tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21822203.post115058105749101535..comments2023-09-13T04:31:43.283-07:00Comments on The Abandoned Mind: All The SaintsFr. Michael Reaganhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02265035749268657422noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21822203.post-1151008017026998102006-06-22T13:26:00.000-07:002006-06-22T13:26:00.000-07:00Anonymous,God only knows what will truly save. Our...Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>God only knows what will truly save. Our understanding of what "salvation" means is largely dependent on what we have been TAUGHT salvation means.<BR/><BR/>An example: no early Christian would dare think that all he needed to do to be "saved" was "have faith alone" or "read the Bible alone", or visit somebody else's Church (with a hint of derision I sensed!) six times!! <BR/><BR/>If that were the case, we wouldn't have the sacred tradition of martyrs we have - why would they have to die for the faith, if "faith alone" saved? They could simply have believed "in their heart" and recanted with their mouth! <BR/><BR/>Obviously the fact that the martyrs are revered as a "great cloud of witnesses" (Hebrews) means they are honored for doing something other than just having "faith"!<BR/><BR/>Also, the Bible (especially the four Gospels) speaks at great length (much of it in Christ's own words) about what one must DO to be saved. When St. Paul talks about "working out your salvation with fear and trembling"...what's to fear and tremble about, if all you have to do to be saved is say the Sinner's prayer, believe in your heart and you're in!<BR/> <BR/>That line of thinking came fom the modern evangelical movement (not even the early Reformation). The idea of a "personal relationship with Christ" etc....show me where that is in the New Testament text? I'm not saying our relationship with the Lord ISN'T "Personal", or that we don't have one! - don't get me wrong - I'm just saying that it sounds to me like you have been influenced by "a tradition" (IE., no tradition!!!) even if you don't acknowledge it!<BR/><BR/>The question you ask is the right one: what is saving? How is it appropriated? Obviously, God can save anyone, anyway He chooses. The Thief of the Cross is an example. However, is that the best way to go - to live sinfully and repent at the ladt minute, or have an epiphany at the last minute before death? Why not, if all that is required is to "believe" if even for a minute? Why not then (if the answer is faith alone) live a sinful life, take pleasure in all that the flesh can take pleasure in and then repent late in life...even on your death bed?<BR/><BR/>The reason is 1. we never know when we will die; 2. we never know when Christ will return; and. 3. that's not all there is to "salvation". Salvation gets confused with conversion, and gets that way due to the notion of forensic justification/positional righteousness, which BTW are innovations to the Faith that came (again) out of the Reformation & that which followed. In short, it states that Christ did it all and transferred His standing with God, His righteousness with God, to you, because you have faith in Him.<BR/><BR/>What's wrong with that? It's actually a great deal! I wish it would be so! The problem is that it was never believed as the answer to appropriating salvation before the 1600's and it undermines personal effort to struggle aagisnt one's sinful tendencies. We see salvation as "partaking of the nature of Christ" (Heb.3:14), becoming "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Pet. 1:4).<BR/><BR/>I realize that St. Paul distinguishes Abraham's faith accounted as righteousness, from the so-called righteousness of the Jews and their Law. However, was St. Paul saying that all there is to the Christian life is "faith alone"? That's the crux of our difference of understanding.<BR/><BR/>We believe that God created The Church as His successor, through His Holy Spirit. We know the Holy Spirit dwells in the Church. Is every congregation that proclaims itself to be a "church" an equal purveyor of the holy spirit with the Church founded on the apostles and prophets? That's the question you have to ask. Can one live and grow in this faith to "fullness" on his own, with just his Bible?<BR/><BR/>Here's my thought: if you are right (faith alone; bible alone; personal relationship alone), then those of us who are part of the Holy Orthodox Church get all the benefits you do. We lose nothing by being part of the historical institution that the Holy Apostles founded after Pentecost. But if I'm right and YOU are wrong, well, then you've made a bad bet, haven't you? Is "salvation" worth gambling?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21822203.post-1151004028697822322006-06-22T12:20:00.000-07:002006-06-22T12:20:00.000-07:00Searphim, i must point out that "A member of a fam...Searphim, i must point out that "A member of a family" does not neccesarily mean close family, rather extended family should be inclusive in that term.There is no limit to the definition put forward.<BR/><BR/>And I also should point out that in Temple attendence only happened 3 or 4 times a year in the OT. Not weekly. Paul does say "Forsake not the Assembly of the Saints as some of you have done" I never assmebled with the Saints so to speak, so how could i forsake the assembly if one never assembled in the first place? Aside from baptism, I have atteneded a Church 6 times, all for friends RCC rituals. That could scantly be called "forsaking" if one never joined.<BR/><BR/>As has been put forward between myself and Ere, if a Bible washed up on a deserted island and the Castaway read it and believed it, would he still be saved? Would he still be adopted by the Father as a Son through His Son?<BR/><BR/>And i do not find EO rituals to be "meaningless" at all, rather I see know absolute reason why they are completely neccesary for Man's relation to God.<BR/><BR/>BTW As Paul said in Romans "The Gentiles who have not the law..there consciences alternately convicting and acquitting them" <BR/><BR/>The Holy Spirit is meant to teach and guide every beleiver.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21822203.post-1150990011671932882006-06-22T08:26:00.000-07:002006-06-22T08:26:00.000-07:00Anonymous,You wrote: (referring to the Gr. for "ho...Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>You wrote: (referring to the Gr. for "household" in Eph. 2:19):<BR/><BR/>"oikeios" is not "a house, per se, more a member of an extended family".<BR/><BR/>The definition of "oikeios: is: (1) belonging to a house or family; (2) related by blood. <BR/>There is no definition of "oikeios" as "an extended family". Sorry!<BR/><BR/>The Geneva Bible notes comments this way on verse 19: Paul, "describes the excellency of the Church, calling it the city and house of God." Not houses. Not "various congregations", as you state he means. <BR/><BR/>There WERE NO "various congregations" when St. Paul was writing his epistles. There were only the one Church in the cities where apostles (and St. Paul) had established them. <BR/><BR/>One can argue there is a lack of clarity on this issue perhaps (one Church versus "various congregations") in the New Testament. After all, the new Testament is not a history of the Church(strictly speaking).<BR/><BR/>But there are extant texts written at the same time St. Paul's epistles were being distributed(90 A.D.). They are fully recognized by textual critics and historians and speak of how the Church was viewed.<BR/><BR/>One is by Clement of Rome. His "Epistles to the Corinthians" is probably the earliest Christian document that has come down to us, outside the Canon of the New Testament.<BR/><BR/>He begins the "Epistle" by writing: "The Church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the Church of God at Corinth". Again: not "various congregations". THE CHURCH AT CORINTH! <BR/><BR/>He goes on to excoriate THE CHURCH for factionalism and sedition against its apostolic-appointed "presbyters" and speaks clearly of the role, ministry and order of THE CHURCH and its appointed services. He speaks of the Bishop and of the presbyters and deacons. He sees the Church as the continuous institution which from the Apostles' days onward had preserved its unbroken life (JVC Durrell, commenting).<BR/><BR/>To argue, Anonymous, as you do (Bible only; many churches; personal relationship-only), you have to disregard the historic foundation (no pun!) upon which the New Testament was written. You have to disregard the institution (the Chutch) which canonized it into the form you read today. You have to esentially "create a new Christianity" - one divorced from the Church it grew out of.<BR/><BR/>By the way: that is the definiton of the word "PROTESTANT".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21822203.post-1150976248915351892006-06-22T04:37:00.000-07:002006-06-22T04:37:00.000-07:00Fixer, The wonderful thing about what you articula...Fixer, The wonderful thing about what you articulate is that since Protestants worship God in Sprit and Truth, they need no liturgies and "empty rituals like the EO's and Roman Catholics. You believe in the Bible, but not the Church. How other Christians have done things for thousands of years, and how they came to believe this is no concern for you. Nobody, a bishop or whomever has any special authority over you. No Church Father has any special wisdom for you to listen to. You say you believe the Bible, but most of the time, you make it say what you want to. (28,000 divisions of Protestantism) The coolest thing about your smorgasborg Christianity, is that when the Church you go to goes off the beat theologically, you can just shop a new church. Or even better, you don't even need to go to church at all!!!! You've got a personal relationship with God, and with you as the bishop of your new church, your view of the scriptures is just as valid as Eusebbios History of the Church from the 4th century.<BR/><BR/>As the desert fathers used to say, "he who chooses himself as his own spiritual guide and leader has chosen a fool and a blind man" Fixer, who is in authority of you? Please don't tell me God alone!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21822203.post-1150948762453978462006-06-21T20:59:00.000-07:002006-06-21T20:59:00.000-07:00Fixer,Does it matter to you that your view would b...Fixer,<BR/><BR/>Does it matter to you that your view would be foreign to those early communities of Christians?Munkeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05817410572901118548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21822203.post-1150946513285456932006-06-21T20:21:00.000-07:002006-06-21T20:21:00.000-07:00However the "hoseuhold" spoken of is not a "Househ...However the "hoseuhold" spoken of is not a "Household" in the sense of all being in one home.<BR/><BR/>In Greek (here it comes)the "house" spoken of in Eph is oikeios a relative or oikos a relative. Not a house per se, more a member of an extended family.<BR/><BR/>Paul wrote the Epistles to dispell bad doctrine that had crept into the various congregations.<BR/><BR/>I do have to say quoting Greek on a EO blog is fruaght with inherent dangers of wrongness..:)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21822203.post-1150933708754527312006-06-21T16:48:00.000-07:002006-06-21T16:48:00.000-07:00Anonymous,I won't beat this horse to death but...t...Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>I won't beat this horse to death but...the references to "foundation" in St. Paul are used in different ways in various texts.<BR/><BR/>1 Cor. 3:10: "I laid a foundation as an expert builder and someone else is building on it". The "foundation" referred to here is Christ.<BR/><BR/>But in Eph. 2:19-20 the text reads: <BR/><BR/>"Now therefore ye are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God (v. 19); And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone".<BR/><BR/>Here St. Paul describes his readers ("YE") as "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets...". <BR/><BR/>Obviously we agree that faith in Christ is the key to entering "the household of God" (v. 19). However, he is clearly speaking of a community here which he goes on to refer to as "the building fitly framed" which grows into a "holy temple in the Lord." (v. 21. <BR/><BR/>There are two foundations St. Paul speaks of (as pointed out). One is Christ. The other is His Church. <BR/><BR/>By the way, if The Church weren't important to St. Paul, why do you think he would have gone to the trouble to send these epistles to the churches he (St. Paul) planted? If you want the Gospel without His Church, fine. But that would have been an incomprehensible concept to St. Paul.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21822203.post-1150931035787594462006-06-21T16:03:00.000-07:002006-06-21T16:03:00.000-07:00Of course I disagree, in Eph 2.20 who is being bui...Of course I disagree, in Eph 2.20 who is being built upon? <BR/><BR/>"In union with Him" not a Church nor even a classical communion But Christ Himself.<BR/><BR/>the church and even the offices in a Church are all dedicated to the "Edification of the Saints" not to perpetauating itself.<BR/><BR/>In Rom 4, Paul speaks about Abraham and God, and how Abraham simply believed God and that was accounted to him as righteousness.<BR/><BR/>No church in sight.....<BR/><BR/>(I lost my password Ere :) )Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21822203.post-1150910394256521402006-06-21T10:19:00.000-07:002006-06-21T10:19:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Fr. Michael Reaganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02265035749268657422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21822203.post-1150907510179484332006-06-21T09:31:00.000-07:002006-06-21T09:31:00.000-07:00Anonymous:You mention the word "foundation", as in...Anonymous:<BR/><BR/>You mention the word "foundation", as in: "solid foundations are built upon". I'm not sure what you mean entirely in your post, but here's an exegesis on the word "foundation":<BR/><BR/>St. Paul uses the word "foundation" (and other building-architectural metaphors) often [Romans 15:20; 1 Cor. 3:10-12; Eph. 2:20; 1 Tim. 6:19; 2 Tim. 2:19]. <BR/><BR/>In some texts his use of the word "foundation" refers clearly and directly to Christ (we know this by the use of the accusative of the masculine form - not the neuter - in the Greek. So in these texts the "foundation" being built upon is Christ. One could argue that in THIS use of the word "foundation", in these texts, he is referring to "a real and direct God and Man type relationship" (as you state).<BR/><BR/>In Eph. 2:20, however, he uses the word "foundation" to describe that which was "built upon" the "foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone".<BR/><BR/>Here his use of the word "foundation" refers to the Church, "the whole building" (v. 21)which "fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord." (v. 21).<BR/><BR/>So St. Paul's use of the word "foundation" refers BOTH to Christ as the foundation, AND the Church "of the apostles and prophets" as the foundation.<BR/><BR/>In fact they are inseparable! The historic Church IS the Body of Christ in space and time (Rom. 12:4) for which Christ prays: "that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they my also be one with Us..." (Jn. 17:21).<BR/><BR/>So I think - if I get your drift - that the idea of "individual" faith and "personal direct relationship with Christ" as somehow being more valid or "biblical" than the "consensus" of the living Body of Christ (IE., The Church) has no basis in either scripture or history.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21822203.post-1150898443136566852006-06-21T07:00:00.000-07:002006-06-21T07:00:00.000-07:00Sorry Andrew/Andros/Fixer/Anonymous, but I must be...Sorry Andrew/Andros/Fixer/Anonymous, but I must be denser than usual this morning and missed your point...Fr. Michael Reaganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02265035749268657422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21822203.post-1150856605471548792006-06-20T19:23:00.000-07:002006-06-20T19:23:00.000-07:00"Neo Calvinism"? If so, so what? Rather than drift..."Neo Calvinism"? If so, so what? Rather than drift, solid foundations are the built upon. And a solid rock is appealed to, not what a consensus of some committee thinks, a real and direct God and Man type relationship. did Christ reconcile man to god or did Christ not? <BR/><BR/>"I crucify my flesh daily" <BR/><BR/>who said that???<BR/><BR/>Andros<BR/><BR/>In Fileo Fr Eremitike of courseAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com