Skip to comments.Author Frank Schaeffer to speak on his Orthodox faith
Posted on 02/23/2003 12:27:57 AM PST by DestroEdited on 04/13/2004 1:55:56 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Frank Schaeffer, son of the late renowned Christian theologian Francis Schaeffer, will be in Modesto next weekend to discuss the Orthodox church and faith. Schaeffer holds a photo of his son, John, a Marine.
Author Frank Schaeffer will speak at Annunciation Greek Orthodox Church in Modesto next Saturday on the historic Orthodox tradition and his conversion to the Orthodox faith.
(Excerpt) Read more at modbee.com ...
I have asked and I keep getting told that we will bring it up at the Synod meeting bla bla...
One more thing - the Orthodox Church is honoring Sarbanes, senator from Maryland - a Demorat - who vote FOR partial birth abortion. Does that make sense?
Thank you both. Mary, I can see from your post that you've had a very different experience than I, that you're very happy and fulfilled where you are, and that, were we to attempt a detailed dialogue about matters of faith, it would be way more detailed than I have time for!! HA! I've got a wife and kids, for crying out loud!
I'll just say this: When I got involved in a few charismatic churches, they were all run, basically, by disaffected, unaffiliated, pie-eyed youth who were idealists looking to rediscover, for themselves, the perfect new testament church. We tapped into all the "hot teachers," and we had truly dynamic worship and all that, but it was a very shallow group. Not much fruit, and definitely, not much fruit. The biggest lack, IMO, was peace.
Well, since the "kingdom of God is not food nor drink, but righteousness, peace and joy in the holy ghost," and my "fellowship" didn't seem to have a lot of peace (and I certainly wasn't experiencing much,) I decided the teachings were off. (And my reaction was atypical. Most of my friends in that church, when they found their joy and peace waning, realized they had to pray and fast more. To try harder. That's exhausting, over the long haul!)
To make a long story short, I found a church, the Lutheran Church, Missour Synod, that, first and foremost, introduced me to the distinction between law and gospel. Very liberating. Then, my last pastor was a liturgist, and very "confessional." He taught me the beauty of the ancient faith, with its engaging ritual, solid doctrine and traditions that bring a sense of rhythm to life that I find very satisfying. It's 180 degrees out from the "for the moment" very hip, very "now," very exciting, but very hubristic (in its contempt for tradition) religion I experienced 20 years ago. Liturgical worship is not very exciting in an emotional sense, but intellectual, and in terms of feeding one's soul, I find it VERY exciting!
So, that's what I'm talkin' 'bout, sister! It is my hope that my experience will hold out hope of "something more" for people who, unlike you, have been involved in "slap-happy" churches and have grown tired of it, but assume there's nothing better going on "out there" in mainline Christianity. I think there's a lot going on "out here." And I think the Orthodox church is a pretty happenin' place, too!
Now, before you fundies get excited, I realize he's in my heart! But so are my mom and dad (RIP). But I like to look at a photo of them once in awhile, "in rememberance." It helps me remember how much I love them.
When I look upon the cross, yes, with Christ on it (yes, yes, he's risen. I know that,) but when I gaze upon his nail scared hands and his riven side and that awful crown of thorns, everything is placed into perspective. Everything. Sunday after Sunday. My whole life revolves around that rememberance, and the rememberance is enhanced by gazing upon that awful scene . . . and reflecting, with my whole being. The experience is just not the same without the crucifix. (I am saving up to buy my church an altar cross!!!)
Not to me.
In addition Greeks have been against abortion even during pagan times as enshrined in Hippocrates' Hippocratic Oath
The father of medicine as envisioned by a Byzantine artist.
His Eminence Metropolitan Christopher - President, Episcopal Council of the Serbian Orthodox Church in the USA and Canada
Father Stanley S. Harakas - Archbishop Iakovos Professor of Orthodox Theology, Emeritus, Holy Cross Greek Orthodox Church School of Theology
The Most Blessed Herman - Archbishop of Washington, Metropolitan of All America and Canada, Primate, Orthodox Church in America
Metropolitan Iakovos of Krinis - Diocese of Chicago, Greek Orthodox Church of America
Metropolitan Maximos of Aenos - Bishop of Pittsburgh, Greek Orthodox Church of America
Subdeacon John Protopapas of Orthodox Christians for Life
Father Patrick Henry Reardon - Archpriest of the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America, Pastor of All Saints Church, Chicago, Illinois
Father Alexander F.C. Webster - St. Mary Orthodox Church, Falls Church, Virginia
I know Metropolitan Herman was down at the March for Life this year because I saw him being interviewed on EWTN. He actually gave a blessing for the mostly-Catholic audience. Even though the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches have been historically at odds, they have worked together in this noble cause over the past 30 years. It's a good sign for the future of the relations between Christian churches.
The likelihood of a man who has been blessed with every spiritual blessing in Christ (Ephesians 1:3ff.), who has been filled full in Christ, Who is the Substance (Colossians 2:10), who holds in his own free hands the God-breathed, complete, and fully-adequate Word of God (2 Timothy 3:15-17), being "jealous" of anyone who settles for a big, glittery sham and delusion...
...is about the same as the likelihood of a man with a 32 ounce steam being "jealous" of a bum munching on a plastic carrot.
Maybe the musings and understandings of the Gospel by Northern Europeans of the last century is good enough for you, but if I do ever go for it I would go for true biblical Christianity, the people whose language was the key of the Gospels. I doubt men 1,800 years removed from the Source would get it more right than a peole whose culture and language was tool Christ's Apostoles chose as the basis for the Gospels.
Protestant "Biblical" Christians think they are recovering something that was lost and dig and dig and go back as far as they can to the original and all they do is uncover their hallowness and Orthodoxy's holiness. At least they learn Greek.
I believe Christ set up One Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church...and there is no other.
For my part, I've studied NT Greek for about thirty years. I find the NT itself is most helpful, but I also compare notes and usage from the classics through the papyrii and the Greek Christian writers.
I don't believe the Gospel was ever lost. Perhaps you're thinking of Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. I believe it was always right there, on the surface of the pages of the Bible.
And as far as all this chatter about 1800 years later and all... maybe you're thinking of the various Ortho's or Roman Catholics. They're great believers in (=insisters on) playing "telephone" with the Bible.
Not Christians, though. We don't rely on men writing 1800 years later, or 1500 years later... or 1000, or 500, or even 100 years later.
We rely directly on God's Word itself. Drives cultists and the otherwise enslaved absolutely nuts (as predicted; Galatians 4:29), but that's what being a Christian is: standing faithfully on the Word of God Himself. It'll steer you straight TO Christ, and PAST silly (at best) diversions like trying to chat up dead people, and all -- to say nothing of the time and energy that goes into trying to spin and "defend" the silly practices.
I cannot recommend it to you too highly.
"Now people look at Orthodox and think it is just one more denomination," Schaeffer said. "But I look at it as unbroken continuity
From the laying of hands from the Apostles to their chosen bishops to the New Testament - unbroken continuity.
How about...anyone willing to let the Bible speak for itself, rather than shackling himself to the accumulated errors of centuries of fallible men?
For that softball, I owe you a nice latte' or something if we ever meet. (Gyro?) For now... thanks!
Those of today know more than the founding fathers who knew and where taught by the Apostles or new men who were taught by the Apsotles and had it explained to them first hand what the Gospels said?
Is the Nicean Creed still valid for this group you champion?
Ah, yes. We Christians call these sorts "believers." Why? They believe God when He says that His word is for them, and not for some specialized class (cf. Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:2; 2 Corinthians 1:1; Ephesians 1:1; etc. ad inf.). They can't be classed with those so "wise" that they know better than God, and take it out of the hands of His intended recipients, reserving it to their selected shapers and molders.
... without the "shackles" of the work of past biblical scholars, theologians and established practice.
This is so hard for a slave to understand.
I am free to consider seriously all who have labored over the Word, and to benefit from their wisdom. I am simply not shackled by their mistakes! God, speaking to His people through His word (see above), remains the judge.
So when an august individual like Chrysostom or Calvin illuminates a passage, I benefit from the light. But when they stray (as both do), and am not shackled to repeat their mistakes.
If I did, I might end up being chained to silly and anti-God practices like chasing after dead people; or to heresies, like adding my works to Christ's blood to win salvation.
You and your ilk are bound to accumulate centuries of your own errors, and worse ones, I suspect, because you have the hubris to reject the wisdom of past ages.
Yes I will, but that won't be the cause. The cause will be my own fallibility. That is why it is so wonderful that God never chained anyone to my interpretations, any more than He did to Justin Martyr's nor Papias'.
I should think a conservtive would know better
Maybe, maybe not. But a Christian knows to believe God. Slaves of Greece or Rome may do a 2 Timothy 3:5/Titus 1:16 on such passages as 2 Timothy 3:15-17, but a Christian reads it, studies it, understands it, praises God for it, and lives it.
You know, nothing external to you keeps you from knowing the freedom of life in Christ, as a child of God rather than the slave of a sect (Galatians 3:23-29). What Christ says to all, He says to you as well:
"Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light"Nothing compares with the excellency of knowing the Lord Jesus Christ. Pride, stubbornness, tradition -- all rubble, compared to that knowledge (Philippians 3:7-11).
Matthew 11:28-30 (ESV)
Would you like to receive a note when RadioFR is on the air? Click HERE!
Excerpts: Jesus' work consisted only in his teaching; to believe in him saves men from judgment. The true baptism and Eucharist consist in hearing his word, as in John, iv, 10. But many Paulicians, nevertheless, let their children be baptized by the Catholic clergy. They honoured not the Cross, but only the book of the Gospel. They were Iconoclasts, rejecting all pictures. Their Bible was a fragmentary New Testament. They rejected St. Peter's epistles because he had denied Christ. They referred always to the "Gospel and Apostle", apparently only St Luke and St. Paul; though they quoted other Gospels in controversy.
The whole ecclesiastical hierarchy is bad, as also all Sacraments and ritual. They had a special aversion to monks. Under the apostles and prophets were "fellow-workers" (synechdemoi) who formed a council, and "notaries" (notarioi), who looked after the holy books and kept order at meetings. Their conventicles were called, not churches, but "prayer-houses" (proseuchai). Harnack sums them up as "dualistic Puritans and Individualists and as "an anti-hierarchic Christianity built up on the Gospel, and Apostle, with emphatic rejection of Catholic Christianity" (Dogmengeschichte, II 528).
Since Gibbon the Paulicians have often been described as a survival of early and pure Christianity, godly folk who clung to the Gospel, rejecting later superstitions, who were grossly calumniated by their opponents. Conybeare (op. cit. ) thinks they were a continuation of the Adoptionists. Dr. Adeney calls them "in many respects Protestants before Protestantism" (The Greek and Eastern Churches, 219). This idea accounts for the fact that the sect has met among modern writers with more interest and certainly more sympathy than it deserves.
The Christian Church is not a political party and seeks to lead through example and persuasion.
My one posting: apposite Scriptures cited = eleven
Your two responses: apposite refutational Scriptures cited = zero
Sometimes the offhanded is the most revealing, isn't it? But we're just living our two mutually exclusive religions, aren't we? God-centered Biblical Christianity on the one hand, man-centered tradition-bound sectarianism in your case.
Your living illustration showed more than ten posts from me could have done. Thank you.
Understood, but the moral relativism and decay in our society in these times demands more than acquiescence and reliance on quiet diplomacy.
"Follow" it? In the sense that I accept it as an authority, independent of and equal to the word of God? Certainly not.
You just spout off in PRIDE, always in pride and vanity...always.
I see you on threads running down EVERYBODY else's Faith in Jesus Christ right on down to the dirt....you are a mean spirited man.
NOBODY here put you in charge of ANYTHING... much less ALL OF CHRISTIANITY!!
You need to get humble and get humble real quick!
I wouldn't trust you to interpret the embossing on toilet paper.
Your vanity and meaness are the reasons why I would never trust you. You..."HAVE NOT LOVE....".
"Tinkling brass"... yes, that sound is you ...definitely!
Frank Schaeffer is a wonderful man, Christian believer and a good father of a US Marine. Why are you on this thread running down the FAITH of a man who is so good?
Never mind answering... I already know....green eyed jealousy is evident in your postings. You try to disguise it by quoting scriptures...
HA! YOU ARE JUST JEALOUS OF FRANK SCHAEFFER because he got the attention that YOU would like to have.
Orthodoxy is simply the right interpretation of the Gospels based on the scholarship of Bishops who were direct descendents of Churches founded by the Apostles and their first converts.
The Nicean Creed is the Readers Digest for the faithful - a study guide to the owner's manual that is the Bible.
His son has joined the original Church that invented the Jesus Fish symbol. Protestants need to translate the Gospels. The Greek Orthodox worship in the Gospels' Greek language daily.
The Apostles founded NO protestant churches.
"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."
I do wish I knew the original greek.
May I ask when the "Christian" movement went into Apostacy in your faith and when was it corrected?
You make a good point. It seems that those who are more interested in a feeling based emotional experience in worship, tend to be attracted by the grand old churches with their emphasis on architecture, statues, and ritualistic practices. My observation is, generally speaking, that people who are attracted to this kind of assembly are apt to listen to and believe what the church dictates as doctrine rather than read and study the bible for themselves and allow the Holy Spirit to guide them.
At the same time there are Protestent churches who claim uninterupted unity with the New Testament Church practices that came to be at Pentecost. These churches emphasize Christ as the head of the church and that the church is the people that make up the body and not a building where one goes to worship. The only ritual that they practice is the Lord's Supper where they break bread and drink wine as Jesus commanded "do this in rememberance of me". These churches are void of crucifixes and statues and believe these things to be graven images or idols which divert peoples attention from the main focus of the assembly, which is to worship and glorify Christ.
Well, now we're guessing, aren't we? And why, with such realities to occupy us?
I'm grateful that they were Biblical in so many things. I enjoy Chrysostom, in Greek as well as English. I think that Chalcedon contains a marvelous confession of what the Bible teaches about Jesus.
But neither is the Word of God! God put that Word in the hands of each of His children, as I've shown you; it is our birthright. Nobody will take it from us.
But to carry on your thought: do you think "the Orthodox fathers" gave us Jesus, too? Because they made a splendid statement of Biblical Christology, in your mind does that mean that, in spite of the clear teaching of the Word of God (John 1:1; 20:28; Titus 2:13, etc. etc.) we'd all be saying He was a mere creature, if not for them? In your mind, when I say "Look! A beautiful sunrise!", am I creating the sunrise, and do I now own it, so that others have to report to me to enjoy it secondhand?