Abortion and TULIP

[Havensdad]

Havensdad, first off get well soon; you sound coherent enough ATM but do get some bed-rest!

That said, I have to take issue with you on your assertion that the Church was in error prior to the Great Schism. This is a horse which has been flogged to death in threads passim here but suffice it to say that there are some of us here - not necessarily RC - who rely on both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition and do not see the two as in conflict. An example of the balance between the two is found in both the verse you quoted above - 2 Tim 3:16 - and the verse preceding it, when Paul talks about the Church being the "pillar and foundation of the Truth". It's not an either/or but a both/and.

But we are to judge tradition and the goings on of the church by Scripture: scripture never says to do the opposite. Therefore scripture is the ultimate authority, as it is the very word of God.

BTW, the quote you mention is not in second Timothy, but first; a completely different epistle. The end of chapter 3 of second Timothy, talks of nothing but stressing the sufficiency of scripture.
In regards to the two words "pillar and foundation", in reference to the Church (the body of Christ, not some fancy building), BOTH of these words denote a "support" of some kind, not the causal agent in and of themselves. The Church is not the "inventor" of truths through their traditions, they are the upholder and defender of the Gospel and God's Word.

To those who uphold traditions in accordance with the Word, that is fine, though not authoritative. To those who hold tradition which is counter to anything in scripture (Such as the RCC and the Eastern Orthodox Church clearly do..), I would say the same thing Jesus said...

Mat 15:3 He answered them, "And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?

Infant Baptism is not Biblical. It is contrary to the scriptures, which show faith and repentance preceding Baptism. Therefore this is just a "tradition of men".

 

[Agnus_Dei]

No offense, ma'am, but you need a history lesson. The church had gotten corrupt LONG before the Schism.

I’m not a “ma’am” and no offense taken. I used to be like you once, until I finally wised up after 32 years as an Independent Fundamental Baptist and began thinking for myself. It took a good 4 to 5 year journey to get where I am now, that’s only because Protestantism is nothing more than a market place of competing theological ideas all pointing to the bible. I needed something authentic, real and true. Christ established a CHURCH and I knew that that Church had to still exist and the Protestantism today wasn’t it.

The early Church ALWAYS pointed to scripture for it's teaching and doctrines.

I’ll buy into a portion of that assertion. I don’t however believe that Church has always had the Scriptures (the Bible as you and I know it today) from the very beginning. Generally it’s accepted that the Church was established the day of Pentecost, and if that’s the case the Apostles had yet to pen anything and the Church was being guided by Sacred Tradition from the Apostles with the Holy Spirit as was promised by Christ to remind His Church of ALL things.

If we were to hypothetically lose all trace of the Bible, by the Early Church fathers writings, we could basically re-write the entirety of Scripture. So yes, the Early Church has always pointed to scripture. It was my love for Scripture that guided me to the Orthodox Church.

The Orthodox Church has almost all the same problems that the RCC has.

And what problems would that be? I’ve been through two years of RCC theology and RCIA classes, before becoming Orthodox. I have yet to witness any of the same problems; even our theology is quite different. You’d do yourself some good to brush up on things you know nothing about.

BTW, where do you think the idea of "seven sacraments" come from? (Hint: this neither started with Church tradition, nor from scripture).

First you need to school yourself on what a Sacrament is, if your Church has Baptism and Communion, then you should know better than to make a comment that seven or two sacraments didn’t start with Church tradition or Scripture.

Assignment for you, take the weekend and write down all the Seven Sacraments and take each one and reference it with Scripture. If you need some help, let me know…

Conclusion: Neither the "Roman Catholic" church, nor the "Orthodox" church are actually orthodox.

Sola Scriptura. Sola Gratia. Sola Fide.

You have a lot to learn, but patience is a virtue (I have three small kids and I have to answer the same question over and over).

Get well

ICXC NIKA
-

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Infant Baptism is not Biblical. It is contrary to the scriptures, which show faith and repentance preceding Baptism. Therefore this is just a "tradition of men".

The Orthodox Church baptizes children and infants, just as the Roman Catholic Church and some of the major Protestant Churches, but we as Orthodox baptize for a different reason than that of our RCC brethren.

Again, the Catholic Church believes that we as infants born into this world are born with the guilt of Adam’s sin, thus infants are baptized for salvation ASAP.

Granted the Orthodox Church’s view on Baptism is the same as St. Paul’s, “for the remission of sin”, but it’s much more than that in regard to infants, its also about bringing them into our family, the Church family. In Protestantism having a proper understanding of this and of that is paramount, whereas in the Orthodox Church we are perfectly content with...it’s a mystery.

My kids are a part of my family…they eat at my dinner table every night…do they understand what its means to eat at my table and be a part of my family? My oldest at 7 understands somewhat, but not fully, but my 3 and 4 year old don’t. Do I ban them to the little kids table until they understand? No. The same applies to the Orthodox Church; this is also why we as Orthodox give infants Communion, something the RCC doesn’t do. This is also the reason why we read that “whole households” were baptized in the New Testament.

We don't even ban our kids to the nursery (we don't have one), they are very much apart of our worship service.

In XC
-

 

[Matt Black]

BTW, the quote you mention is not in second Timothy, but first; a completely different epistle. The end of chapter 3 of second Timothy, talks of nothing but stressing the sufficiency of scripture.

D'oh, I knew that! My excuse is that I too am under the weather, chest infection in my case.

The two verses I had in mind were 2 Tim 3:14, where Paul advises Timothy to hold fast to the things learned from him (Tradition) and 2 Tim 3:15, which is the 'pillar and foundation' verse.

 

[Havensdad]

I’m not a “ma’am” and no offense taken. I used to be like you once, until I finally wised up after 32 years as an Independent Fundamental Baptist and began thinking for myself.

LOL. The old " I used to be like you, but wised up" argument. Right back at you.

It is funny that you say you started "thinking for yourself", by entering into a denomination who stresses tradition and hierarchy over independent thinking, and have, like their Roman Catholic counterparts, downplayed the importance of independent Biblical study for a nearly a millennium.

It took a good 4 to 5 year journey to get where I am now, that’s only because Protestantism is nothing more than a market place of competing theological ideas all pointing to the bible.

The apostles commanded us to compare everything to scripture, not "church tradition". Since so many Eastern Orthodox doctrines contradict it (scripture) it CANNOT be the"true church". The "true church" is the worldwide body of Christ, and any Christ centered, God fearing assembly of believers (in a building, or a house) who adhere to God's word, is the local church. There is no precedence in scripture for the Church organization and hierarchy as seen in the Eastern churches.

I needed something authentic, real and true. Christ established a CHURCH and I knew that that Church had to still exist and the Protestantism today wasn’t it.

Christ established a "church" which is every single person around the world who has been saved, and indwelled by the Holy Spirit. He did not found some "organization".

I’ll buy into a portion of that assertion. I don’t however believe that Church has always had the Scriptures (the Bible as you and I know it today) from the very beginning. Generally it’s accepted that the Church was established the day of Pentecost, and if that’s the case the Apostles had yet to pen anything and the Church was being guided by Sacred Tradition from the Apostles with the Holy Spirit as was promised by Christ to remind His Church of ALL things.

Wrong. The Church was indeed to some degree being guided by the apostles (who are no longer with us), but the Apostles were not just "Guessing". They had the Old Testament (which is what Paul and Jesus is referring to when they speak of "scripture" and "God's word") and as early as the 40's or 50's some of the epistles were in wide circulation.

If we were to hypothetically lose all trace of the Bible, by the Early Church fathers writings, we could basically re-write the entirety of Scripture. So yes, the Early Church has always pointed to scripture. It was my love for Scripture that guided me to the Orthodox Church.

Then why do you forsake the word of God for your traditions of men?

And what problems would that be? I’ve been through two years of RCC theology and RCIA classes, before becoming Orthodox. I have yet to witness any of the same problems; even our theology is quite different. You’d do yourself some good to brush up on things you know nothing about.

LOL. Lets see...

#1 Infant Baptism, which is not Biblical.

#2 Iconography, veneration of images, breaking of the 2nd commandment.

#3 Elevation of individuals

#4 Elevation of tradition over scripture, which is the exact opposite of what Jesus and the Apostles taught.

There is actually a lot more. I would suggest you do yourself some good, and brush up on things that you know nothing about. :wavey:

First you need to school yourself on what a Sacrament is, if your Church has Baptism and Communion, then you should know better than to make a comment that seven or two sacraments didn’t start with Church tradition or Scripture.

I do not need to do this. I have, already, nearly 1000 notional hours in Church history. Peter Lombard, author of "The Sentences" (from whom we get such notable expressions as "How many Angels can dance on the head of a pin"), was the first to specifically designate seven sacraments.

More below...

Assignment for you, take the weekend and write down all the Seven Sacraments and take each one and reference it with Scripture. If you need some help, let me know…

Actually the word "sacrament" is not in the Bible at all. But in regards to things we are told to do, there are but two: Baptism of a confessing believer, and the symbolic keeping of the Lord's supper. NEVER is grace said to be "conferred" from any of these things, but rather, they are symbolic rituals. Even the one sentence in scripture in regards to Baptism, which says "baptized for the remission of sins", can just as well be translated "baptized looking towards" or baptized "because of" the remission of sins. Since scripture specifically states we are not saved by ANY works, but rather, faith and repentance alone...

You have a lot to learn, but patience is a virtue (I have three small kids and I have to answer the same question over and over).

I do indeed have a lot to learn, no doubt. But on these things I am sure: Saved by grace alone, through faith alone. That Christ established His "body", not an "organization". And our guidance comes through God's word, ultimately.. Jesus and the Scriptures, were clear on this; we do not have Guru's...

 

[Jim1999]

I think this thread has reached an impasse. People are still referring calvinism to a man rather than a theological formulation.

By the way, the canon of scripture may have been determined by early church Fathers, the scriptures did exist before the canon was formed. The letters that Paul and Peter wrote were copied and passed around. This is how some false "gospels" found circulation and false doctrines started to rear their ugly heads.

The church is the result of scripture and not on men, and scripture remains the final authority on all matters of faith and truth. History alone establishes this fact.

There were churches operating alongside the RC and Orthodox spinoff. Who were the Christians who were sacrificed by those churches? Who were the believers who met in caves, upper rooms and even sewer systems? Who were the Christians martyred in the Roman arenas? They did not rely on the Church of Rome to give direction.

There were reformed churches and bodies of believers long before the so-called Reformation.......Yes, they were reforming out of the Church of Rome. The anabaptists, for one group, did not need a reformation, they already followed the word.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[DHK]

The Orthodox Church baptizes children and infants, just as the Roman Catholic Church and some of the major Protestant Churches, but we as Orthodox baptize for a different reason than that of our RCC brethren.

The RCC baptizes children because they equate baptism with the new birth. You do the same thing.

Again, the Catholic Church believes that we as infants born into this world are born with the guilt of Adam’s sin, thus infants are baptized for salvation ASAP.

If you do not believe in the sin nature being passed on; then you believe in the age old heresy of Pelagianism, which is far worse.

Granted the Orthodox Church’s view on Baptism is the same as St. Paul’s, “for the remission of sin”,

Which is the same as the "new birth." There is no difference there and the command that Jesus gave "You must be born again." When one is born again, he receives "the remission or forgiveness of siins." Your belief is the same as the RCC.

Your understanding of Acts 2:38 is very deficient. Water doesn't save. That is a superstition, akin to Hinduism. Baptism doesn't save; forgive your sins, etc. The water of baptism will get you wet and that is all. Are you superstitious?? Sounds like it. Again, study Acts 2:38. Find out what it really means. Scripture does not contradict itself. There is no example in the Bible of any infant being baptized anywhere. It is unscriptural and anti-scriptural.

but it’s much more than that in regard to infants, its also about bringing them into our family, the Church family. In Protestantism having a proper understanding of this and of that is paramount, whereas in the Orthodox Church we are perfectly content with...it’s a mystery.

There is no mystery about baptism. It is a simple step of obedience for one who already has been saved--by faith and faith alone. It pictures their death to sin, and resurrection to a new life in Christ. Baptism isn't a mystery. It doesn't put one into a family. There is no covenant family here. We are not Israelites. And water doesn't save.

My kids are a part of my family…they eat at my dinner table every night…do they understand what its means to eat at my table and be a part of my family? My oldest at 7 understands somewhat, but not fully, but my 3 and 4 year old don’t. Do I ban them to the little kids table until they understand? No. The same applies to the Orthodox Church; this is also why we as Orthodox give infants Communion, something the RCC doesn’t do. This is also the reason why we read that “whole households” were baptized in the New Testament.

Yeah, whole households were baptized in the NT. And all their children were the same age as Methuselah. Do you know how I know? The same way that you know that there were infants. You cannot make an argument from silence. Did you know they also baptized the cats and dogs?

 

[Agnus_Dei]

It is funny that you say you started "thinking for yourself", by entering into a denomination who stresses tradition and hierarchy over independent thinking, and have, like their Roman Catholic counterparts, downplayed the importance of independent Biblical study for a nearly a millennium.

We don’t down play “independent Biblical study”. We are encouraged to read and Holy Scripture, after all, the Bible with regard to the NT was written within the Church. Difference is we have the wisdom of the Church…Apostolic Church fathers, early Church fathers, Doctors and Desert fathers to aid in our understanding of what the Church has always from the very beginning understood in regard to doctrine.

The apostles commanded us to compare everything to scripture, not "church tradition".

And the Apostles also commanded their flock to hold fast the Traditions that were passed on to them from word of mouth or letter (Holy Scripture). With Paul’s command we can determine that Holy Tradition doesn’t stand on it’s own without Holy Scripture and Holy Scripture doesn’t stand on its own without Holy Tradition.

#1 Infant Baptism, which is not Biblical.

Show the class from Holy Scripture cite your verse, were the Apostles condemned infant baptism.

#2 Iconography, veneration of images, breaking of the 2nd commandment.

You are made in the image of God eh? Then you are an Icon of God.

The temple was full of images, the tabernacle, the Ark of the Covenant, all had images and were venerated (different from worship). Jews in the OT, kissed their prayer shawl, kissed the Scriptures; all are a form of veneration.

While I was serving in the US Navy, I would venerate (saluate) the Flag every time I came aboard our ship…

#3 Elevation of individuals

We don’t “elevate” any individual. We’re all sinners in need of the salvation in Christ, regardless whether the individual is a layperson, priest, deacon, bishop or patriarchate. We do however respect and pay honor to certain positions of people within the Church, but its no different than me honoring or paying my respect to the President of these United States.

I do not need to do this. I have, already, nearly 1000 notional hours in Church history.

I hope you didn’t spend too much money…actually my lessons were cheap, expect for a few late fees at the library. Reading the Apostolic Church fathers, you know the guys who were the disciples of the Apostles themselves is a good starting point.

Actually the word "sacrament" is not in the Bible at all.

Actually the word “trinity” is not found in the bible either…and you point again is?

I do indeed have a lot to learn, no doubt.

Good, there’s hope for you yet…

In XC
-

 

[DHK]

You are made in the image of God eh? Then you are an Icon of God.-

When Adam and Eve were made in the image and likeness of God, what was the "image" of God?? Could you please explain. Tell me about the icon of God while you are at it.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Interesting turn to discussion of Icons. I guess most people here are Iconoclast with the exception of Angus Dei. We've been through all this before. Jews had things that representing things not seen with regard to God (G-d if you're jewish) for instance the ark of the covenant represented the throne of God and all the jews prostrated themselves before it. Icons? God is a spirit but made man in his image. Icon? "do not make images of things in heaven above. Yet, on the ark there are two Seraphim? Pictures depicting events in the bible are ok or all the crosses around peoples necks need to go. Standing up with your hand over your heart or saluting the american flag is ok too. Is that idolatry? I think not.

Maybe this should be another thread but I have a though provoking question. Is the bible a liturgical book?

 

[Havensdad]

We don’t down play “independent Biblical study”. We are encouraged to read and Holy Scripture, after all, the Bible with regard to the NT was written within the Church. Difference is we have the wisdom of the Church…Apostolic Church fathers, early Church fathers, Doctors and Desert fathers to aid in our understanding of what the Church has always from the very beginning understood in regard to doctrine.

You place tradition, and "Church fathers" above scripture. Historically, the EOC has repressed independent study of Scriptures, just as the RCC.

BTW, which Church fathers do you follow? Many of the "Church fathers" whom you allude to, directly contradict each other. Others hold to the most DEPLORABLE of heresies.

Oh, yeah. You hold to whatever "teachings" of the church fathers your ecclesiastical masters TELL you to...

And the Apostles also commanded their flock to hold fast the Traditions that were passed on to them from word of mouth or letter (Holy Scripture). With Paul’s command we can determine that Holy Tradition doesn’t stand on it’s own without Holy Scripture and Holy Scripture doesn’t stand on its own without Holy Tradition.

Not true at all. Paul told them to hold fast to the things HE delivered to them, not "Whoever says they are the 'bishop' and have authority". Scripture is what we are commanded specifically to compare ALL things to. We are NEVER told to compare things to "tradition". In fact, we are told to abandon any tradition that goes contrary to God's word, and given COMPLETE LIBERTY, on any other. We can observe whatsoever days we choose, eat what ever special foods we choose, etc., according to Paul.

Show the class from Holy Scripture cite your verse, were the Apostles condemned infant baptism.

As someone else already posted, this is like saying "Show me where he forbid the Baptism of Cats". You cannot argue from silence. Scripture specifically delineates baptism to be something that is to be conferred on a believer, NEVER is it shown to be conferred on infants.

Baptism is always preceded by Belief.

Act 8:12 But when they believed ... they were baptized, both men and women.

You are made in the image of God eh? Then you are an Icon of God.

The temple was full of images, the tabernacle, the Ark of the Covenant, all had images and were venerated (different from worship). Jews in the OT, kissed their prayer shawl, kissed the Scriptures; all are a form of veneration.

While I was serving in the US Navy, I would venerate (saluate) the Flag every time I came aboard our ship…

God gave specific command of what images were to be placed in the tabernacle. This was NEVER done in the New Testament: our church is "not one built with Hands". Scripture says...

Exo 20:4 "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

We don’t “elevate” any individual. We’re all sinners in need of the salvation in Christ, regardless whether the individual is a layperson, priest, deacon, bishop or patriarchate. We do however respect and pay honor to certain positions of people within the Church, but its no different than me honoring or paying my respect to the President of these United States.

The early church was simply a group of people in a given area, with appointed "elders". Elders and deacons are the only Biblical leadership in the church: the idea of the Monarchial Bishop, did not appear until the second century, through a heretical guy named Ignatius (some of whose writings your own church disagrees with).

There is NO biblical, NOR first century precedent for the organizational church which you have in the EOC.

I hope you didn’t spend too much money…actually my lessons were cheap, expect for a few late fees at the library.

Good education costs money. Perhaps you should try it?

Reading the Apostolic Church fathers, you know the guys who were the disciples of the Apostles themselves is a good starting point.

Who FREQUENTLY contradict each other, espouse ideas that are contradictory to scripture, do insane things like castrating themselves, or practicing polygamy, denying the deity of Christ, etc.

Perhaps you should read those books you are getting from the library, instead of using them under your table leg?

Actually the word “trinity” is not found in the bible either…and you point again is?

No, but the concept is. The concept of a sacrament which bestows "grace" is completely foreign to scriptures: in fact, this is just a re invention of the ritualism that the scribes and Pharisees had degraded into, which is condemned SO STRONGLY by the New Testament, Jesus, and especially, the apostle Paul himself.

Good, there’s hope for you yet…

In XC
-

My only hope lies in the Lord Jesus Christ, and His holy Word: not in any "organization", (the so-called "orthodox" Church)

 

[Thinkingstuff]

BTW, which Church fathers do you follow? Many of the "Church fathers" whom you allude to, directly contradict each other. Others hold to the most DEPLORABLE of heresies.

What are you considering Church Fathers? I'm curious because if you mean Marcion, Arius, Nestorius etc... then you are mistaken they are not Church Fathers.

Not true at all. Paul told them to hold fast to the things HE delivered to them, not "Whoever says they are the 'bishop' and have authority". Scripture is what we are commanded specifically to compare ALL things to. We are NEVER told to compare things to "tradition". In fact, we are told to abandon any tradition that goes contrary to God's word, and given COMPLETE LIBERTY, on any other. We can observe whatsoever days we choose, eat what ever special foods we choose, etc., according to Paul.

Yeah, he delivered them orally. Ie oral tradition. BTW do you think every christian in the 1st century had a gideons or a KJB or an NIV? How did they memorize scripture? I suggest it was by liturgy. You can see it with the Didache.

NEVER is it shown to be conferred on infants.

this is a guess. What can we guess from this verse?

15When she and the members of her household were baptized,

God gave specific command of what images were to be placed in the tabernacle. This was NEVER done in the New Testament: our church is "not one built with Hands". Scripture says...

Exo 20:4 "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

Yeah, so God told them to put Seraphim on the ark which they bowed down to. Idoaltry. God set them up for failure.

The early church was simply a group of people in a given area, with appointed "elders". Elders and deacons are the only Biblical leadership in the church: the idea of the Monarchial Bishop, did not appear until the second century, through a heretical guy named Ignatius (some of whose writings your own church disagrees with).

You forget about Clement who was bishop of Rome in 90 AD (1st Century). Ignatus was from antioch and if you read his writings you would get a different impression.

 

[annsni]

When Adam and Eve were made in the image and likeness of God, what was the "image" of God?? Could you please explain. Tell me about the icon of God while you are at it.

Ummm - are we holding God to the 10 commandments? Isn't He God? Hey - He's killed people yet that's not wrong.

Besides, are we the physical image of God? Since God is spirit, I think your argument is useless.

 

[DHK]

Ummm - are we holding God to the 10 commandments? Isn't He God? Hey - He's killed people yet that's not wrong.

Besides, are we the physical image of God? Since God is spirit, I think your argument is useless.

We are not the physical image of God!

John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

God has no physical image. God is spirit. That was the whole point of my argument. To be made in his image is to be made with intellect, the ability to reason, to have spiritual fellowship, the ability to communicate (language), etc. Our ability to communicate with God and to reason and think like God, to show forth attributes like God (the fruit of the Spirit) is being made in the image of God.
God has no physical image. He is spirit.