My Spritual Pilgrimage - an Update

[Melanie]

I thought the catholics on this board who were 'grandfathered' in were allowed to stay on the BB as long as they didn't proselytyze their false religion?

Moderators?......

.....but it is not the case...I would think the muscular debate pro and cons is an opportunity for all to hone their apologetics skills.....:1_grouphug:

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Based on whose interpretation…yours, the Baptist, the Reformed Baptist, the Free Will Baptists or the Independent Fundamental Baptists or how about the American Baptist or why not the Pentecostals, Assemblies of God, or the Reformed First Evangelical mom and pop Church of yesteryear on the corner?

Again, rehearsing the mantra of the papists the orthodox runs headlong into the fallicous idea that because one protestant group differ in a particular area of theology that there is this great "schism" between us. My fellowship with my Presbyterian brethren isn't based on our understanding of the mode of baptism, but in the Father and in the Son. My fellowship with my Pentecostal brethren doesn't rest in whether I believe the gift of tongues is for today or not, but in the Father and the Son. And we all, to a large degree, believe one is justified by Faith Alone, in Christ Alone, by Grace Alone. The doctrine of justification, as Luther said, is where the Church stand or falls. It is upon this doctrine both the papacy and orthodoxy have fallen.

Show me from the bible where Christ sent His Apostles out and instructed them to write a book. Show me from Scripture where in each Epistle the author stated that such should be collected to form a book.

I began to bring information to answer your questions here, but I first have one. If I take the time to answer, will you accept it? By this I mean, if the information I could provide is biblical and based on sound reason, are you willing to accept it over the opinions of your church?

Christ sent His Apostles out to establish His Church and He gave them the Authority to do such. Therefore it was through this Authority with the aid of the Holy Spirit which Christ promised would remind them of all things and lead them into truth that the Church (singular) was established and it was through this Church that we get the Bible and it is the Authority placed within the Church to properly interpret the Scriptures.

There is one Church indeed, but not militant. The Apostles of our Lord Jesus did not teach us the Kingdom of God that way. There will be wheat and tares unto the end of this age., then comes the harvest. Why do you see the fleshly pen and messenger and not the Giver and Spirit? Both the prophets and apostles God used to pen Holy Scripture. They are His words, and not theirs, and therefore the Bible was given to His people by God and beart His authority. You are greatly confusing the office of elder and teacher and prophet and apostle with the authority God meant only to His Word. Inasmuch as elder and bishop and church council depart from the Scriptures, but that much they are in error. The Scriptures are judge of these things.

And as it concerns the personal conscience of all men, it is by Scripture they owe submission and obedience. I will not answer to you or church council on the day of judgement. God will not hold me accountable to your church's or a teacher's interpretation of Scripture, but to Scripture itself. And so you will be judged also.

Orthodoxy has no one man that is considered infallible. A number of elements make up the proper interpretation of Scripture, namely Christian Tradition, which is the faith and practice which Jesus Christ imparted to the Apostles and which since the Apostles’ time has been handed down from generation to generation in the Church.

An so-called infaillble confederacy may be as wicked and skewed as a so-called infallible pope. So-called Christian Tradition stands or falls upon Scripture.

To an Orthodox Tradition is much more specific and concrete…it means the Creed, the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils and the writings of the Fathers, it means the Canons, its service book.

You ought not promote the interpretation of men to the place of Scripture. Your Tradition is not God-breathed.

Most importantly Orthodoxy stands fast in regard to Scripture being a part of that Tradition and in reality there’s only one source, since Scripture exists within Tradition. To try and separate and contrast the two is to impoverish the idea of both alike.

By making your Traditions equal to Scripture you repeat the error of the papists. And like the Pharisees of old hold to your Tradition and set at nought the Word of God. Why should anyone who can read their Bibles not believe that such woes are toward the Orthodox and the Papists as they were against those to whom Christ spoke regarding Jewish Tradition?

As for me, in the famous words of the reformer, "My conscience is held captive to the Word of God." And I would add, I WILL NOT submit it to another authority, for do so would be to me treason and adultery against my God, and is "neither safe nor right."

 

[Matt Black]

But how does that work, though? Who gets to interpret? Whom should I believe - the Arminian or the Calvinist etc? All of these groups say "Scripture says....therefore..." Which one's right and how can you tell?

 

[Agnus_Dei]

…to a large degree, believe one is justified by Faith Alone, in Christ Alone, by Grace Alone. The doctrine of justification, as Luther said, is where the Church stand or falls. It is upon this doctrine both the papacy and orthodoxy have fallen.

…and please present to me data that the Early Apostolic Church held to and taught Luther’s manta of justification by faith alone and that Luther was just re-qualifying the Early Apostolic Church.

If you can’t then I have to beg the question whether God had His hands tied for 1500 plus years before a Luther a young Catholic Monk figured it all out…

Luther was protesting the Catholic Church, NOT the Eastern Church. The same issues that arose during the Schism between the East and West only manifested itself with time as they drifted further from Truth. Even Luther dialoged with the East and for a time, but nothing ever materialized mainly b/c the Eastern Church was foreign to him and the fact that Luther was already grounded in Augustinian theology which was something foreign to the East.

I began to bring information to answer your questions here, but I first have one. If I take the time to answer, will you accept it? By this I mean, if the information I could provide is biblical and based on sound reason, are you willing to accept it over the opinions of your church?

Just a simple biblical quote of Jesus instructing to His Apostles to go forth and write letters and collect such into a book that the Church will be built upon will be sufficient.

There is one Church indeed, but not militant. The Apostles of our Lord Jesus did not teach us the Kingdom of God that way. There will be wheat and tares unto the end of this age., then comes the harvest. Why do you see the fleshly pen and messenger and not the Giver and Spirit?

…and just how is the Eastern Church militant?

You have a false understanding of Scripture in regards to Tradition. Orthodoxy doesn’t hold one over the other, but both are on equal ground. Walk into any Orthodox service and you’ll hear more Scripture read than any Protestant Church there is. There’s more reverence towards Scripture and worship than any Baptist Church for sure.

Both the prophets and apostles God used to pen Holy Scripture. They are His words, and not theirs, and therefore the Bible was given to His people by God and beart His authority. You are greatly confusing the office of elder and teacher and prophet and apostle with the authority God meant only to His Word. Inasmuch as elder and bishop and church council depart from the Scriptures, but that much they are in error. The Scriptures are judge of these things.

…and I explained Orthodoxy’s view of scripture in relation to the Church and how the Church views Scripture and interprets Scripture, but you referred to that explanation as “semantic trickery” which is translated as, wow that makes sense, but how can I trade my Baptist traditions with that of a 2,000 year old Church which has held fast to that which was handed to them from the apostles from the very beginning.

So I’ll repeat: The Christian Church is a Scriptural Church, therefore Orthodoxy believes this just as firmly as any Protestant. The Bible is the supreme expression of God’s revelation to the human race and Christians must always be People of the Book. BUT if Christians are People of the Book, the Bible is the Book of the People; it must not be regarded as something set up over the Church, but as something that lives and is understood within the Church, which is why one should never separate Scripture from Tradition.

It is from the Church that the Bible ultimately derives its authority, for it was the Church which originally decided which books form a part of Holy Scripture; and it is the Church alone which can interpret Holy Scripture with authority.

So remind me again just how the Apostles established a Church built upon the NT which wasn’t even in existence.

...and also if you could please show me from where you as a reformed baptist get your Trinitarian Theology from...
-
-

 

[Eliyahu]

Agnus,

Can't you read a few pages of Bible for yourself?

Just read Romans 3,4,5,6 for yourself without looking at others.

Words of God is alive, Bible is the Words of God. Bible truth is alive anc will convict you if you read it.

Read the Bible Isaiah, it will change your mind about all the excuses for the Idolatry.

You need a deep meditation instead of superficial argument.

Please read the Bible and try to hear the voice sounding in your heart as there is a voice which can be heard only when you are humble enough.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Angus,

I can answer your questions (the ones that be questions, its hard to tell which ones are questions and which ones are challenges) but I am confused about something.

In your OP I got the impression that you were exploring the Orthodox church, yet you take a position as if you are "all in" with them, if you will allow me to use the phrase. If you are committed to that sect then why write the OP as though you were on the outside looking in?

Did I misunderstand your OP?

RB

 

[BobRyan]

Just the response I was expecting from a "reformed" baptist...

Question for Agnus_Dei coming to a Baptist board to announce the joy of wanting to become a Roman Catholic and then Orthodox Catholic ---"what motivates you"??

Why do you choose what you choose?

What makes one denomination more attractive than another to you?

As for coming here to make a case for the Orthodox Catholic view - or any doctrinal POV -- don't you think that you would have to make your case "Sola Scriptura" on a Baptist Board?? If not - What is "the other way" to do it?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: What makes one denomination more attractive than another to you?

HP: I know how some on the list might answer. “Which ever creates the strongest desire.” That does have a nice ‘philosophical aurora’ to it, now doesn’t it?

 

[BobRyan]

Simply breathtaking! Sign me up!!

 

[ReformedBaptist]

HP: I know how some on the list might answer. “Which ever creates the strongest desire.” That does have a nice ‘philosophical aurora’ to it, now doesn’t it?

You are joking right?

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Question for Agnus_Dei coming to a Baptist board to announce the joy of wanting to become a Roman Catholic and then Orthodox Catholic ---"what motivates you"??

The New Testament Church, the Church of the Apostles and the Apostolic Church Fathers.

Why do you choose what you choose?

Why do you choose and continue to choose Seventh Day Adventism?

I chose an Independent Fundamental Baptist Church, b/c I was raised in one. I chose to stay b/c I believed that we the IFB was the true Church of the Apostles as I was taught. I chose to leave b/c I couldn’t reconcile Baptist History with Early Church history.

Once I came to the realization that all that is true and good in Protestantism got its roots from Orthodoxy. 1000 years before Luther and centuries more before the creation of a Southern Baptist Convention, the Fathers of Orthodoxy had already fought with and decided the most important doctrinal issues facing Christian faith.

Whenever YOU Bob, confess the Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, the Only-Begotten-Son of God, you are unknowingly confessing Orthodoxy! Not Ellen G. White…

What makes one denomination more attractive than another to you?

It’s not a matter of what is and isn’t attractive. If attraction is what I was looking for than the market place of Protestantism is the place for me…I would continue attending a Methodist Church and worship with a rock-n-roll praise band with hands in the air awing over the lead guitarists riffs, at least there I could sit in a pew and relax and not go home worn-out from standing for 2-hours.
-

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I think this question got missed....

Angus,

I can answer your questions (the ones that be questions, its hard to tell which ones are questions and which ones are challenges) but I am confused about something.

In your OP I got the impression that you were exploring the Orthodox church, yet you take a position as if you are "all in" with them, if you will allow me to use the phrase. If you are committed to that sect then why write the OP as though you were on the outside looking in?

Did I misunderstand your OP?

RB
__________________

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Angus,

I can answer your questions (the ones that be questions, its hard to tell which ones are questions and which ones are challenges) but I am confused about something.

In your OP I got the impression that you were exploring the Orthodox church, yet you take a position as if you are "all in" with them, if you will allow me to use the phrase. If you are committed to that sect then why write the OP as though you were on the outside looking in?

Did I misunderstand your OP?

RB
__________________

RB: I’ve re-read my OP and I don’t see where you got the impression I was “on the outside looking in”. Granted I’m not an Orthodox in the sense I can partake in the Eucharist, but other than that my family and I are attending and participating in not only evening Vespers, but also Sunday Divine Liturgy’s. We are also taking Catecheses classes as well.
-

 

[ReformedBaptist]

RB: I’ve re-read my OP and I don’t see where you got the impression I was “on the outside looking in”. Granted I’m not an Orthodox in the sense I can partake in the Eucharist, but other than that my family and I are attending and participating in not only evening Vespers, but also Sunday Divine Liturgy’s. We are also taking Catecheses classes as well.
-

Ok, I just had the impression you were thinking about this sect and not pursuing full communion. I understand now.

 

[BobRyan]

The New Testament Church, the Church of the Apostles and the Apostolic Church Fathers.

Why do you choose and continue to choose Seventh Day Adventism?

Because I find it to be doctrinally correct - true to scripture, exegetically the best doctrinal view of what God has said in His Word.

And I have cultivated a "Love of the Truth" for Christ IS the "WAY the TRUTH and the LIFE" John 14.

I chose an Independent Fundamental Baptist Church, b/c I was raised in one. I chose to stay b/c I believed that we the IFB was the true Church of the Apostles as I was taught. I chose to leave b/c I couldn’t reconcile Baptist History with Early Church history.

Not even ONCE do you mention anything about questioning doctrine for yourself - then studying scripture and finding the IFG doctrines to be correct, pure and true to scripture!

Not even ONCE!!

I have known a few IFB members in the past and they seemed to have had more concern for believing what the Bible SAID than for "attending the church organization that they thought had the right lineage".

Once I came to the realization that all that is true and good in Protestantism got its roots from Orthodoxy. 1000 years before Luther and centuries more before the creation of a Southern Baptist Convention, the Fathers of Orthodoxy had already fought with and decided the most important doctrinal issues facing Christian faith.

I found that BEFORE the ECFs of the 3rd through 7th centuries there was the ECF of the FIRST century! The NT writers!

Why not value THEM??!!!

Whenever YOU Bob, confess the Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, the Only-Begotten-Son of God, you are unknowingly confessing Orthodoxy!

I beg to differ. I do not "confess orthodoxy" I confess faith in Christ and acceptance of the Word of God. NEVER do I conduct a Bible study and support even ONE doctrinal statement with a "because this is orthodoxy" argument!

No not even ONCE! Because that argument is "nothing at all"!

If the Greek Orthodox Catholic church rejects persecution of the saints and prayers to the dead and accepts the trinity and the Bible as the Word of God establishing all faith and doctrine on a "sola scriptura" basis then praise God for their faith in those areas. But that is not WHY I believe those doctrines -- I do not study the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church to "learn what to believe".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Not even ONCE do you mention anything about questioning doctrine for yourself - then studying scripture and finding the IFG doctrines to be correct, pure and true to scripture!

Errr Bob, one post can't do justice to the reasons that encouraged me to decide to leave the IFB Church and journey towards Orthodoxy. Yes Bob I have studied Scripture and have compared such to the ECF's. What Orthodoxy claims to be correct teaching today, was deemed correct teaching by those who studied at the very feet of the Apostles. Thus what has been believed everywhere, always and by all, is being held fast to even today.

To approach Scripture, its not my job of the individual or E.G. Whites job for that matter to strive for originallity, but to rather understand what is alreadt present in the Traditions of the Church.

One of the Apostolic Church Fathers who helped pave the way for Orthodoxy, St. Ignatius of Antioch (a disciple of the Apostle John) warns:

Make no mistake brethern, no one who follows another into schism will inherit the Kingdom of God, no one who follows heritical doctrines is on the side of the passion.​

I found that BEFORE the ECFs of the 3rd through 7th centuries there was the ECF of the FIRST century! The NT writers!

Why not value THEM??!!!

I have to admit Bob, you are a slick one. You have a way of wording statements and twisting meanings of scripture that to a casual observer, you’d probably fool. Take for instance your ECF quote, you make it sound although the first 3 centuries were skipped, you go from the NT writers to the 3rd century ECF, totally neglecting to mention the Apostolic Church Fathers who were disciples of the Apostles of the Lord! How cunning of you…lol

Thanks, but I’d stick with these ECF’s than what a self proclaimed prophetess E.G. White has to say…

For me, the ability to admit that when it comes to Scripture that I don’t know near as much as the ECF’s is called humility, it has nothing to do with a degree or who has the most Scripture memorized. At this point in my journey, there’s only one of these three statements that are true: either

(1) there is no correct Tradition and the gates of Hell did prevail against the Church, and thus the Gospels and the Nicene Creed are in error; or
(2) the true faith is to be found in Papism, with its ever-growing and changing dogmas defined by the infallible "vicar of Christ"; or
(3) The Orthodox Church is the one Church founded by Christ and has faithfully preserved the Apostolic Tradition.

So the choice for me as a Protestant is quite clear: relativism, Romanism, or Orthodoxy.

I know the above is strong for one to take, espcially from a Protestant whose basic theological basis is of Sola Scriptura which only yields disunity and argument, have long ago given up on the idea of true Christian unity and has thus considered it to a ridiculous hypothesis that there might be only one Faith...
-

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Errr Bob, one post can't do justice to the reasons that encouraged me to decide to leave the IFB Church and journey towards Orthodoxy. Yes Bob I have studied Scripture and have compared such to the ECF's. What Orthodoxy claims to be correct teaching today, was deemed correct teaching by those who studied at the very feet of the Apostles. Thus what has been believed everywhere, always and by all, is being held fast to even today.

To approach Scripture, its not my job of the individual or E.G. Whites job for that matter to strive for originallity, but to rather understand what is alreadt present in the Traditions of the Church.

One of the Apostolic Church Fathers who helped pave the way for Orthodoxy, St. Ignatius of Antioch (a disciple of the Apostle John) warns:

Make no mistake brethern, no one who follows another into schism will inherit the Kingdom of God, no one who follows heritical doctrines is on the side of the passion.​

I have to admit Bob, you are a slick one. You have a way of wording statements and twisting meanings of scripture that to a casual observer, you’d probably fool. Take for instance your ECF quote, you make it sound although the first 3 centuries were skipped, you go from the NT writers to the 3rd century ECF, totally neglecting to mention the Apostolic Church Fathers who were disciples of the Apostles of the Lord! How cunning of you…lol

Thanks, but I’d stick with these ECF’s than what a self proclaimed prophetess E.G. White has to say…

For me, the ability to admit that when it comes to Scripture that I don’t know near as much as the ECF’s is called humility, it has nothing to do with a degree or who has the most Scripture memorized. At this point in my journey, there’s only one of these three statements that are true: either

(1) there is no correct Tradition and the gates of Hell did prevail against the Church, and thus the Gospels and the Nicene Creed are in error; or
(2) the true faith is to be found in Papism, with its ever-growing and changing dogmas defined by the infallible "vicar of Christ"; or
(3) The Orthodox Church is the one Church founded by Christ and has faithfully preserved the Apostolic Tradition.

So the choice for me as a Protestant is quite clear: relativism, Romanism, or Orthodoxy.

I know the above is strong for one to take, espcially from a Protestant whose basic theological basis is of Sola Scriptura which only yields disunity and argument, have long ago given up on the idea of true Christian unity and has thus considered it to a ridiculous hypothesis that there might be only one Faith...
-

While there is much to be remarked upon here, a few things of note. Have you not read how the Aposlte told the elders that after his departure grievous wolves would arise AMONG them, not sparing the flock? It was to be within the first and earliest years of the Christian church that heretics would rise up within. And how do I, who live 2,000 years removed from those days, not having Paul or Peter or John, or another Apostle know who they are and if their treaching is the Word of God or not? What you tell me is that I should trust them...the Orthodox church. The papist say, Nay! but trust in our Tradition, for Peter is the Rock upon which Christ has built His Church!

So I look to God and ask, "Where Lord?" "To the Law and to the Testimony" and "If any man speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in him." God's own word is my light and confidence. His Law and judgements, precepts, and commandments, are my delight.

I have listened to your story, evaluated its argument and teaching, but listened for what you are testifying of. I do not hear the testimony of Christ. I do not hear an abiding trust in the Saviour. What I do hear is the testimony of a sect. I hear an abiding trust in a sect. I hear a Sola Ecclesia.

Now that may be hard for an Orthodox person to hear. But that is the "gospel" you have preached to me. Maybe others see something different. But I hear you preaching your church.

As for me and my house, we will preach Christ and Him crucified.

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobRyan
Not even ONCE do you mention anything about questioning doctrine for yourself - then studying scripture and finding the IFB doctrines to be correct, pure and true to scripture!

E.D. -

Errr Bob, one post can't do justice to the reasons that encouraged me to decide to leave the IFB Church and journey towards Orthodoxy. Yes Bob I have studied Scripture and have compared such to the ECF's. What Orthodoxy claims to be correct teaching today, was deemed correct teaching by those who studied at the very feet of the Apostles. Thus what has been believed everywhere, always and by all, is being held fast to even today.

Error Agnus - the point of fact remains - you gave no argument regarding your IFB history about having checked into the doctrinal views and finding them pure and YET this IS the practice of IFB members themselvs. One has to question your history in the IFB when you do not claim to have taken that basic step.

The point remains.

Secondly - you can not counter the clear glaring fact that you DO not claim to have actually done your "homework" while a member of the IFB -- with the wild extreme claim that the ECF views DID NOT CHANGE over the centuries!!

Going from position of error to further position of error is not helping your case here.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

. Take for instance your ECF quote, you make it sound although the first 3 centuries were skipped, you go from the NT writers to the 3rd century ECF, totally neglecting to mention the Apostolic Church Fathers who were disciples of the Apostles of the Lord! How cunning of you…lol

Thanks, but I’d stick with these ECF’s than what a self proclaimed prophetess E.G. White has to say…
-

I'll stick with scripture while you vacillate from one ECF to the next and then try to pretend that we find no evolution in their doctrine over the centuries.

Give me the Bible over that vacillating model you have chosen. As Paul said of the ECF groups to follow him "I know that AFTER my departure grevious wovles will come in not sparing the flock -- these men will arise FROM AMONG your own selves.."

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Agnus_Dei]

I have listened to your story, evaluated its argument and teaching, but listened for what you are testifying of. I do not hear the testimony of Christ. I do not hear an abiding trust in the Saviour. What I do hear is the testimony of a sect. I hear an abiding trust in a sect. I hear a Sola Ecclesia.

Now that may be hard for an Orthodox person to hear. But that is the "gospel" you have preached to me. Maybe others see something different. But I hear you preaching your church.

As for me and my house, we will preach Christ and Him crucified.

And know this I've truely enjoyed our conversation.

In regard to my testimony of Christ, this isn't a tread depecting my testimony, only outlining my spiritual journey. I was raised an Independent Fundamental Baptist, so yes I have a very strong commitment to Christ and it was as a Baptist that I developed a great love of Scripture, prayer and also the Truth, which is what this is about.

In an Orthodox Divine Liturgy Christ is preached; He's preached both crucified and resurrected. We worship the Triune God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. We reconfirm our commitment to our risen Saviour in our Creed we recite. We confess our sins, of whom I am chief. We read more Scripture, both Old and New Testament than any Protestant Church and the preaching, yes there's preaching, only difference is that it's not a politically driven message as most were in my home IFB Church. And the prayers, I've never prayed so much in any service in my life and not to mention we stand for a two hour service...

Oh....and we also have Sunday School classes, for both kids and adults on sunday mornings, Adult Bible studies on Tuesdays and Thursday evenings.

Why do I say this, b/c I get the feeling you think Christ is left out, but Christ is the center of our worship, after all it was He that the Church was built upon.
-