as "Christian". That doesn't mean however, that salvation is a matter of "joining the right club." It doesn't. I don't believe that and no one else should either.
Thank you for your offer of genuine Christian fellowship and friendship. It is gratefully accepted.
Forgive me, a sinner, who offended you.
:(

[Amazing Rando]

Dear Amazing Rando:
It's important to me too....I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I don't accept other Christians...this is not the case at all...I was sort of making a bad joke reference to our Church. (The RC'er's here probably would get it and laugh...sorry that you didn't and that I offended...I didn't mean to.)...I'm really beginning to see how little we ourselves have done to make ourselves understood. This is our fault and not yours. I hope you will let me explain...
In my other post, I was only stating the "official" position. In Orthodoxy we peasants (the average Orthodox like me) are "bound" by the Church not to compromise on doctrine. There are some in the Church who are so legalistic about this they can't even dialogue with other Christians. In my own view, this is plainly counterproductive.

Oh no problem, Columbia! I misunderstood you! :doh: That happens so easily on these forums because we're only looking at words on a screen, and then people start getting all mad about it. :flaming: I try to make my intended feelings clearer with the help of these wonderful little smiley guys. :hi: And the Banana Clan. Can't forget about them. :b_cyclps: And Mr. Badger. He's important too. :badger:

It is also my own view, that it is plainly stupid to think that only Orthodox will be "saved". Obviously this is an absurd assertion. Our Lord Jesus is ALL MERCIFUL. My personal opinion only: Even if a Protestant for example (or non-denominationalist) does not necessarily subscribe to any creeds, if they can agree with the truths contained in the Nicene Creed (both versions) then I would consider that person a "Christian" of belief. I would not say that they are "heretics"...
I am always ready to accept an olive branch (especially at Great Lent!) from other Christians outside the Church but I am even more ready to offer one of my own! I truly do apologize for making a bad joke...

Believe me, I do. I embrace both the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds, and I'm really glad the early church formulated them. They've been one of the best unifying factors in Christendom throughout history. Even more so than the Lord's Supper or baptism, with our different denominational interpretations.

Just in the way of explanation: some Orthodox have by necessity for their own survival had to adopt these legalist viewpoints. These are for the most part, severely persecuted churches who have had to deal with Communism, Atheism, infiltration by secret police. Their priests have been tortured and killed for the faith. In recent years, since the "Wall" came down, many of them now have to deal with "sheep stealing" from Protestant denominations, the Roman Catholic church, and most importantly Bible based cult groups such as the LDS. I understand why they feel the way they do.

Aye! :yes: When persecuted, it's easy to start falling into the trap of legalism as a way of defining yourself distinct from the secular culture.

Orthodoxy as a whole is not an "ecumenical" faith. It doesn't OFFICIALLY recognize non-Orthodox faiths as "Christian". That doesn't mean however, that salvation is a matter of "joining the right club." It doesn't. I don't believe that and no one else should either.
Thank you for your offer of genuine Christian fellowship and friendship. It is gratefully accepted.
Forgive me, a sinner, who offended you.
:(

We're all sinners, Columbia. Welcome to Tweb by the way!

I think it's really admirable the way John Paul II has been seeking ecumenical dialogue if not reconciliation with the EO church. In the same kind of spirit, I'm currently engaging in a thread with Jezz, our Orthodox Admin Assistant. Christians the world over have so much to be thankful for in the redeeming love of our Savior, that we shouldn't waste time on petty infighting the way we do. Take a look at poor Jude3b; that seems to be his only goal on Tweb- to cause a ruckus and provoke Catholics, Orthodox, and other Protestants he doesn't agree with into divisive schisms. :frown: Haven't the Body of Christ had enough of those over the last 2000 years? :smile: I'm proud to claim you as a brother, Columbia! May all doctrinal disagreements that arise between us be discussed in a spirit of love!

[Columba]

I am so happy to be "understood" and to finally "understand"....I must say that poor Jude is one of those who must be prayed for, by all of us.

I am so happy to have discovered a brother (or sister?) in you, in the Faith. Praise be to God!!!

personally, I'm quite content to leave all the doctrinal debates to the Patriarchs. But I am happy to share my own Faith and its doctrine, and to learn more about yours. I do not consider this "ecumenism". Really, I think all of us should be more concerned about the movement of "one world religion" (can you say the UN and its "chapel"???) than about these small differences of wordplay, minor interpretive problems, etc.
I'm so happy after reading yoru note!!!! :)

[Amazing Rando]

I am so happy to be "understood" and to finally "understand"....I must say that poor Jude is one of those who must be prayed for, by all of us.

:yes:

I am so happy to have discovered a brother (or sister?) in you, in the Faith. Praise be to God!!!

:teeth: Check the little gender icon next to my avatar- it's a little penguin with a blue tie!

personally, I'm quite content to leave all the doctrinal debates to the Patriarchs. But I am happy to share my own Faith and its doctrine, and to learn more about yours. I do not consider this "ecumenism". Really, I think all of us should be more concerned about the movement of "one world religion" (can you say the UN and its "chapel"???) than about these small differences of wordplay, minor interpretive problems, etc.
I'm so happy after reading yoru note!!!! :)

Certainly- I know there's a huge difference between the "interfaith" movement and the ecumenical movement. The former is very dangerous, if not heretical, because Christianity and Islam, for example, have absolutely nothing in common apart from monotheism. However I feel ecumenicism is a positive thing because Christians are all united in Christ. If we could all come together in a way that celebrates our Christian diversity while at the same time rejoicing in the Rock of our shared faith, that would be just perfect, in my opinion. "Unity, not uniformity" is how I like to put it.

May I ask, what country do you come from, Columbia?

[Columba]

Thank you so much for your response! I am greatly encouraged by this convesation. We can speak the same language. Actually I am Irish. My parents were both converts: my mother was RC and my father was Prot. Talk about "ecumenism"....they compromised.
Since i grew up in Africa and the Middle East due to my dad's job, thre were few Orthodox churches, so we often went to Baptist and AofG missions just to have some sort of fellowship. (We could not take the Eucharist there, or pray publicly with them, but we could at least fellowship. The former would have resulted in ex-communication)

It has always saddened me that had there been no schism, Ireland would be "One" today, without much of the bloodshed...
Today, I am a communicant in the Serbian church because that one is a "mission" ...it's small, humble, and is focused upon the homeless, etc.
I have formerly been a communicant in the Romanian Church also, because I once lived there, and was baptised in the Romanian Church as a baby.And you? What "sort" of Protestant are you? I need much help in this, and in understanding various Protestant views...what are your thoughts on baptism and chrismation???

[Amazing Rando]

Thank you so much for your response! I am greatly encouraged by this convesation. We can speak the same language. Actually I am Irish. My parents were both converts: my mother was RC and my father was Prot. Talk about "ecumenism"....they compromised.
Since i grew up in Africa and the Middle East due to my dad's job, thre were few Orthodox churches, so we often went to Baptist and AofG missions just to have some sort of fellowship. (We could not take the Eucharist there, or pray publicly with them, but we could at least fellowship. The former would have resulted in ex-communication)

Wow- sounds like you're even more well-travelled than I am! :teeth: I still have difficulty understanding the exclusivity though. Jezz was explaining to me why he believes the EO church to be the true inheritors of the authentic apostolic tradition. But then, the Catholics say the same thing, and I've even read some Baptists saying they're the only true "unapostacized" church. I have to admit I'm skeptical of all these claims if only because I don't think anyone has the right to truly make that claim these days. Maybe I just need to reexamine history a bit, I dunno. :nsm:

You said you grew up in Africa and the Middle East, but I thought those were home to some of the smaller Orthodox communions, like the Syrian and Ethiopian for example. Did you ever hook up with one of those churches to worship?

It has always saddened me that had there been no schism, Ireland would be "One" today, without much of the bloodshed...
Today, I am a communicant in the Serbian church because that one is a "mission" ...it's small, humble, and is focused upon the homeless, etc.
I have formerly been a communicant in the Romanian Church also, because I once lived there, and was baptised in the Romanian Church as a baby.And you? What "sort" of Protestant are you? I need much help in this, and in understanding various Protestant views...what are your thoughts on baptism and chrismation???

Well, I come from a United Methodist background, though I'm considering switching in the next few years because of my fiance- she was raised Baptist. My pastor suggested we choose a denomination that would be new to both of us rather than one or the other of us feeling alienated in our church, you know?

During college, I studied abroad a few times- once in Vienna, Austria, and six months in Newcastle Australia. I hooked up with this amazingly authentic Baptist church down there, and really enjoyed it. At college, I mostly worshipped at a Presbyterian Church (U.S.A), and this past summer, I was in San Diego CA on an internship. I worshipped in a Presbyterian Church again, but this one was pretty unique- we met Sunday morning in a movie theater of all places. Church in a movie theater is kinda fun! So I suppose I'm thoroughly Protestant, but I enjoy speaking with you and others of different faith traditions than my own.

My thoughts on Baptism: RightIdea, whom this thread is about, refuses to be baptized for some reason, because he thinks baptism is not for Christians today. But most of the rest of us think that's a silly position.

Baptism is, I believe, an outward sign of what God is doing on the inside- that is, cleansing us of our sins. My Methodist church practices infant sprinkling for baptism, but I'm starting to realize that the immersion model in which the person to be baptized makes a public declaration of faith is a bit more biblical. I know one big difference between our faith traditions is over the nature of the sacraments. Protestants believe baptism and the Lord's Supper are symbols, powerful reminders of what our faith is all about. I understand that Catholics and EO believe in the "true presence" of the Eucharist. I'd be interested in knowing more about what exactly this entails.

I don't have the foggiest idea what charismation is! Can you explain?

[elysian]

But he might be referring to what Roman Catholics and Lutherans call "confirmation" which is really an affirmation of faith. Because we baptize people (usually) as infants, we train our children literally from their earliest cognition in the faith. Confirmation has its roots in the Biblical event of Pentecost- "For John baptized with water, but not many days from now you shall be baptized with (placed in, introduced into) the Holy Spirit.." Acts 1:5, AMP (also see Acts 2.) The age varies (I wasn't confirmed until I was 20... but that had to do with my own questions as to what I believed) but in Lutheran churches kids usually go through catechism which underscores the basics of Christian faith (the Lord's Prayer, the Ten Commandments, the Creed- as well as the specifics of Lutheran teaching on grace, and the Sacraments- Holy Communion and Baptism and what they mean for us.) Catechism is also a time in which kids learn what Christian living is about- through education, fellowship and service. The confirmation ceremony is a public affirmation of faith- of saying "yes I want to be a part of Christian community" for each individual. In our church catechism and confirmation co-incide with middle school- we begin catechism in 6th grade and most are confirmed at the end of 8th grade (usually on or around Pentecost) if they are ready to do so. Not everyone is ready at that time, which is OK, but most are confirmed at age 13 or 14. Adults who are new to Christian faith are baptized and confirmed at the same time, if they were not baptized as infants- if so then they are simply confirmed.

Most Catholic churches wait until high school for confirmation, and the kids are usually at least 16 or 17.

[Columba]

Wow! Such great replies...I don't want to sidetrack the thread so how 'bout I open a new one where we can chat??
:)

[Amazing Rando]

Wow! Such great replies...I don't want to sidetrack the thread so how 'bout I open a new one where we can chat??
:)

Good idea, Columbia! I'll see you over there!

So, as to the main question of this particular thread, is RightIdea a Protestant, the overwhelming majority of votes indicate yes. I guess we can call ourselves whatever we want, but in my book, if we subscribe to most of the views of a particular religious movement, we are de facto part of it. But that's just my opinion. Methinks this subject has been talked to death by now here.

[bar Jonah]

The vote overwhelmingly says I am a Protestant.... therefore it's true? :doh:

There you go again, using popular vote to discern absolute fact or non-fact. :ahem:

[brother vinny]

The vote overwhelmingly says I am a Protestant.... therefore it's true? :doh:

There you go again, using popular vote to discern absolute fact or non-fact. :ahem:


RI, if you went about killing people because you heard voices from God to do so, you would probably not think yourself a murderer. It would not change the fact that you would be.

So you're Protestant, just deluded, to boot. :doh:

[bar Jonah]

RI, if you went about killing people because you heard voices from God to do so, you would probably not think yourself a murderer. It would not change the fact that you would be.

So you're Protestant, just deluded, to boot. :doh:
:rock:

[Columba]

Dear Right Idea,
I won't be able to sleep knowing you have not been baptised. :P Seriously, I know you don't care what I have to say, and truthfully, if a Protestant showed up at my house and insisted on something or other , I probably wouldn't pay any attention either....So I don't blame you at all if you tell me to go jump in the lake. But I have to say it for my own conscience: Please be baptised. Jesus was baptised as a sign to you, that He was willing to come Here and do all that stuff for you. He was baptised as a sign that He was fully Man, and that in this way, in obedience and imitation of Him, we become heirs to the Kingdom. Please be baptised by immersion in the name of the Holy Trinity. Do it for no other reason than if it was good enough for Jesus, it should be good for your soul too!
There! I said it! whew...I will leave you alone now and mind my own business.
:)

[brother vinny]

I think RightIdea's reluctance to get baptised might be less of a doctrinal issue and more of an aversion-to-anything-that-resembles-a-bath issue.

( :rock: back atcha! )

[bar Jonah]

Dear Right Idea,
I won't be able to sleep knowing you have not been baptised. :P Seriously, I know you don't care what I have to say, and truthfully, if a Protestant showed up at my house and insisted on something or other , I probably wouldn't pay any attention either....So I don't blame you at all if you tell me to go jump in the lake. But I have to say it for my own conscience: Please be baptised. Jesus was baptised as a sign to you, that He was willing to come Here and do all that stuff for you. He was baptised as a sign that He was fully Man, and that in this way, in obedience and imitation of Him, we become heirs to the Kingdom. Please be baptised by immersion in the name of the Holy Trinity. Do it for no other reason than if it was good enough for Jesus, it should be good for your soul too!
There! I said it! whew...I will leave you alone now and mind my own business.
:)
Contrary to Vinny's silliness (pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!), my issue is doctrinal.

What you don't understand is that my refusal to be water baptized is NOT a rejection of Christ's commandment. On the contrary! I agree it was a commandment to be water baptized specifically to receive eternal life! And in fact, most Christians here would disagree with that. But Mid-Acts dispensationalists like myself recognize that Jesus rightly and rightfully gave commandments He expected people to obey in order to receive eternal life.

However... He (Jesus/God) has had different rules and commandments for different people's at different times. Even you would agree with this; you'd have to. People couldn't eat meat. Then they could. Then they couldn't, then they could. Then they could only eat certain animals. Now we can eat all animals, again. Could Noah have been justified by circumcision, like Abraham was? Of course not. But Abraham was, as James tells us. And yet, today circumcision once again avails us nothing! Gone, here and then gone again.

Well, my theological belief (which I don't anticipate you're ever going to believe, mind you) sees water baptism as being in the same boat as circumcision. It is something that passed away during the period in which Paul founded the Church, after Peter had been relegated to going only to the Jews (Gal. 2:7-9).

This issue is both broad and deep, and not for this thread. But that's my view, in a nutshell. I dont' believe God wants us to be water baptized, today. So, nothing you say is really going to persuade me to go ahead and do it.

But I truly thank you for your concern. I mean that sincerely! :ripurple:

I think RightIdea's reluctance to get baptised might be less of a doctrinal issue and more of an aversion-to-anything-that-resembles-a-bath issue.

( :rock: back atcha! )
Hogwash! (Pun intended!) :lol:

And I HATE House of Pain! Egad, there are only about 4 or 5 recording artists (solo or band) on earth that I can't stand, and they're one of them! (Which is quite ironic, considering I love Everlast as solo!)

:riblack:

[brother vinny]

So, nothing you say is really going to persuade me to go ahead and do it.

Which is precisely why extensive torture followed by slow-roasting at the stake are in order. If nothing we say will convince RightIdea, perhaps drastic actions will.

[Columba]

I see! :) Well, thank you for sharing your beliefs with me. I was not aware that people believed this and its always an education on these boards. I did not know that people believed that this was "old law" and that they believe that the Apostles stopped doing it. Hmmm...thank you for sharing.
:)

[brother vinny]

And I HATE House of Pain! Egad, there are only about 4 or 5 recording artists (solo or band) on earth that I can't stand, and they're one of them! (Which is quite ironic, considering I love Everlast as solo!)


Which gives us yet another weapon in our arsenal of torture: we can play "Jump Around" while extruding RightIdea's fingernails.

[bar Jonah]

I see! :) Well, thank you for sharing your beliefs with me. I was not aware that people believed this and its always an education on these boards. I did not know that people believed that this was "old law" and that they believe that the Apostles stopped doing it. Hmmm...thank you for sharing.
:)
No problemo, mi amiga! (Or is it amigo? I'm assuming you're a "she" because your name ends with an "a.")

And I don't believe "the apostles" stopped doing it. I believe Paul stopped doing it. Mid-Acts Dispensationalists believe that because Israel failed to accept her messiah in the year after the resurrection, and failed to build the church sufficiently (as a result of Saul), that God went a new direction to the Gentile world apart from Israel's covenant at this point (mid-Acts) and charged Saul/Paul with this new gospel to the world, that was not directly based on the Israel covenant. So, we believe Paul did not preach the same gospel and message as Jesus did in His earthly ministry and as the Twelve continued to preach in their epistles. Paul and Acts make it clear that the Twelve were relegated to preaching to "the Circumcision" -- ie. to the Jewish believers of their day. And Paul became "the apostle to the Gentiles" and thus founded the church as we have it, today. We know the followers of Peter and James and John were "zealous for the Law" and continued to preach that circumcision was necessary, etc. Jesus, Himself, preached the Law as a requirement for salvation in His earthly ministry.

Please note, this doesn't mean that we put Paul above Jesus! Who gave Paul his message? Christ, of course! As I pointed out before, God has "changed the rules" many times, based on differing situations and circumstances for His people on earth, at different times (and this specific fact is really not even debatable, as surely you can see).

So, the Twelve did indeed continue to water baptize as such situations arose, but their ministry died with them, back then, as a result of God setting aside Israel and blinding her for a time, until the End, at which time He will graft her in, again.

I've no doubt it sounds confusing; there's a great deal more to it. But I appreciate your interest and curiosity, and your edifying response to it. It's not uncommon for some Christians to instantly attack those who hold this view as being almost heretical (and not in a tongue-in-cheek way, as my good brother Vinny does). :ripurple:


Which gives us yet another weapon in our arsenal of torture: we can play "Jump Around" while extruding RightIdea's fingernails.
Egad, nooooooo! :shocked:

*starts singing* "Take me to the rivah ... and wash me down!" :whistle:

[Jezz]

personally, I'm quite content to leave all the doctrinal debates to the Patriarchs.
Yes. It's not quite true to say that the Orthodox are not officially into ecumenism - it would be more correct to say that the Orthodox will not tolerate doctrinal compromise. At many so-called ecumenical movements today, the churches come together under the premise that none of them have the complete truth, and all sides need to compromise. It is this attitude that Orthdoxy cannot tolerate, because in their view they have the complete truth and everyone else needs to compromise. The reason for the on again/off again involvement of Orthodox patriarchs in ecumenical disputes is because of the unclear nature of the ecumenical movement. The Orthodox can and do participate in ecumenical dialog when they are not required to admit compromise might be necessary - indeed, their faith obligates them to.

And to be quite honest, this is a perfectly valid attitude to have. If two sides disagree, then it is not correct to automatically say that both are wrong - we must also be open to the possibility that one side is completely correct and the other is completely incorrect.

But I am happy to share my own Faith and its doctrine, and to learn more about yours. I do not consider this "ecumenism". Really, I think all of us should be more concerned about the movement of "one world religion" (can you say the UN and its "chapel"???) than about these small differences of wordplay, minor interpretive problems, etc.
I'm so happy after reading yoru note!!!! :)
That's a good attitude to have, Columba. Not that the differences in wording and beliefs and such aren't important, but at the end of the day what is most important is living our lives as God intended it. Everyday Christians throughout the ages have generally been content to leave the doctrinal matters to those equipped to deal with them (ie, the educated theologians), and live their own life in faith.

The early Church spread primarily not through the work of the apostles, but through ordinary Christians who may not have been fully versed in all the doctrinal intricacies of their faith. As they travelled, they took their faith with them - not merely doctrinally, but in the way that they lived their lives. Much like what you are doing now. This is how the faith was spread. And interestingly enough, this is the way that the Orthodox Faith is primarily spread today.

[Columba]

No problemo, mi amiga! (Or is it amigo? I'm assuming you're a "she" because your name ends with an "a.")

And I don't believe "the apostles" stopped doing it. I believe Paul stopped doing it. Mid-Acts Dispensationalists believe that because Israel failed to accept her messiah in the year after the resurrection, and failed to build the church sufficiently (as a result of Saul), that God went a new direction to the Gentile world apart from Israel's covenant at this point (mid-Acts) and charged Saul/Paul with this new gospel to the world, that was not directly based on the Israel covenant. So, we believe Paul did not preach the same gospel and message as Jesus did in His earthly ministry and as the Twelve continued to preach in their epistles. Paul and Acts make it clear that the Twelve were relegated to preaching to "the Circumcision" -- ie. to the Jewish believers of their day. And Paul became "the apostle to the Gentiles" and thus founded the church as we have it, today. We know the followers of Peter and James and John were "zealous for the Law" and continued to preach that circumcision was necessary, etc. Jesus, Himself, preached the Law as a requirement for salvation in His earthly ministry.

Please note, this doesn't mean that we put Paul above Jesus! Who gave Paul his message? Christ, of course! As I pointed out before, God has "changed the rules" many times, based on differing situations and circumstances for His people on earth, at different times (and this specific fact is really not even debatable, as surely you can see).

So, the Twelve did indeed continue to water baptize as such situations arose, but their ministry died with them, back then, as a result of God setting aside Israel and blinding her for a time, until the End, at which time He will graft her in, again.

I've no doubt it sounds confusing; there's a great deal more to it. But I appreciate your interest and curiosity, and your edifying response to it. It's not uncommon for some Christians to instantly attack those who hold this view as being almost heretical (and not in a tongue-in-cheek way, as my good brother Vinny does). :ripurple:



Egad, nooooooo! :shocked:

*starts singing* "Take me to the rivah ... and wash me down!" :whistle:I hardly know where to start with this....do many Protestants believe in this?
I am not a scholar so forgive any blunders I make. It is interesting to me that you say the teaching died with the Apostles because we Orthodox believe that the Seventy who received the teaching from them, gave it to us. Every Orthodox priest in the world (cannonical) can trace his "roots" to one of the 12 or to Paul. This has been well documented in our Church histories, and so I am interested in what you say. Our Coptic and Oriental brothers are no longer in Communion with us, but their histories too are well documented. I am intrigued by this ...do you have a historical source of information I might look at? Thank you!
:smile:
p.s: I am actually an amigA btw...but Columba was a man. He was the Irish Orthodox Saint who evangelized Scotland. St. Columba of Iona. I just have tender feelings for the guy.

[bar Jonah]

I hardly know where to start with this....do many Protestants believe in this?
I am not a scholar so forgive any blunders I make. It is interesting to me that you say the teaching died with the Apostles because we Orthodox believe that the Seventy who received the teaching from them, gave it to us. Every Orthodox priest in the world (cannonical) can trace his "roots" to one of the 12 or to Paul. This has been well documented in our Church histories, and so I am interested in what you say. Our Coptic and Oriental brothers are no longer in Communion with us, but their histories too are well documented. I am intrigued by this ...do you have a historical source of information I might look at? Thank you!
:smile:
p.s: I am actually an amigA btw...but Columba was a man. He was the Irish Orthodox Saint who evangelized Scotland. St. Columba of Iona. I just have tender feelings for the guy.
No, most Prots and non-denoms like me definitely do not hold this view. It is a minority view. But so is yours, in the great scheme of things, and majority opinion doesn't determine truth, as you know. :smile:

I don't dispute that the teachings of the Twelve descended through the church after the founding of the Body of Christ with Paul (who, btw, is the only person in the entire Bible to even speak of "the Body of Christ.") However, since as I pointed out, the Twelve agreed to go only to the Jews from then on.... Just as Jesus said He came only for the lost sheep of the house of Israel and forbade His disciples from going unto the Gentiles, the letters of the Jewish leaders (Peter, James, John, Jude) are addressed to "the scattered tribes" ... "the diaspora" ... "the elect lady" ...

Is the E. Orthodox church comprised of Jews? Which tribe of Israel are you?

:huh:

:riwink:

(And also as I said earlier, I'm not going to use this thread to defend my view. That is off topic. This has been discussed at great length here at Tweb. Do a word search for threads using the words "Mid-Acts Dispensational Pauline" and you might find plenty of stuff to read. For books, I highly recommend C.R. Stam and Bob Hill.

[Columba]

Yes. It's not quite true to say that the Orthodox are not officially into ecumenism - it would be more correct to say that the Orthodox will not tolerate doctrinal compromise. At many so-called ecumenical movements today, the churches come together under the premise that none of them have the complete truth, and all sides need to compromise. It is this attitude that Orthdoxy cannot tolerate, because in their view they have the complete truth and everyone else needs to compromise. The reason for the on again/off again involvement of Orthodox patriarchs in ecumenical disputes is because of the unclear nature of the ecumenical movement. The Orthodox can and do participate in ecumenical dialog when they are not required to admit compromise might be necessary - indeed, their faith obligates them to.

And to be quite honest, this is a perfectly valid attitude to have. If two sides disagree, then it is not correct to automatically say that both are wrong - we must also be open to the possibility that one side is completely correct and the other is completely incorrect.Hello Jezz! Good to see you again!!!!
Now you see, Jezz, this is a beautiful example of how we Orthodox are terrible at explaining ourselves in comparison...you did this beautifully here..this is exactly what we mean ! :lol:


That's a good attitude to have, Columba. Not that the differences in wording and beliefs and such aren't important, but at the end of the day what is most important is living our lives as God intended it. Everyday Christians throughout the ages have generally been content to leave the doctrinal matters to those equipped to deal with them (ie, the educated theologians), and live their own life in faith.

The early Church spread primarily not through the work of the apostles, but through ordinary Christians who may not have been fully versed in all the doctrinal intricacies of their faith. As they travelled, they took their faith with them - not merely doctrinally, but in the way that they lived their lives. Much like what you are doing now. This is how the faith was spread. And interestingly enough, this is the way that the Orthodox Faith is primarily spread today.
Well yes, actually, I think this is quite true. We have had our brilliant scholars in the past, and very many holy people, but not in a very long time. A few recently such as Bishop Nikolai Velimirovich. Tough to say who else in recent times might qualify...the Russians would say "starets" but we have not had any of those in a very long time. The Russians would also say it is because we are totally "unworthy" at this time to have them! LOL! Perhaps they are right. The faith has always been a "simple" faith in that it was always geared never toward the powerful, but to the average peasant like me, and accessible and understandable for us, the people. I like to read the early Holy Fathers but sometimes their ideas are way beyond me. But I do derive much learning from them. The Philokalia is a wonderful compendium of learning. I think of all the more recent ones I have enjoyed St. Theophan the best. He was a lot more like "the rest of us" if you know what I mean!

It's also true that we are very impressed by the Protestant ability to have "revivals" and so on. We cannot really see ourselves doing this, only because of 2 things:
1. We would waste too much time trying to explain ourselves and some of our teachings are not exactly a one-hour lesson...a lot of it involves a great deal of history.
2. This is my personal opinion: All of our theology is in the Liturgies. If you listen to the way the words are put together, in praise and in worship, you will grasp Orthodox theology much faster than if you sit down and try to read some of the more difficult authors...this is hard to explain to an American or a westerner. The "absorption" comes from person to person, to person to person. And so this why the theology just never changes. It all comes from the liturgy that has been unchanged since the first century. How would we do all that in an evening? Protestants are to be admired for their ability to transmit their basics in a short time...we just have no way of doing this...
this is why we always just tell new people "Be at peace and come to Church!!!" LOL! After Church, we tell them to spend the rest of Sunday reading the Bible to discover the reasons and so forth for the words of the Liturgy.
:smile:

[Columba]

No, most Prots and non-denoms like me definitely do not hold this view. It is a minority view. But so is yours, in the great scheme of things, and majority opinion doesn't determine truth, as you know. :smile:

I don't dispute that the teachings of the Twelve descended through the church after the founding of the Body of Christ with Paul (who, btw, is the only person in the entire Bible to even speak of "the Body of Christ.") However, since as I pointed out, the Twelve agreed to go only to the Jews from then on.... Just as Jesus said He came only for the lost sheep of the house of Israel and forbade His disciples from going unto the Gentiles, the letters of the Jewish leaders (Peter, James, John, Jude) are addressed to "the scattered tribes" ... "the diaspora" ... "the elect lady" ...

Is the E. Orthodox church comprised of Jews? Which tribe of Israel are you?

:huh:

:riwink:

(And also as I said earlier, I'm not going to use this thread to defend my view. That is off topic. This has been discussed at great length here at Tweb. Do a word search for threads using the words "Mid-Acts Dispensational Pauline" and you might find plenty of stuff to read. For books, I highly recommend C.R. Stam and Bob Hill.
Thank you for your response! I will look into this...no we are not Jews. We are Christians! :) Our first church was in Antioch. It is still there.
But we do still have a Patriarchate in Jerusalem. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre (tomb of Christ) is there.
Thank you again for responding!
:)

[Amazing Rando]

I don't dispute that the teachings of the Twelve descended through the church after the founding of the Body of Christ with Paul (who, btw, is the only person in the entire Bible to even speak of "the Body of Christ.") However, since as I pointed out, the Twelve agreed to go only to the Jews from then on.... Just as Jesus said He came only for the lost sheep of the house of Israel and forbade His disciples from going unto the Gentiles, the letters of the Jewish leaders (Peter, James, John, Jude) are addressed to "the scattered tribes" ... "the diaspora" ... "the elect lady" ...

Is the E. Orthodox church comprised of Jews? Which tribe of Israel are you?

Are you a Roman? A Corinthian? A Galatian? A Thessalonian? How about a Phillippian? Is your name Timothy? Titus? Or shall we call you Philemon from now on?

None of the Paul's letters was addressed to you any more than James or 1 and 2 Peter are addressed to me. This is one line of reasoning you really should drop from your defense of your position, RI.

[bar Jonah]

Are you a Roman? A Corinthian? A Galatian? A Thessalonian? How about a Phillippian? Is your name Timothy? Titus? Or shall we call you Philemon from now on?

None of the Paul's letters was addressed to you any more than James or 1 and 2 Peter are addressed to me. This is one line of reasoning you really should drop from your defense of your position, RI.
Rando, I hate to use what is quickly becoming a cliche... but your man is full of straw.

Jesus and the apostles of the Jerusalem Church didn't write letters to specific churches. They cited Israel, the lost sheep of Israel, the scattered tribes, the Diaspora (scattering of the tribes), the Elect Lady.

While Paul wrote to various churches specifically, these church letters circulated among many or all of Paul's churches, and intentionally so! As I keep pointing out (and you keep ignoring), Paul was the apostle to the Uncircumcision, whereas Peter and the Twelve were the apostles to the Circumcision!

[Amazing Rando]

Rando, I hate to use what is quickly becoming a cliche... but your man is full of straw.

Jesus and the apostles of the Jerusalem Church didn't write letters to specific churches. They cited Israel, the lost sheep of Israel, the scattered tribes, the Diaspora (scattering of the tribes), the Elect Lady.

While Paul wrote to various churches specifically, these church letters circulated among many or all of Paul's churches, and intentionally so! As I keep pointing out (and you keep ignoring), Paul was the apostle to the Uncircumcision, whereas Peter and the Twelve were the apostles to the Circumcision!

That was Paul's primary mission- to extend the gospel to the Gentiles, but it was not his exclusive mission. There are hordes of examples of Paul preaching to, converting, and yes, even baptizing the Jews. In the same way, we also see the Twelve preaching to the Gentiles. Who made the first Gentile convert? It was Phillip, not Paul. Extrabiblical Church history also records the Twelve as scattering and going to all different parts of the ancient world, preaching the gospel to Jews and Gentiles alike. The Bible is silent on what happened to the Twelve after the Council of Jerusalem.

And take a look at what Peter has to say at that council:

Acts 15:
7After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith.

From MY lips- that is, Peter's. It's ridiculous to think that the Twelve would ignore the Gentiles.

[brother vinny]

I'd just like to say that I'm glad we've gone from discussing whether or not RightIdea is a Protestant, to discussing precisely what type of Protestant RightIdea is (or should be!).

Progress indeed.

[Amazing Rando]

I'd just like to say that I'm glad we've gone from discussing whether or not RightIdea is a Protestant, to discussing precisely what type of Protestant RightIdea is (or should be!).

Progress indeed.


:grin: I guess the matter of the OP is settled then! :hamster:

[Jezz]

Our Coptic and Oriental brothers are no longer in Communion with us, but their histories too are well documented.
Columba, you may be interested to know that in the last decade or two this has changed. The Oriental (non-Chalcedonian) Orthodox and the Greek Orthodox have nearly restored full communion after 1500 years being isolated from each other.

You can find out more information about this on this site (http://www.orthodoxunity.org/). Especially, note:

In the light of our four unofficial consultations (1964, 1967, 1970, 1971) and our three official meetings which followed on (1985, 1989, 1990), we have understood that both families have loyally maintained the authentic Orthodox Christological doctrine and the unbroken continuity of the apostolic tradition, though they may have used Christological terms in different ways.

(From here (http://www.orthodoxunity.org/state04.html).)

[Robyn Banks]

BV, you and Robyn Banks are the most ambiguous people I know on TWeb. More often than not, I can't tell if you're being serious or not. :nsm:

What? Only first-equal??

Pah.

[Amazing Rando]

What? Only first-equal??

Pah.

:rofl: Sorry Robyn, I guess you've got to try to be more ambiguous!