Featured Orthodox Christians

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

You are catching on, Anastasia!!

My impression is that some of these prolifically volumanous posters must be retired or exceedingly wealthy...because I FOR SURE dont have time to post reams and reams and reams of multi paragraphed posts!

Whew!

 

See if you can post in even larger letters; this might convince others and yourself that you are right.

I have addressed all this before and have shown how God allowed the sacrifices because of the hardness of the people's hearts, just like He did with divorce. But it was not so in the beginning, just as Jesus said. Blood sacrifice -- human and animal -- was a practice derived from paganism, not instituted by God. It was a practice of priestly religion which was disavowed by the OT prophets.

It's quite ironic that those fundamentalists who are also strict Biblical literalists not only do not believe the OT prophets' disavowal of the priestly sacrificial system but also deny the very words spoken directly by God Himself.

So, who believes the Bible here and who does not? You deny not only the words of the OT authors but the direct words of God, as well.

So much for false charges and accusations made against me.

Jeremiah 22-23: 22. "For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices.
23. But this command I gave them, `Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people; and walk in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you.' "

Also, what part of God's words, "I desire mercy and not sacrifice", is not understandable? Do you believe God, or don't you?

 

I am neither retired nor wealthy. Theology and church history have been my "hobbies" for nearly 40 years. Plus writing and music.

To me, a social life is Monday night football.

 

I have thoroughly proven from the Biblical context that your highly imaginative interpretations are completely and utterly false but that does not mean you can't simply repeat them as though they are true and that is precisel what you do. Amazing, simply amazing!

 

You have proven absolutely nothing, except that you do not believe the clear words of scripture or the very words of God Himself. Quite ironic for a fundamentalist literalist. Amazing, simply amazing.

But I'm sure if you will go back and post in 50-point font, your notions and denials will carry more weight.

 

Your interpretation of Jeremiah 7:23 is contrary to the immediate context, contrary to the whole Biblical context, contrary to what God explicitly and repeatedly told Israel in Egypt.

There is no basis for communciation as you completely ignore any evidence placed before you and then chose to fabricate out of thin air assertions which have no contextual basis whatsoever. Of course, you have the right to imagine anything you care to imagine and post it as though it were fact. But proving it fact is something you cannot do.

Anyone who can claim that God did not originate the animal sacrifice in Genesis 3-4 which is confirmed in Hebrews 11:4 either refuses to acknowledge clear and explicit statements to the contrary or must simply reject the scriptures as inspired. Amazing, simply amazing!

 

What I have posted above is contextually based and is impossible to overthrow if common sense and sound principles of hermeneutics are regarded as essential to establish right and wrong interpretations.

Michael, your interpretation of Jeremiah 7:22 totally depends upon PITTING scripture against scripture as the final basis for truth. What God is rejecting is pagan sacrifices offered upon his own altars and that is precisely what he warned Israel not to do in Egypt just as the text says and just as Exodus says when they were in Egypt.

 

Gen. 3:21 ¶ Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

Gen. 4:4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:

Heb. 11:4 ¶ By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

Re 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Abel is called a "prophet" by Christ and Peter says that "ALL THE PROPHETS" gave witness to the coming Christ that whosever believeth in him received remission of sins. God said without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin.

No pagan culture existed for Abel to copy this "sacrifice" from! He offered it "by faith" and God had "respect...to his offering" and he "offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice."

Of course Michael can imagine and post anything he wishes and assert it as truth but that does not make it truth. The scriptures above are self-evident and obvious that the sacrificial system originated with God's people and was approved by God from the very beginning as an obvious type of the coming Christ to die for our sins. Note the language in Revelation 13:8 "FROM the foundation of the world" rather than "before" the foundation of the world.

 

Readers, it is impossible to reason with someone who is completely irrational and who ignores contextual evidence.

Is there anyone else on this forum that can even see any rational or contextual basis to support Michaels assertions? If so, I would like to hear from you and what reasons you accept his assertions.

 

Will you please directly address the following questions?

QUESTIONS:

How do you harmonize your interpretation of Jeremiah 7:22 with Jeremiah 7:18? Does not Jeremiah 7:18 demand that in this context that he is refusing their offerings because they are offering up pagan sacrifices upon His altar which he told them not to do when they were still in Egypt as Exodus 30:9 and 30:14 prove?

Jer. 7:18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.

Ex 30:9 Ye shall offer no strange incense thereon, nor burnt sacrifice, nor meat offering; neither shall ye pour drink offering thereon.

Ex 34:15 Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice;



How do you harmonize your interpetation of Jeremiah 7:22 with God's words to Israel in Egypt which commanded them to tell Pharoah that they wanted to go three days into the wilderness to offer up sacrifices to the Lord?


Ex 3:18 And they shall hearken to thy voice: and thou shalt come, thou and the elders of Israel, unto the king of Egypt, and ye shall say unto him, The LORD God of the Hebrews hath met with us: and now let us go, we beseech thee, three days’ journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to the LORD our God.

Ex 5:3 And they said, The God of the Hebrews hath met with us: let us go, we pray thee, three days’ journey into the desert, and sacrifice unto the LORD our God; lest he fall upon us with pestilence, or with the sword.

Ex 5:8 And the tale of the bricks, which they did make heretofore, ye shall lay upon them; ye shall not diminish ought thereof: for they be idle; therefore they cry, saying, Let us go and sacrifice to our God.

Ex 5:17 But he said, Ye are idle, ye are idle: therefore ye say, Let us go and do sacrifice to the LORD.

Ex 8:8 Then Pharaoh called for Moses and Aaron, and said, Intreat the LORD, that he may take away the frogs from me, and from my people; and I will let the people go, that they may do sacrifice unto the LORD.

Ex 8:25 And Pharaoh called for Moses and for Aaron, and said, Go ye, sacrifice to your God in the land.
Ex 8:26 And Moses said, It is not meet so to do; for we shall sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians to the LORD our God: lo, shall we sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians before their eyes, and will they not stone us?
Ex 8:27 We will go three days’ journey into the wilderness, and sacrifice to the LORD our God, as he shall command us.
Ex 8:28 And Pharaoh said, I will let you go, that ye may sacrifice to the LORD your God in the wilderness; only ye shall not go very far away: intreat for me.
Ex 8:29 And Moses said, Behold, I go out from thee, and I will intreat the LORD that the swarms of flies may depart from Pharaoh, from his servants, and from his people, to morrow: but let not Pharaoh deal deceitfully any more in not letting the people go to sacrifice to the LORD.

Ex 10:25 And Moses said, Thou must give us also sacrifices and burnt offerings, that we may sacrifice unto the LORD our God.


How do you harmonize your statement that sacrifices are like divorce "but it was not so in the beginning" when in fact it was so in the beginning as proven by Genesis 4:4 with Hebrews 4:4 which explicitly state God was pleased with and accepted his animal sacrifice??

Gen. 4:4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:

Heb. 4:4 ¶ By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

If as you say, sacrifices were of pagan origin and not from the beginning, then why do we have this account before the origin of paganism and why is this account in the hall of faith in regard to offering up animal sacrifices unto God?

I have asked these questions and provide the scriptures but will you directly respond to these questions or are you going to simply ignore them and simply repeat your mantra?

 

Ok! Would you agree that "from the beginning" in regard to marriage refers to

Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Or do you think Christ had some other time in view when he said in Matthew 19 "from the beginning it was not so"?

Mt. 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder......
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.


Can we agree that "from the beginning" refers to this garden statement with Adam and Eve? If we can, then we have established the time frame that "from the beginning" refers to - the time when there was no paganism or pagan cultures but before the rise of all pagan cultures and practices! Ok? Agreed?

Now, would you acknolwege that Genesus 3:21 and Genesis 4:4 are also "from the beginning" in regard to the same time frame? It is clear from Genesis 3:21 that God himself obtained "skins" of animals to clother Adam and Eve and it is clear from Genesis 4:4 that Abel offered up as a sacrifice a slain lamb as the "fat" of the lamb is mentioned separate from the Lamb demonstrating the lamb had been slaughtered. Genesis 4:4 explicitly declares that God approved and accept that slain lamb as a sacrificial offering and hebrews 4:4 confirms that it was indeed an act of faith acceptable to God and this was FROM THE BEGINNING prior to any pagan origins. Indeed, the only other contrast as bloodless sacrifice by Cain which God refused.

Gen. 3:21 ¶ Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

Gen. 4:4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:

Heb. 11:4 ¶ By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

So, how does your reasoning stand up to these facts of scripture that demand God indeed approved of animal sacrifices right FROM THE BEGINNING before any paganism or paganistic customs existed?

Jn. 1:29 ¶ The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

Re 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Would "from the foundation of the world" in Revelation 13:8 be one and the same as "from the beginning"? Note he did not say "before" the beginning but "from" the beginning. Does not this prove that the sacrificial lamb which Abel offered up is regarded by the Apostle John and John the Baptist as the type of Christ "from the foundation of the world"?

If not, then please explain in what sense was Abel regarded by Christ to be a prophet since this is the only recorded act that Abel was praised for and explain how Peter could say that "ALL THE PROPHETS" had given witness of Christ (Acts 10:43) if this sacrificial act of the lamb was not that witness "from the foundation of the world"?

Luke 11:50 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;
51 From the blood of Abel

Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Heb. 11:4 ¶ By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

Isn't the writer of Hebrews saying that it was by offering this slain lamb that Abel "obtained witness" and thus gave witness of his faith in Christ as the coming Lamb of God, the lamb slain from the foundation of the world? Isn't this how he acted as a "prophet"? If not, then how?

In lieu of all the above evidence, how can you still maintain with any honesty that animal sacrifices were not "from the beginning" and were not instituted and approved by God right "from the beginning"? How could Abel be acting "by faith" in offering up such an animal sacrifice unto God if God had not revealed and approved it as the way to express his faith?

 

This is a debate forum is it not? Is this your response to my response to your question about sacraments?

I am 62 years old and retired. My retirement was forced due to a medical condition of my wife which forced me to come home and take care of her. I do that with joy. Early in the morning before my wife arises, I give time and thought to this forum. I have Bible college and Seminary training plus 40 years of pastoral ministry behind me and so writing and responding comes quite easily for me.

 

:thumbs:........................................

 

:wavey::thumbsup:..............

 

The fact is that salvation does not do away with sin in a person's life (1 Jn. 1:8-10). Self-righteousness is just as evil as getting drunk - both are sin. The difference between the lost and save man is not sin. The difference is their attitude toward sin. The saved man sins more than he wants to and is not able to get away with sin (Heb. 12:5-10) as chastening is inseparable from being a true child of God.

That is actually not how sacramentalists view sacraments. They are viewed as instrumental in conveying actual justifying grace, regeneration and salvation. Absolute proof that this is their ACTUAL view are the scriptures they use to prove that justification, regeneration are connected with sacraments and that justifying grace and regeneration occur IN the act of baptism. If they denied that regeneration and justification occurred IN the act of baptism you might have a point but they do not. Do you?

Again, that is false! The proof it is false is the very scriptures and interpretation of those scriptures they use to justify their view of sacraments. They argue that justifying grace and regeneration are directly connected with such rites and that justification and regeneration occur IN baptism. If they denied that justifying grace and regeneration occurred IN the act of baptism you might have a point but they clearly do not. Do you?

Moreover, it is an act of "good works" on the part of the observer and on part of the administrator.

Even paganism performs its deeds as acts of faithful obedience to their gods. Justification before God is not by faithfulness to God but by faith in God's provisions through the Person and work of Jesus Christ IN OUR BEHALF as comletely SUFFICIENT rather than a JOINT PARTICIPATION with Christ for our salvation (Rom. 4:21).

I have answered this false idea thoroughly in my previous post.

 

I understand Baptist don't believe in sacraments however it doesn't negate the fact that they do believe in some sense what is referred to as sacrament by Orthodox and Catholic.

See you think Catholics and Orthodox believe that certain prayers and rites and rituals work magically. This just isn't true. What both Catholics and Orthodox believe about sacraments is that they are a means of God distributing his grace. Thus when a baptist prays to God; God then interacts with the baptist by hearing and responding to that baptist prayer. Or when a baptist reads the bible and is "blessed" by hearing the word of God as God quickens the "spirit" of the one reading the word. It is that same thinking that we apply to sacraments. The only difference is with the "major sacraments" to speak of them in that way is how we believe scripture has expressed to us how God wants us to interact with him. Thus the outward sign of an inward action of reciept of faith is baptism. The outward sign of the Holy Spirit empowering for service is confirmation. And so on and so forth. Which I believe Anastasia was trying to point out.

See one of the major difference between Baptist and Orthodox/Catholic is that we believe that the entire life of Christ is the model for our life. Now you believe that to a limited extent in that you believe Christ models how we should behave morally. We go beyond that to say that we share in the life of Christ as we see modeled in the Scripture. Therefore when Jesus is baptized in obedience for righteousness sake the Holy Spirit decends and rest upon him so we believe that when we are baptised we share in that experience. When the Holy Spirit decends upon the Apostles for service and to "send them out" at Pentecost we live that out at confirmation. And so it goes with all the sacraments. We are sharing in the life of Christ. The orthodox/catholic also reflect this consept in how they celebrate the life of christ from begining to end each year which is why for us the year begins during advent and ends in Novemeber not with the death and resurrection of Christ but the celebration of the Eschaton and the 2nd advent of Jesus Christ.

 

Please don't tell me what I "think" because that is simply not true. I perfectly understand the Catholic and Orthodox explanation of sacraments and their relationship to justifying grace and regeneration. However, their explanation is simply not Biblical. Regeneration does not occur IN baptism neither does justifying grace occur WITH baptism. Neither occur in connection with baptism (Rom. 4:11).

No it is not! We do not believe that prayer or reading the Bible communicates justifying/regenerating grace. We do not believe that sanctifying grace is synonmous with justification or regeneration nor do we believe sanctifying grace is communicated by means of prayer or reading the scriptures. Sanctifying grace is by God's sovereign good pleasure which may be totally unrelated to any specific act of prayer or reading the scriptures.

This is precisely what Paul repudiates in Romans 4:5-11. The outward sign has no ORGANIC connection with either regeneration or justification. It has no SPIRITUAL connection either. It has only a SYMBOLIC connection.

Yes, but not a model for our salvation as no human being can possibly live out that model either by his own power or the power of the Holy Spirit working in and through him - impossible as that requires sinlessness.

No amount of IMPARTATION by the Holy Spirit short of complete and instant glorification of our life can satisfy God's righteous standard for justification and that simply does not occur until the resurrection. No INCOMPLETED righteousness satisfies God's standard of righteousness for justification. Your soterilogy is simply impossible as well as a complete and total rejection of Christ's atonement.

No you do not! You would have had to be in spiritual union AT THE TIME of that experience to share in it with him. You just as well teach that you share in the experience of being God as to claim such an idea.

What little of the life of Christ we share is NEVER sufficient to justify our own life before God because any life contaiing sin "comes short" of that glory and any life incomplete of sinlessness cannot be justified in His sight for eternal life. You are rejecting Jesus Christ and replacing him with your own life with a little grace sprinkled in.

 

Where Baptists and Sacramentalists are at odds with each other is over a cause versus effect relationship between regeneration/justification and progressive sanctification (good works).

Sacramentalists include the effect within the cause thus destroying the cause and effect relationship. They make regeneration/justification INCLUSIVE with sacraments instead of causual for external obediences.

James recognizes that justified people are regenerated people (James 1:18) and thus all who PROFESS to be justified by faith but are WITHOUT WORKS - meaning NO WORKS have a "DEAD" faith. Faith obtains its LIFE from regeneration or union with God's Spirit and the evidence of such LIFE is "good works" (Eph. 2:10 - "created in Christ Jesus UNTO good works").

It is this confusion, or I should say obliteration by Sacramentalists of cause versus effect, which obliteration is the essence of what the Bible calls "another gospel" as it includes within the cause also the effect thus obliterating any distinction. The gospel or "good news" does not include anything about you except what Christ did "FOR" you (1 Cor. 15:4-5) whereas, the false gospel or another gospel includes what YOU do FOR God - thus robbing the glory of Christ and claiming participation in His finished work in our behalf (Rom. 10:3-8).

 

Well, I would imagine the campaigning has come to an end if had to do with this political election. I was working full time (14 hours a day) and it was frustrating trying to keep up and so I can empathize with your frustration.