Skip to comments.In Christ Alone (Happy reformation day)
Posted on 10/31/2010 11:59:22 AM PDT by RnMomof7
In Christ Alone lyrics
Songwriters: Getty, Julian Keith; Townend, Stuart Richard;
In Christ alone my hope is found He is my light, my strength, my song This Cornerstone, this solid ground Firm through the fiercest drought and storm
What heights of love, what depths of peace When fears are stilled, when strivings cease My Comforter, my All in All Here in the love of Christ I stand
In Christ alone, who took on flesh Fullness of God in helpless Babe This gift of love and righteousness Scorned by the ones He came to save
?Til on that cross as Jesus died The wrath of God was satisfied For every sin on Him was laid Here in the death of Christ I live, I live
There in the ground His body lay Light of the world by darkness slain Then bursting forth in glorious Day Up from the grave He rose again
And as He stands in victory Sin?s curse has lost its grip on me For I am His and He is mine Bought with the precious blood of Christ
Your kind words are appreciated, but you should know that I am among the chief sinners.
This is true, OR. No one thought it particularly odd either. There are places on earth and in various cultures where such goings on are not all that remarkable. As for the Fatima and other apparitions of Panagia being heretical, well, so far as I know, only one of them has likely strayed into heresy and that is the recent one in the former Yugoslavia. Beliefs about visions of the Most Holy Theotokos are theologoumenna, pious beliefs which can be held, or not. There is no requirement that a Roman Catholic believe in them.
When was Holy Tradition "revised", mm?
"Its in writing, we have the oldest available manuscripts to which we can refer if need be."
The oldest manuscripts may be among the most corrupted, mm. It's just not that simple. "Tradition is a ship adrift"
It hasn't worked out that way with us, mm.
The perpetual virginity of Mary, her alleged sinlessness, her assumption, for example.
The pronouncements by earlier popes that there’s no salvation outside the church has now been revised to contain exceptions, the first among whom are the muslims....
That sure is a far cry from the Crusades.
*Holy Tradition* leaves the RCC in a state of flux.
But not the Orthodox Church.
I did specify....
But Kosta's remarks which gave rise to this line of posts was quite obviously referring to Holy Tradition as the Orthodox Church embraces it. Am I to take it that you can accept that Holy Tradition as we Orthodox live it out in the life of The Church is not a moving target?
BTW, until about the 10th century, Holy Tradition in the Latin Church was about as unchanging as it has always been in the East.
Sure; and Alexander the Great was a weekend warrior...
If the tradition in the Orthodox church hasn’t changed in about a thousand years, then it hasn’t changed. I would still not accept tradition on the level of reliability of Scripture.
I’ve been gone all day and had over a page of pings to catch up on. I didn’t read each and every one as thoroughly as possible.
And the answer is yes. As your question that follows indicate:
Is it possible for God to grow in wisdom and stature?
No, it is not possible. He Is God in Mary's womb, and in the manger, and att all points in time. It is the human nature of Jesus that went through the human process of maturing. Jesus would not be fully human if He bypassed some of the natural human experience. He also, for example, prayed to God.
A temporary abode, as Christ was a baby inside of her.
you should publish a special annalex dictionary
"σκηνωμα" is properly translated as tabernacle in liturgical context and tent in everyday context. There is no need for another dictionary, -- there is a need for honest translations. In the liturgical context it is a place where God is. As Mary carried Christ in her womb, she became a tabernacle of God. So is a tabernacle with the Precious Body and Blood in Catholic Churches today.
Ironic, isn't it, that when the canon of the NT was being established, it was the various scriptures whose reliability was questioned, not Holy Tradition!
"Ive been gone all day and had over a page of pings to catch up on. I didnt read each and every one as thoroughly as possible."
Well, see, that's what you get for having a life away from this benighted place!
Stocking up for the next round of lake effect snow.
We’re looking at days of it.....
Blue Duncan: when Paul is writing to Jewish believers who taught that salvation is through faith plus works, he corrected them with the following [Rom 9-10 selected verses]
More precisely, St. Paul was confronting a belief that a Christian convert should be circumcised. It is circumcision, and more broadly, the belief in the salvific nature of the Hebrew Law that is addressed and demolished in Romans (and Galatians). Since you brought up Romans 9 and 10, let us examine the context. The Jews, he says, "sought justice" "as it were of works" and of course they did not get justice. The Gentiles however, "followed not after justice, have attained to justice, even the justice that is of faith". Note that the distinction is not between works in general and faith, but works of Jewish law and faith. It becomes clear when St. Paul concludes: "there is no distinction of the Jew and the Greek: for the same is Lord over all, rich unto all that call upon him".
So it is faith that erases the distinction between a Jew and a Gentile as either one can believe the same thing. It is the faith that they share that brings salvation to both Jew and Greek. But does it say that it is faith as opposed to good works of charity? Not at all: it goes on to say "But all do not obey the gospel" and later, "if thou abide in goodness, otherwise thou also shalt be cut off" (Rom 11:22). These two chapters teach what the Catholic Church teaches: that faith is necessary for salvation, but the faith must result in obedience of the gospel, -- the works. And indeed, the letter does not end there. Instead, we hear this:
 I BESEECH you therefore, brethren, by the mercy of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing unto God, your reasonable service.  And be not conformed to this world; but be reformed in the newness of your mind, that you may prove what is the good, and the acceptable, and the perfect will of God.  For I say, by the grace that is given me, to all that are among you, not to be more wise than it behoveth to be wise, but to be wise unto sobriety, and according as God hath divided to every one the measure of faith.  For as in one body we have many members, but all the members have not the same office:  So we being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.
 And having different gifts, according to the grace that is given us, either prophecy, to be used according to the rule of faith;  Or ministry, in ministering; or he that teacheth, in doctrine;  He that exhorteth, in exhorting; he that giveth, with simplicity; he that ruleth, with carefulness; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness.  Let love be without dissimulation. Hating that which is evil, cleaving to that which is good.  Loving one another with the charity of brotherhood, with honour preventing one another.
 In carefulness not slothful. In spirit fervent. Serving the Lord.  Rejoicing in hope. Patient in tribulation. Instant in prayer.  Communicating to the necessities of the saints. Pursuing hospitality.  Bless them that persecute you: bless, and curse not.  Rejoice with them that rejoice; weep with them that weep.
 Being of one mind one towards another. Not minding high things, but consenting to the humble. Be not wise in your own conceits.  To no man rendering evil for evil. Providing good things, not only in the sight of God, but also in the sight of all men.
now our salvation is nearer than when we believed.  The night is passed, and the day is at hand. Let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and put on the armour of light.  Let us walk honestly, as in the day: not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and impurities, not in contention and envy:  But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh in its concupiscences.
We are united in faith, but we are not saved by faith alone. Works of obedience, mercy, charity must accompany our walk of faith. This is what St. Paul wrote, and thsi is waht the Catholic Chruch teaches.
*Abstain from blood*
*by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified*
[Catholics] don't believe that.
The prohibition on eating blood is given in Acts 15 by the Church, and it has since been rescinded by the same Church. It is a disciplinary matter, and like all Church disciplines the Church has the authority of "binding and loosing" to change that. The rest we do believe, of course. What makes you think we don't?
Sure she can.
I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven (Mt 16:19)
Direct mandate for Christ to legislate in matters pertaining to salvation.
Further, that mandate was exercised according to the very scripture you pretend to believe:
I judge that they, who from among the Gentiles are converted to God, are not to be disquieted (Acts 15:19)
And thus, by a decision of a Church council, the Biblical law of Moses became null and void.
Bind and loose.
Boatbums: I spent a good deal of time as have many others including you, Belteshazzar, proving repeatedly that Scripture most certainly does teach those very concepts
Show me. A link to your "proof" will do, or give me the verses again.
“We are united in faith, but we are not saved by faith alone. Works of obedience, mercy, charity must accompany our walk of faith. This is what St. Paul wrote, and thsi is waht the Catholic Chruch teaches”
That is a perversion of what Paul taught. It is clear from the context of Romans 9-11 that what Paul was contending with is the same question that the Church at Jerusalem contended with; faith plus works or faith alone. The Church at Jerusalem and Paul here with the Churchs at Rome come down on the side of faith alone. In fact, when the Church at Jerusalem added the dietry restrictions to the letter to the churchs, Paul countermanded even them so that there would be no question that salvation was by faith alone.
In the verse you are responding to I showed you where the deception is: two verses are quoted and the third one, teaching the distinctly Catholic doctrine is omitted from the quote; then again, half of a passage is quoted and the other, Catohlic part fo the passage is omitted. That is deceptive, there is no other word for it. What do you think was the reason to chop up quotes like that?
I know your journey there took you thru some bad experiences in former churches
What bad experiences? I visited many Protestant communities of faith to accompany my formerly Protestant wife and had a wonderful time, and met some truly wonderful people. Their theology is nonsense on sticks, but the people are very nice, the coffee is good, and some pastors can be very inspiring in their sermons. Interestingly, a typical Protestant sermon, I found out, is filled with exhortations to good works; how they combine that with their "faith alone" dogma is a mystery.
1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. 2Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? 3Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? 4 Did you suffer so many things in vainif indeed it was in vain? 5Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith 6just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”?
7Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. 8And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” 9So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
10For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” 11Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” 12But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” 13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for usfor it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree” 14so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.
15 To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. 16Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. 17This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. 18For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.
19Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. 20Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one.
21Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. 22But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
23Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if you are Christs, then you are Abrahams offspring, heirs according to promise.
Why should good works surprise you? We believe they are the result of our justification. We do good works out of gratitude.
Then which is the truth? Is eating blood OK with God or not?
If God says it's not, who's the church to say that it is?
This is where listening to tradition will get you, going against the clear teachings of God in Scripture.
I suppose that you have links the official pronouncement that the church made to say that they eating of blood was acceptable, after the apostles, who were contemporaries of Jesus said it wasn't?
What council or pope have the chutzpah to override the decisions of those early church fathers? For that matter since you claim that Peter chaired that meeting, who had the chutzpah to over ride Peter's decision? Where was it recorded that it was allegedly rescinded and why was it allegedly rescinded?
This seems too familiar. It's all too much like the *Joseph had children by a previous marriage* kind of rationalization to explain how those ignorant Jews couldn't get straight what they meant by Jesus brothers and sisters.
The Law specifically forbade the eating of blood. Jesus, who had to perfectly fulfill the Law to be the spotless sacrificial lamb, could not have eaten blood at the Last Supper, therefore when He said the cup was his blood, He was either lying or He meant it figuratively, that it was symbolic because the whole Passover meal was symbolic.
The only thing pertaining to salvation is faith in Christ alone for salvation. That cannot be changed or amended.
The church cannot change what is sin and what is not. God established that Himself. The church claiming that it has that power is usurping God’s authority and putting itself above God.
Simply because the good works honor and glorify God and are instrumental in leading others to Him. We do it for much the same reasons Christ did His good works.
We don't do them to earn salvation or to help earn salvation. We do them to please the Father who loves us and gave us salvation and as a witness to an hurting and dying and unbelieving world to His power to redeem. We show the ability of good to overcome evil.
We show our love for Him by being obedient but that does not earn us salvation or help us earn salvation. God saved us. We responded with obedience out of love and gratitude.
Our good works are a natural outpouring of the Father’s life within us.
It’s almost like a true Christian can’t help themselves because they have the Spirit of God living in them and it just kind of oozes out of them.
We do good works because it is now our nature to do good works.
I think you are probably tickled to death at every opportunity we give you to twist words, but I was speaking of the concept that we have what is called a soul or spirit a "life force" or whatever you want to call it and it is what makes us us. It is gone at death. It is what I referred to as existing but is not something which can be seen, or proved, for that matter. It just IS. You boldly claim you only believe in what you can see or detect but I think you would agree that you cannot see your own soul and yet you believe you have one.
To take my example further, you cannot touch or see emotions such as love or joy, hate or anger, but you surely can admit that they are real and are experienced by the human species pretty much identically from person to person. That was kinda my point. We all exercise faith of some kind every moment of our lives. Some don't like to call it that, but it is, nonetheless.
“The prohibition on eating blood is given in Acts 15 by the Church, and it has since been rescinded by the same Church.”
Just my two-cents on this. We believe in the co-eternal and co-equal one God in three persons precisely because we know there is only one God. There are not three gods but one, only God. He exists in three persons - the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. John's gospel makes it clear that Jesus himself claimed to be the I AM which is the personal name Almighty God told to Abraham and Moses. The religious leaders at the time even took up stones to kill him for daring to say so. What you may be missing is that even though they are all equal and one, they have a kind of hierarchy in purpose. Scripture says the Son proceeds from the Father. Jesus said he does nothing but what the Father gives him to do. Jesus said he would send the Spirit to us to indwell us to empower our lives and to illuminate truth.
To view it in this way it looks like: Father to Son to Holy Spirit in an order, not of dominance but in purpose. As an example we are told that the wife submits to the husband who submits to God. But in another place we are told that we are all one in Christ whether male or female, bound or free, Jew or Gentile. The husband is equal to his wife in the view of God, but there is an order.
Like I said, it's my two-cents. It hardly can explain in a few sentences the majesty of God and the full understanding of it all will be, I believe, reserved until we have the "mind of Christ" and will finally be able to understand the magnitude of it.
I have never had a problem with admitting that I didn't understand everything that I knew about something. ;o)
Interesting section I found when searching for ANY word in Greek found in the NT for "sacrament":
It's from refbible.com
Int. Standard Bible Encyclopedia
1. The Term:
The word "sacrament" comes from the Latin sacramentum, which in the classical period of the language was used in two chief senses:
(1) as a legal term to denote the sum of money deposited by two parties to a suit which was forfeited by the loser and appropriated to sacred uses;
(2) as a military term to designate the oath of obedience taken by newly enlisted soldiers.
Whether referring to an oath of obedience or to something set apart for a sacred purpose, it is evident that sacramentum would readily lend itself to describe such ordinances as Baptism and the Lord's Supper. In the Greek New Testament, however, there is no word nor even any general idea corresponding to "sacrament," nor does the earliest history of Christianity afford any trace of the application of the term to certain rites of the church. Pliny (circa 112 A.D.) describes the Christians of Bithynia as "binding themselves by a sacramentum to commit no kind of crime" (Epistles x.97), but scholars are now pretty generally agreed that Pliny here uses the word in its old Roman sense of an oath or solemn obligation, so that its occurrence in this passage is nothing more than an interesting coincidence.
It is in the writings of Tertullian (end of 2nd and beginning of 3rd century) that we find the first evidence of the adoption of the word as a technical term to designate Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and other rites of the Christian church. This Christian adoption of sacramentum may have been partly occasioned by the evident analogies which the word suggests with Baptism and the Lord's Supper; but what appears to have chiefly determined its history in this direction was the fact that in the Old Latin versions (as afterward in the Vulgate) it had been employed to translate the Greek musterion, "a mystery" (e.g. Ephesians 5:32 1 Timothy 3:16; Revelation 1:20; Revelation 17:7)-an association of ideas which was greatly fostered in the early church by the rapidly growing tendency to an assimilation of Christian worship with the mystery-practices of the Greek-Roman world.
2. Nature and Number:
Though especially employed to denote Baptism and the Lord's Supper, the name "sacraments" was for long used so loosely and vaguely that it was applied to facts and doctrines of Christianity as well as to its symbolic rites. Augustine's definition of a sacrament as "the visible form of an invisible grace" so far limited its application. But we see how widely even a definition like this might be stretched when we find Hugo of Victor (12th century) enumerating as many as 30 sacraments that had been recognized in the church. The Council of Trent was more exact when it declared that visible forms are sacraments only when they represent an invisible grace and become its channels, and when it sought further to delimit the sacramental area by reenacting (1547) a decision of the Council of Florence (1439), in which for the first time the authority of the church was given to a suggestion of Peter Lombard (12th century) and other schoolmen that the number of the sacraments should be fixed at seven, namely, Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Orders, and Matrimony-a suggestion which was supported by certain fanciful analogies designed to show that seven was a sacred number.
The divergence of the Protestant churches from this definition and scheme was based on the fact that these proceeded on no settled principles. The notion that there are seven sacraments has no New Testament authority, and must be described as purely arbitrary; while the definition of a sacrament is still so vague that anything but an arbitrary selection of particulars is impossible. It is perfectly arbitrary, for example, to place Baptism and the Lord's Supper, which were instituted by Christ as ordinances of the church, in the same category with marriage, which rests not on His appointment but on a natural relationship between the sexes that is as old as the human race. While, therefore, the Reformers retained the term "sacrament" as a convenient one to express the general idea that has to be drawn from the characteristics of the rites classed together under this name, they found the distinguishing marks of sacraments.
That would be true if we take the Holy Tradition to mean anything, which it doesn't. If you want to learn more here is a good summary of the Church Tradition (Orthodox view) this as well as this article.
The Holy Tradition is timeless and unchanging. It includes the scriptures, the patristics, the (seven) ecumenical or general councils as its major components, as well as the Symbol of Faith (in the West otherwise known as the Creed), the Divine Liturgy (going back some 17 centuries), and the canons of the Church. In other words what the Church did and what she believed all along, or simply how she lived out her faith.
By unchanging they don't mean that nothing ever changes (vestments, hymns, typikons, etc.) but the faith. The Eastern Church believes that what it believed today was believed yesterday and all the way back as far as the Church goes and that all that was believed was in harmony with its Holy Tradition.
Jesus said...."You nullify the Word of God for the sake of your traditions. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: These people honor me with their lips but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain. Their teachings are but rules taught by men." Matt.15
That's why....as well as:
"See to it that no one 'takes you captive' through hollow and deceptive philosophy which depends on human tradition and the basic pricnciples of this world....rather than on Christ". Col:2
"The reality however is found in Christ."
Yes, I quite agree. I think Renaissance thinkers tried to reconcile or define the relationship between God and man as a function of man. By using man as the starting point to try to develop an all-encompassing "theory of everything" they were utterly doomed. I read in a book by Francis Schaeffer that Leonardo died a heart broken man because he was never able to come up with a unifying theory of God and man. His presuppositions put man at the center. We Reformers completely reject this approach since we emphasize God's sovereignty so much. Our starting point is always God.
“The Bible can exist where there is no church building or assembly.... but the church cannot exist where there is no Bible.”
Remembering this from some time ago...someone stated it but I can’t remember who...much to ponder in that sentence.
I know it must be hard to bypass a chance to criticize "Protestants" but you should know that Thomas Paine (The author of Age of Reason) had this to say about religion in general:
I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit. (At the beginning of Part I, Age of Reason)
So, would you please point me to where you get the idea that the Age of Reason was energized by the "Protestant" west? That Thomas Jefferson (a deist, most likely) encouraged him and convinced him to come to America after suffering persecution (and a lucky escape from execution) in France in 1794, does not mean he wasn't just as dismissive of Protestantism as Catholicism.
So, do flatworms have it too? What makes flatworms what they are?
It is what I referred to as existing but is not something which can be seen, or proved, for that matter. It just IS.
How can you insist that something is if it cannot be proved?
You boldly claim you only believe in what you can see or detect but I think you would agree that you cannot see your own soul and yet you believe you have one.
I would I agree with the first part of that statement but NATO with the last, and never mind that it is an amazing attempt to read my mind too. How can I believe I have something if I don't know what "it" is?
you cannot touch or see emotions such as love or joy, hate or anger, but you surely can admit that they are real and are experienced by the human species pretty much identically from person to person
First of all you are talking about physiological states, manifested in a characteristic way, not some free-floating Platonic "entities." Second, take any two human beings and ask them to define them and they will have some things in common but they will also differ. So, to claim that love "exists" is rather silly, imo. We can say that we "love" such and such which means we have strong desire for something (food, person, activity, you name it), which is again a physiological state.
We all exercise faith of some kind every moment of our lives.
If by faith you mean an educated guess, I agree. If by faith you mean certainty, then I don't.
Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
Amen to that, and thanks for your responses. It's a pleasure to learn some of the particulars of the Lutheran faith. We have much in common, which is good since I think Luther was one of the greatest Christian theologians of all time. :)
I wish y'all could keep it up there. We had 13 degrees in Charlotte this AM. Brrrrrr. Stay warm. :o)
Gosh, this sounds sooooo familiar... Tell me, if the "works of the Law" are not salvific, but the "works of charity" along with faith are, then you must also say that since "The Law" included the ten commandments, you must conclude that obeying the Ten Commandments is not necessary for salvation. Come to think of it, the last time we spoke about this, I never really got an answer. IS there one now?
Nope. I've wasted too much time doing so already, and I have learned that it will not make any difference. But in case there are lurkers who are genuinely interested about what the Bible says about faith saving us, I'll give but a few of my personal favorites:
God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith.
To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.
Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
There you have it, purified, sanctified, justified by FAITH in Christ!
Thank you for the link. The more I read about the Orthodox Church, the more I like it. The EO, I believe, has stayed a lot more faithful to the word than the “you-know-whos”. :o)
Great question. Please ping me if and when you ever get an answer.
Why did you bother, bb? Kosta and I have both told what the word is. Your Roman Catholic roots are showing! "Int. Standard Bible Encyclopedia "
Is this the Protestant Answer to the Latin's "New Advent Encyclopedia"? You ought to try to find less polemical sources, bb. It's hard to take such stuff seriously. BTW, the idea of 7 sacraments is fluid in the Eastern Church. For example, the coronation of at least an emperor and I think also a king are considered sacraments.
"Interesting section I found when searching for ANY word in Greek found in the NT for "sacrament": "
Why did you bother, bb? Kosta and I have both told what the word is. Your Roman Catholic roots are showing!
"Int. Standard Bible Encyclopedia"
Is this the Protestant Answer to the Latin's "New Advent Encyclopedia"? You ought to try to find less polemical sources, bb. It's hard to take such stuff seriously. BTW, the idea of 7 sacraments is fluid in the Eastern Church. For example, the coronation of at least an emperor and I think also a king are considered sacraments.
That makes no sense, boatbums. "Knowing" (or believing) there is one God does not necessarily imply multiple persons. There are other monotheistic religions that claim God is one and yet they don't believe God is more than one hypostasis.
Jesus himself claimed to be the I AM which is the personal name Almighty God told to Abraham and Moses. The religious leaders at the time even took up stones to kill him for daring to say so
Can you blame them?
What you may be missing is that even though they are all equal and one, they have a kind of hierarchy in purpose
Scripture says the Son proceeds from the Father.
No, boatbumns, the Bible says that the Logos or (Word) is [the only] begotten of the Father and the Spirit wells forth from the Father [and is sent through the Son].
Christian theologians have a fancy name for this hypostatic "purpose," namely the economy of salvation. It basically "explains" why God revealed himself to man as three distinct realities, each performing a different role.
Outside of this divine economy (Greek: oikonomia, and pronounced ee-koh-noh-mee-ah), which is not what it has come to mean in English, the Christian theologians insist that God is an indivisible monad, a singularity, which of course remains a supreme mystery as to how one reality can be simple and indivisible and yet also three separate, unconfused and distinct "realities (Greek: hypostases).
Of these, the Father is the only one without cause, the Son is [eternally] begotten, and the Spirit [eternally] proceeds (Greek: ekporeuomai, i.e. wells from, or originates from) the Father. Anyone who knows even the basic Greek pagan philosophy realizes how utterly Platonic this is and that this was not any Jew could have ever believed.
St. Gregory the Theologian, a 4th century hesychast (look up Philokalia, volume IV), wrote that to try to comprehend the unbegottenness of the Father, begottenness of the Son, or the procession of the Holy Spirit leads to insanity.
Interestingly, the Mormons (LDS) go the other way: they say there are three Gods, Father, Son, Holy Spirit, but they are one in purpose! I am always amazed how people seem to "know" what God's purpose is!
This just smacks of the Clintonian "logic," i.e. (paraphrasing) "depends what is is." The Bible doesn't just say that there is "order" but that the man is the head of the woman, as Christ is the head of man, and God [sic] is the head of Christ. [according to Paul].
So, there is "order" as in ordination, where it is clear who is subordinated to whom. In other words, who listens to whom, who is to speak and teach, who is to keep quiet, and ask, who obeys whom, who is greater and who is lesser [see John 14:28] That doesn't make the divine Hypostases equal, or husband and wife equal except perhaps, as yo say, in "purpose."
Sure, we are all human; we all share the same nature, or essence (Greek: ousia). That means we are all seen as one and the same bunch before God. But according to the Bible, men are in charge; and the Father is in charge even of divinity! That is not the Orthodox faith. One of the major differences between the Latins and the Greeks is in this perception of God. The Orthodox hardly ever use the word God. They always say Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
The Orthodox Trinity is a perfect harmonization, a unity of passionate love (Greek: eros), without lording over, or domination, and the Church was built on that equality. No Apostle lorded over other apostles. There was no primate of "jurisdiction" among them. Peter was no "pope" to the eleven others.
If you want to read a truly unbelievable exposition of the orthodox faith and particularly on the Holy Trinity, I suggest St. John of Damascus, the last of the Desert Fathers (8th century). Much of the faith of the first millennium of Christianity is in it. It is truly amazing how different Christianity was before Scholasticism (in the West) irreversably changed it into soemthing very different.
Another aimless shot in the air, caww.
Thank you for understanding. The desire to slander the Christian saints is the agenda of Satan. Resists it, and it will fail.