Are the Greek/Russian orthodox Valid Christian Churches?

[Thinkingstuff]

Sacramentalism confuse the kingdom with the church of God. The former consists of all of God's elect in the world (Mt. 13) while the latter is the administrative institution in the kingdom where the keys of the kingdom are found (Mt. 18:17-18) and thus the visible representative of the kingdom on earth.

Now let me see if I understand you here. What you are saying here is that the Kingdom of God is all the Infralasparian elect. While the church is an actual institution administratively run where the keys to the kingdom are found. So are you suggesting that Jesus establishes an administrative church or a visible church to whom the keys of authority are given which bind and loose things in heaven? But that appart from these keys this church has nothing to do with salvation?

 

[Dr. Walter]

Now let me see if I understand you here. What you are saying here is that the Kingdom of God is all the Infralasparian elect. ?

No, that is not what I am saying. The Kingdom of God on earth at any given time include all the elect "seed" on earth but in the eyes of men this is inclusive of the "tares" as well and so the professing kingdom of God is much larger than the actual rule of God in the hearts of his "seed."

While the church is an actual institution administratively run where the keys to the kingdom are found.

Yes. It is the New Testament "house of God" comparative to the Old Testament "house of God" which administered the Old Covenant ordinances. It is comparative because it is localized, it has a properly qualified and ordained ministry, it is the place where God's people were to assemble for instruction, it is the place to bring tithes and offerings and it is the place where organized public worship is rendered unto God and it is the place where the ordinances are administrated. Other than that it is polar opposite to the Old Covenant House of God.

So are you suggesting that....the keys of authority are given which bind and loose things in heaven?

No! I believe the future perfect tense along with comparative contexts demonstrate the very opposite. It is the place where the Word of God which has already been established in the heavens is administered faithfully on earth through the church (Mt. 18:15-17; 2 Tim. 3:16). The congregation has no authority to violate God's Word and no authority to legislate doctrine and practice outside the boundaries of God's Word which has been established in heaven.

But that appart from these keys this church has nothing to do with salvation

The administration of the singular "key" of the gospel is declarative of repentance based upon meeting the conditions set forth by the gospel and declarative of damnation based upon failure to meet the conditions set forth in the gospel.

However, there are PLURAL "keys" that deal with church discipline (Mt. 18:15-18); authority to make disciples, to administer the ordinances, to ordain qualified ministry, etc. and these "keys" do not belong to the ministry but to the congregation (Mt. 18:17-18; I Cor. 5:5-13) but were simply given to the congregation through its ordained leadership who are responsible to lead the church in the proper understanding and application of these keys.

 

[Anastasia]

First, let me say I appreciate your response. Now, in regard to John the Baptist he was also filled with the Spirit from the womb and he was a miracle baby to parents beyond their normal bearing age. Like Jesus, John was not the normal baby, and so he can hardly be used as the rule but rather he is the ultimate rare exception to the rule. Hardly, a case to build a general doctrine upon.



I agree that justification by faith and works are inseparable but not indisti[n]guishable just as the body is not the spirit so neither is justi[f]ication by faith synonomous with works. The body may be dead without the spirit but the spirit does not die with separation from the body. Therefore they must never be confused and that is precisely what Rome has done along with all sacramentalists.




I believe you are wrong and Calvinism has nothing to do with it. First, we are not saved "by faith" we are "justified by faith" and salvation is the consequence and thereby we are saved "through" faith. Neither are we justified merely "by faith" but rather by what faith embraces or what is the proper object of faith. Justifying faith must be "in" the proper object. The proper object is not the church, not baptism, not any sacrament. The proper object is the good news of Jesus Christ's complete satisfaction of all the laws demands in behalf of sinners.

Actual justification is found "in" the proper object which is the Person and substitutionary work of Jesus Christ. It is HIS PERSONAL WORKS that satisfies the full demands of God's law against the sinner and faith merely embraces this as the "good news" of the gospel. Embracing this "good news" is appropriating it by imputation to the believer and God declares "the ungodly" person who believeth "in" Christ "without" ones own works considered to be justified before God strictly upon the merits of Jesus Christ in the place of the "ungodly" believer (Rom. 4:4-6).

In regard to our works of righteousness. They do not stem from justification by faith even though they are inseparable from it. They stem from regeneration or the creation of a new nature within that is created in true righteousness and holiness. This is where the "desire" to do good originates from. However, even the "desire" cannot produce good works in our life until there is empowerment of that "desire" by the indwelling Person of the Holy Spirit - for it is God which worketh IN YOU both "TO WILL" and "TO DO" of His good pleasure (Philip. 2:13).

Justification by faith and regenerative works are inseparable in a true child of God but they are not the same. The former has to do with your legal position before God based upon faith in the proper object. The latter has to do with your personal condition by regeneration. The connection between the two is that the faith which embraced Christ as the only hope and object for justification is the same faith now reacts to being justified by Christ by love. Hence faith WORKETH by love! The motivation of this love is completed justification before God or the past tense "saved" position. We serve him out of love because he first loved us and saved us. The internal origin of this love is found in the regenerated nature or disposition of true righteousness and holiness. The power of this love is provided by the indwelling Spirit of God. The productivity of this love is determined by the measure of grace and faith that is given in different degrees to each saint according to God's eternal purpose for their lives.

Hence, the difference between saving and serving faith is the difference between faith "IN" what Christ did FOR US versus what we do FOR HIM. What he did FOR US necessarily is "without works" on our part as HE DID IT not us and what HE DID is what saved us. What we do FOR HIM is not to accomplish or complete what HE DID for us as that is FINISHED and cannot be added unto. What we do FOR HIM has an entirely different motive and goal that getting to heaven as it is what Christ did FOR US that accomplished that goal already (Jn. 5:24) and that is precisely why NOW we already have eternal life and shall not perish (Jn. 3:16; 5:24; 6:37-40; 10:28-30; etc.).

What we do FOR HIM is motivated in love not fear. What we do FOR HIM is not to gain heaven but to save or lose our daily life for the glory of God (Eph. 5:17-18) or make it count for His glory. To make future salvation the present experience in our daily life according to the measure we walk in the Spirit. To experience fullness of joy, usefulness, growth and future rewards. To avoid the present "loss" of these things on a daily basis as well as "loss" of eternal rewards in heaven (1 Cor. 3:11-15). To avoid the chastening hand of the love of God on his children. We are no longer "enemies" of God but children and children of God can no more be unborn than your own children. Sin robs them of fellowship and present blessings (I Jn. 1:4-7) not relationship as that is eternal.

However, not all who profess possess (1 Jn. 2:19) and "good works" are the only visible manifestations in the court of human observation that can "shew" whether ones profession of faith is genuine or false (James 2:14-26).

I was trying to keep that short because I don't have a lot of time to discuss this, however, please show me a verse that indicates that saving faith is a truly different kind of faith, not a description of the salvation process.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I was trying to keep that short because I don't have a lot of time to discuss this, however, please show me a verse that indicates that saving faith is a truly different kind of faith, not a description of the salvation process.

Romans 3:24-28 demonstrate that faith in regard to justification is "in" an object rather than personal activity "without works" as it is the works of Christ that form the object of hope for salvation embraced by faith.

Romans 4:1-25 also demonstrates faith "without works" and without ordinances and without law keeping and without personal performance in regard to justification before God, which is by faith "IN" Christ's provision.

However, it is this same faith "in" Christ for justification before God that responds by love to serve Christ by works (Eph. 2:10). However, get the proper order in this text - we are his workmanship created in Christ Jesus UNTO good works rather than good works creating us in Christ Jesus.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No, that is not what I am saying. The Kingdom of God on earth at any given time include all the elect "seed" on earth but in the eyes of men this is inclusive of the "tares" as well and so the professing kingdom of God is much larger than the actual rule of God in the hearts of his "seed."

I think I'm a bit confused as to what you are saying here. Are you saying that the Kingdom of God on earth includes elect, I don't know what you mean by "seed", and non elect or Tares? I don't see Tares being part of the elect and you said "the kingdom of God is larger than the rule of God." Personally I don't see how this is possible. So I'll need some more explanation of this. Because honestly I can't make sense of it. What is the Kingdom of God exactly? And if it includes the elect and non elect how is it different than the Church. Its not administered? I hope you see my confusion and can respond to it.

Yes. It is the New Testament "house of God" comparative to the Old Testament "house of God" which administered the Old Covenant ordinances. It is comparative because it is localized, it has a properly qualified and ordained ministry, it is the place where God's people were to assemble for instruction, it is the place to bring tithes and offerings and it is the place where organized public worship is rendered unto God and it is the place where the ordinances are administrated. Other than that it is polar opposite to the Old Covenant House of God.

which would mean there are many administrations or churches which would contradict

The administration of the singular "key"

and if they differ from each other how then is anything properly administered equitably among the elect? One group could very well be working against the other and so on. And how does this follow in the context of the whole after all the Jews had only one temple and accordingly there is only one in heaven. but there is many that are apt to act against each other? Doesn't make sense.

No! I believe the future perfect tense along with comparative contexts demonstrate the very opposite. It is the place where the Word of God which has already been established in the heavens is administered faithfully on earth through the church (Mt. 18:15-17; 2 Tim. 3:16). The congregation has no authority to violate God's Word and no authority to legislate doctrine and practice outside the boundaries of God's Word which has been established in heaven.

What does the last part of this paragraph have to do with the first? If God's administration in heaven becomes evident in the church on earth and there are many disjointed churches on earth and many administrations then how is anything decreed in heaven in regard to administration on earth even adhered to?

The administration of the singular "key" of the gospel is declarative of repentance based upon meeting the conditions set forth by the gospel and declarative of damnation based upon failure to meet the conditions set forth in the gospel.

What?

However, there are PLURAL "keys" that deal with church discipline (Mt. 18:15-18); authority to make disciples, to administer the ordinances, to ordain qualified ministry, etc. and these "keys" do not belong to the ministry but to the congregation (Mt. 18:17-18; I Cor. 5:5-13) but were simply given to the congregation through its ordained leadership.

Neither of those verses imply Administrative authority given to the congregation. And certainly not in democratic fashion.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I think I'm a bit confused as to what you are saying here. Are you saying that the Kingdom of God on earth includes elect, I don't know what you mean by "seed", and non elect or Tares? I don't see Tares being part of the elect and you said "the kingdom of God is larger than the rule of God." Personally I don't see how this is possible. So I'll need some more explanation of this. Because honestly I can't make sense of it. What is the Kingdom of God exactly? And if it includes the elect and non elect how is it different than the Church. Its not administered? I hope you see my confusion and can respond to it.

The true kingdom of God on earth includes only his elect which are called the "seed" in the parable of the tares. However, the professing kingdom of God on earth is much more broader as it also includes the tares, as they profess but do not posses the rule of God in their souls. From human perspective we often cannot distinguish between the two. That is precisely why Jesus gave the parables in Matthew 13 to enable his people to distinguish between tares and the seed.

The Kingdom of God in its broadest sense rules over all creation. However, in the sense of the parables of Matthew 13, the manifest kingdom on earth by profession of God as their king it refers to the total number of professed believers living on earth at any given time. The real kingdom of God or those in whom God actually lives is much smaller than those that profess that he lives in them (tares).

which would mean there are many administrations or churches which would contradict and if they differ from each other how then is anything properly administered equitably among the elect? One group could very well be working against the other and so on. And how does this follow in the context of the whole after all the Jews had only one temple and accordingly there is only one in heaven. but there is many that are apt to act against each other? Doesn't make sense.

Just as there are bare essentials TO BE a true Christian and to TO BE recongizned as such so there are bare essentials TO BE a true congregation of Christ and TO BE recognized by such by other true congregations.

No single Christian knows ALL truth but that is not essential TO BE a Christian or TO BE recognized as such. Likewise, no congregation knows ALL truth but that is not essential TO BE a true congregation of Christ or TO BE recognized as such by other congregations of Christ.

What does the last part of this paragraph have to do with the first? If God's administration in heaven becomes evident in the church on earth and there are many disjointed churches on earth and many administrations then how is anything decreed in heaven in regard to administration on earth even adhered to?

The "keys" represent part of the essentials TO BE recognized as a true congregation of Christ. All true churches of Christ share the same essentials even though they do not share the same unity in relatively non-essentials.

Neither of those verses imply Administrative authority given to the congregation. And certainly not in democratic fashion.

Matthew 18:15-18 certainly does and the proof is the example given in I Corinthians 5 where it is the congregation not the elders that are held responsible for the administration detailed in Matthew 18:15-18.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Though Dr Walter and I differ seriously on the Sabbath and water baptism, I am thankful to say his soteriology is excellent, truly Christian and Scriptural.

May God bless you in your stand, Dr Walter. Fight the good fight with confidence and in unwavering faith!

 

[Dr. Walter]

Though Dr Walter and I differ seriously on the Sabbath and water baptism, I am thankful to say his soteriology is excellent, truly Christian and Scriptural.

May God bless you in your stand, Dr Walter. Fight the good fight with confidence and in unwavering faith!

Well GE, it is nice that we agree on some things.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The true kingdom of God on earth includes only his elect which are called the "seed" in the parable of the tares. However, the professing kingdom of God on earth is much more broader as it also includes the tares, as they profess but do not posses the rule of God in their souls. From human perspective we often cannot distinguish between the two. That is precisely why Jesus gave the parables in Matthew 13 to enable his people to distinguish between tares and the seed.

Logically the Kingdom of God can only include Tares (non - elect) if and only if the Church administration and the Kingdom are one and the same. Otherwise the Kingdom of God is soley "seed".

The Kingdom of God in its broadest sense rules over all creation. However, in the sense of the parables of Matthew 13, the manifest kingdom on earth by profession of God as their king it refers to the total number of professed believers living on earth at any given time. The real kingdom of God or those in whom God actually lives is much smaller than those that profess that he lives in them (tares).

Jesus spoke of the Manifest Kingdom.

Just as there are bare essentials TO BE a true Christian and to TO BE recongizned as such so there are bare essentials TO BE a true congregation of Christ and TO BE recognized by such by other true congregations.

The problem is a "true" christian is only accountable to one congregation not another and this is where it breaks down. Ie unless my pastor or congregation make the authoritative decision of discipline another Church may not do so and thus there is no cohesion. I'll just start another church dipolomatically run.

No single Christian knows ALL truth but that is not essential TO BE a Christian or TO BE recognized as such. Likewise, no congregation knows ALL truth but that is not essential TO BE a true congregation of Christ or TO BE recognized as such by other congregations of Christ.

And it becomes even more muddled when you have democratically decided decrees.

The "keys" represent part of the essentials TO BE recognized as a true congregation of Christ. All true churches of Christ share the same essentials even though they do not share the same unity in relatively non-essentials.

My Key issue with this is that essentials are constantly up for grabs between the churches.

Matthew 18:15-18 certainly does and the proof is the example given in I Corinthians 5 where it is the congregation not the elders that are held responsible for the administration detailed in Matthew 18:15-18.

Not at all if you take it in context of the whole passage. Jesus is speaking specifically with his disciples Matt 18:1 and goes into the many matters regarding the administration of the kingdom of Heaven Matt 18:4. The Church described in 15-18 is refering to the authoritative structure. Else every sunday after the pastor's sermon I would have gone up and called a business meeting and tell everyone how Tom sinned because I caught him smooching the married church secretary on the stairs to the baptismal pool. And since mary and steve saw the same thing and I spoke with Tom about it and he blew me off. I'm bringing to the Church so we can vote on how to discipline Tom. Do you think I could get away with that? I'd rather doubt it and never saw it in practice.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

G.K. Chesterton huh......really TS, your too much! :laugh:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Though Dr Walter and I differ seriously on the Sabbath and water baptism, I am thankful to say his soteriology is excellent, truly Christian and Scriptural.

May God bless you in your stand, Dr Walter. Fight the good fight with confidence and in unwavering faith!

Yea....cant fault him on that..... BTW where do you see infant baptism as a common occurrence in Scripture?

 

[JesusFan]

Yea....cant fault him on that..... BTW where do you see infant baptism as a common occurrence in Scripture?

Would the correct biblical answer but "none?", at least NONE if the New Covenant?

 

[billwald]

Same place you find infant dedication in the NT. <G>

 

[Dr. Walter]

Logically the Kingdom of God can only include Tares (non - elect) if and only if the Church administration and the Kingdom are one and the same. Otherwise the Kingdom of God is soley "seed".

Sorry, but I can't follow your logic here. The overall context of Matthew 13 has been developmental since chapter 5. There is a development of rejection of Christ and John the Baptist by the leadership of Israel, by the cities of Israel and at the conclusion of chapter 13 by his own home town and family. His disicples are witnessing this developmental rejection. This is not rejection by the world but by the professing people of God. Matthew 13 is provided to respond to this obvious problem of rejection by the professed people of God.

Jesus explains this rejection in a series of parables. He explains that this rejection is due to a heart problem with the truth. The first three soils represent different manifest conditions among the professing but lost while the last soil represents the various degrees of productiving among the truly saved. However, the bottom line is this rejected is rooted in a "heart" problem with the truth..

Second, this problem of rejection is more than human rejection but is deeply rooted in a spiritual battle between God and Satan and here he introduces the parable of the tares wiith two explanatory parbles placed between the parable and its explanation.

The realm is "the world" not the church. In the world God's true kingdom is identified as the "seed" that was sowed and sprung up in "the world" not the church. However, Satan has sown "tares" in the same "world" not the church. I was raised in Washington state among wheat fields and I know the difference between wheat and a tare but most people do not because before the harvest they look so much alike that it is almost impossible to distinguish them unless you have a trained eye. At the time of harvest the fruit of the wheat cause the head of grain to bend over while the tares stick straight up.

Now, Jesus says His kingdom is in "the world" (not the church) but in the same "world" Satan has planted counterfits so that to the ordinary eye the the crop growing in "the world" (not the chuch) looks much larger than it really is. That is our "world" (not the church) today. The professing kingdom of God has grown enormous to the ordinary eye. At the end, the angels will be sent to gather out the tares from among the wheat and bind them and burn them and then the true kingdom of God will be made manifest. Meaning, it is not readily manifest now but "hid" (which introduces the parables of hidden treasure and lost treaure in the world - not the church) among the ever growing abundance of tares that dominate the field ("world" not the church).

The two short parables which are not given explanations because they are obvious in their meaning when compared to the overall theme of the parable of the tares follow the primary parable immediately. Both short parables reinforce the main theme of the parable of the tares but provide various distinctons. the primary point of the tares is that the kingdom of God in the world if judged merely by profession is increasing and larger than the true kingdom of beleivers really in the world. This is simply emphasized by the leaven hidden in the dough just as the tares are placed in the field by deceit. Leaven gives the dough an UNNATURAL INCREASE IN SIZE.

The second short parable of the mustard seed illustrates this problem of deception in size. The mustard seed is a very tiny seed but it produces a larger plant than one would expect by looking at the seed. Likewise, when you look at the professing kingdom you see a much larger kingdom than what God actually planted - the size is deception because of the deceiver's deceptive planting of the tares in the same field ("the world") as the true seed where planted.

What does this mean in practical terms to his disicples? You cannot believe everything you hear and see from the professing kingdom because there are hidden problems (1) problems of the heart (2) Satanic counterfits that are at play and this accounts for the developmental rejection they have seen and will continue to see from the professing people of God.

I could go into much greater detail but I have said enough for you to grasp my perspective of these parables.

Therefore, the kingdom is in "the world" but from human perspective it is much larger and filled with confusion because not all who profess have a "heart" for the truth and not all who profess are true believers.

There is no basis that the "field" represents "the church" or that the "kingdom" reprsents the church. The true kingdom is sown all over the "field" or the world. Yet, in ths world there are more than the true kingdom of God that professes to be of God's kingdom. They are the tares. They are found in all churches (Judas) and all denominations, as well, as outside of all institutional churches and denominations.

However, in these parables Jesus provides the key to distinguishing the true from the false wherever we meet them in our life in this "field" or the world. If we do not understand how to distinguish them, then the same impact of rejection may discourage, as well as, lead astray true children of God.

 

[Anastasia]

Romans 3:24-28 demonstrate that faith in regard to justification is "in" an object rather than personal activity "without works" as it is the works of Christ that form the object of hope for salvation embraced by faith.

Romans 4:1-25 also demonstrates faith "without works" and without ordinances and without law keeping and without personal performance in regard to justification before God, which is by faith "IN" Christ's provision.

However, it is this same faith "in" Christ for justification before God that responds by love to serve Christ by works (Eph. 2:10). However, get the proper order in this text - we are his workmanship created in Christ Jesus UNTO good works rather than good works creating us in Christ Jesus.

Ok, let me expand on this slightly. I've never heard of "serving faith." While I already agree that we are justified by faith, what I question is the existence of some separate, other kind of faith that serves. To my mind, I would say something like to have faith requires knowing something of God in whom one would then have faith, and to know God is to love Him (We love Him because He first loved us, and we learn of His love as we learn about Him), and that love is something that comes through in who one is and what one does.

 

[Matt Black]

Same place you find infant dedication in the NT. <G>

:thumbsup:

 

[Dr. Walter]

:thumbsup:

Our churches do not practice this. However, we do pray for the salvation for all our children regardless of their age.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Ok, let me expand on this slightly. I've never heard of "serving faith." While I already agree that we are justified by faith, what I question is the existence of some separate, other kind of faith that serves. To my mind, I would say something like to have faith requires knowing something of God in whom one would then have faith, and to know God is to love Him (We love Him because He first loved us, and we learn of His love as we learn about Him), and that love is something that comes through in who one is and what one does.

You asked me for scriptures to demonstrate faith "in" Christ for justification VERSUS "without works" and I provided whole passages.

Again, I am not sure when you say "while I already agree that we are justified by faith" that you mean the same thing I do. Technically, speaking "justified by faith" refers not to "faith" per se, as any basis for justification but rather to the specific provision for justification that faith must embrace or be placed "in." It is merely "through" faith we embrace the object or place trust "in" that provision. Thus justification "by faith" means our faith is placed "IN" a provision OUTSIDE and APART from ourselves that justifies us and that is why in context it is also further described as "without works." This is faith "in" what God provides or does FOR US and that is precisely why in addition to the words "without works" we find the words "for us" included in the same kind of context (Rom. 4:24-25; 1 Cor. 15:3-4; etc.). In these contexts this faith "in" God's provisions includes faith "in" the promises that accompany those provisions as well as faith "in" the Person of those provisions as one is inseparable from the other. Moreover, justification by faith before God is always faith "in" something/someone OUTSIDE of self.

However, serving faith is found in contexts that do not speak of what God did FOR US but what we do FOR GOD "by faith." In these contexts "by faith" does not refer to the EXTERNAL object of justification but rather the INTERNAL motivation for service. Faith worketh "by love." Love is the motivating operating principle behind serving faith. This love that motivates our service FOR GOD, was founded UPON the provision of His love for us or the provision which was the object of justifying faith which object was EXTERNAL or OUTSIDE us.

Hence, the logical order is (1) faith IN the EXTERNAL Christ provision/promise/person justifies us before God - which provision is what God did FOR US or HIS LOVE for us; (2) Which in turn precipitates INTERNALLY love for him manifested in what we do FOR HIM by faith.

Hence, faith that first is direted OUTSIDE ourselves to RECEIVE what God's love provision for us, REACTS to that reception of Love INWARDLY through recipitating love manifested in works for God.

The difference is logical order, cause versus effects, external versus internal, His love versus our love, His obedience for us versus our obedience for him; our justification by Christ's works before God versus our evidential justification before God before men; entrance into heaven by finished works that satisfy the Law completely versus unfinished works that may or may not obtain an "abundant" entrance into heaven; Legal position versus personal practice; eternal life versus daily life saved or lost; etc.