HS-Baptism & AI
- Thread starter PAC-fit
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I see, and thanks for explaining.
Sometimes the translation of a word or phrase does make a difference, and sometimes not. Here I believe the difference is important because it helps identify the person of the Trinity performing the action, which, in turn, distinguishes what is actually transpiring.
I refer you to my initial post to see the differences between the baptism WITH the Spirit and the baptism OF the Spirit.
Sometimes the translation of a word or phrase does make a difference, and sometimes not. Here I believe the difference is important because it helps identify the person of the Trinity performing the action, which, in turn, distinguishes what is actually transpiring.
I refer you to my initial post to see the differences between the baptism WITH the Spirit and the baptism OF the Spirit.
I have looked at the semantics over this, haven’t you overrun the fact that it was covered extensively in post 17? For your primary points of ‘’with’’ and ‘’of’’ are contingent on what translation the reader is handling. So, you seem to have posted an opposition to post17 and my placement of Ephesians 1:13 as stated, ‘’the gospel of your salvation’’ as being a welcoming into the Body of Christ but instead, you place it being the Baptism of the Holy Spirit for Power (BHSP)? If you are concerned with accuracy, it doesn’t appear at that point, (salvation / Body of Christ).
Where is post-17 1 John 5:7-8 to be faulted? I thought she was darn accurate! But then, as far as accuracy goes for this thread, I think we can now proceed from your concern, having kept separate the, ‘’Blood’’ and ‘’Spirit’’. Unless you further object, having BHSP as the focal point of the thread, that is, if you are settled on the matter. For as the scriptures point out many times, it’s not a question of semantics, nor as a requirement of ritual, the tradition of the Apostle’s we are committed by God to follow on this occurs many times, each with clear descriptions of what is taking place. Each is different just as Jesus said of the Spirit: The wind blows where it pleases, ,”
BHSP in Acts:
Baptized Acts 1
Baptized Acts 11
Filled Acts 2
Filled Acts 4
Filled Acts 9
Filled Acts 13
Filled Eph 5
Poured Out Acts 2
Poured Out Acts 10
Fell Acts 8
Fell Acts 10
Fell Acts 11
Came On Acts 19
Revieved Acts 8
Revieved Acts 10
Where is post-17 1 John 5:7-8 to be faulted? I thought she was darn accurate! But then, as far as accuracy goes for this thread, I think we can now proceed from your concern, having kept separate the, ‘’Blood’’ and ‘’Spirit’’. Unless you further object, having BHSP as the focal point of the thread, that is, if you are settled on the matter. For as the scriptures point out many times, it’s not a question of semantics, nor as a requirement of ritual, the tradition of the Apostle’s we are committed by God to follow on this occurs many times, each with clear descriptions of what is taking place. Each is different just as Jesus said of the Spirit: The wind blows where it pleases, ,”
BHSP in Acts:
Baptized Acts 1
Baptized Acts 11
Filled Acts 2
Filled Acts 4
Filled Acts 9
Filled Acts 13
Filled Eph 5
Poured Out Acts 2
Poured Out Acts 10
Fell Acts 8
Fell Acts 10
Fell Acts 11
Came On Acts 19
Revieved Acts 8
Revieved Acts 10
For example:
Whereas a person may profess belief and harbor unbelief, they could still get wet through baptism in water. By that act, that person is, ironically, joyfully included among those who insist getting wet is required to go to heaven. Mind you: Baptism in water is important. And it is important for salvation. That salvation is one from the pursuit of our Enemy. The Enemy has no claim against a dead man.
However, the Spirit is not so slack as to immerse someone, unworthy, into the Body of Christ. That's what the Spirit immerses us into: the Body of Christ. He knows our thoughts and heart. He never baptizes unbelievers into the Body of Christ. This baptism is the one that secures our place in Christ. Such an act is never left to the hands of men. When the Spirit places us / immerses us / baptizes us in the Body we are secure in Him, in Christ. This is the salvation that ensures our life is eternal.
We should not be shocked to admit that what passes as the church today includes all kinds of unbelievers. Their doors are wide open to the world. So let's not act surprised to learn that those same unbelievers are often dunked in water and included in the roles of the "saved". The Spirit never baptizes unbelievers into the Body but they'll have a place in the pews, and some in church administration, without contention.
Then you have baptism "with" the Holy Spirit.
In review:
"Of" is by the Spirit's hand.
"With" is by the hand of the Lord.
He, Christ, immerses us into the Spirit. The Baptism with the Spirit is a baptism of power. Power is needed because believers have an enemy who is powerful and because the Lord expresses Himself in power (sometimes). Empowerment from the Lord (by baptism with the Spirit) is the right of all believers and is required to complete their calling.
Sadly, the church has substituted education or study for the spiritual empowerment to teach; or the ability to entertain for the spiritual ability to evangelize. Having a Phd. from a seminary will often qualify a person for church leadership. This is not how the Lord establishes church leaders. No, teaching, evangelism, all gifts, must be empowered by the Spirit by the baptism with the Spirit performed by the Lord.
Now, Jesus never baptized anyone in water before his death or before His ascension so this is not a baptism/immersion that is accompanied by water. This is done from Heaven, by the Lord's hand; the evidence of which is empowerment.
Whereas a person may profess belief and harbor unbelief, they could still get wet through baptism in water. By that act, that person is, ironically, joyfully included among those who insist getting wet is required to go to heaven. Mind you: Baptism in water is important. And it is important for salvation. That salvation is one from the pursuit of our Enemy. The Enemy has no claim against a dead man.
However, the Spirit is not so slack as to immerse someone, unworthy, into the Body of Christ. That's what the Spirit immerses us into: the Body of Christ. He knows our thoughts and heart. He never baptizes unbelievers into the Body of Christ. This baptism is the one that secures our place in Christ. Such an act is never left to the hands of men. When the Spirit places us / immerses us / baptizes us in the Body we are secure in Him, in Christ. This is the salvation that ensures our life is eternal.
We should not be shocked to admit that what passes as the church today includes all kinds of unbelievers. Their doors are wide open to the world. So let's not act surprised to learn that those same unbelievers are often dunked in water and included in the roles of the "saved". The Spirit never baptizes unbelievers into the Body but they'll have a place in the pews, and some in church administration, without contention.
Then you have baptism "with" the Holy Spirit.
In review:
"Of" is by the Spirit's hand.
"With" is by the hand of the Lord.
He, Christ, immerses us into the Spirit. The Baptism with the Spirit is a baptism of power. Power is needed because believers have an enemy who is powerful and because the Lord expresses Himself in power (sometimes). Empowerment from the Lord (by baptism with the Spirit) is the right of all believers and is required to complete their calling.
Sadly, the church has substituted education or study for the spiritual empowerment to teach; or the ability to entertain for the spiritual ability to evangelize. Having a Phd. from a seminary will often qualify a person for church leadership. This is not how the Lord establishes church leaders. No, teaching, evangelism, all gifts, must be empowered by the Spirit by the baptism with the Spirit performed by the Lord.
Now, Jesus never baptized anyone in water before his death or before His ascension so this is not a baptism/immersion that is accompanied by water. This is done from Heaven, by the Lord's hand; the evidence of which is empowerment.
-
1
- Show all
Most all valid points!
Why not? True, He chooses the weak things to do mighty, doesn't necessarily mean the mighty things won't be used such as with what happened to Apollos (Acts 18:26).
The BHSP is power all right, but not just power over the enemy. The Disciples themselves had power over the enemy before the promise of the Spirit (Luke 10:17). His is the glory here to convict and convince among other things. Here we go again, or are you and 'Cameron134' theologians yourselves? I see gave a thumbs up to this, but how unfortunate as the Spirit in fact does nothing on His own, ,
However, when the Spirit of truth comes,
He will guide you into all truth. For He will not
speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears,
and He will declare to you what is to come. He will glorify
Me by taking from what is Mine and disclosing it to you, ,‘’
(John 16:13)
Really, what's going on here? Responses indicate a whole lot of resistance without direct refuting. Have I offended you? Well, if that's all I get is the rabbit hole, then I'll take the complement of apparently being over the target. Me? Only blessings in return.
The BHSP is power all right, but not just power over the enemy. The Disciples themselves had power over the enemy before the promise of the Spirit (Luke 10:17). His is the glory here to convict and convince among other things. Here we go again, or are you and 'Cameron134' theologians yourselves? I see gave a thumbs up to this, but how unfortunate as the Spirit in fact does nothing on His own, ,
However, when the Spirit of truth comes,
He will guide you into all truth. For He will not
speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears,
and He will declare to you what is to come. He will glorify
Me by taking from what is Mine and disclosing it to you, ,‘’
(John 16:13)
Really, what's going on here? Responses indicate a whole lot of resistance without direct refuting. Have I offended you? Well, if that's all I get is the rabbit hole, then I'll take the complement of apparently being over the target. Me? Only blessings in return.
Most all valid points!Why not? True, He chooses the weak things to do mighty, doesn't necessarily mean the mighty things won't be used such as with what happened to Apollos (Acts 18:26).
The BHSP is power all right, but not just power over the enemy. The Disciples themselves had power over the enemy before the promise of the Spirit (Luke 10:17). His is the glory here to convict and convince among other things.Here we go again, or are you and 'Cameron134' theologians yourselves? I see gave a thumbs up to this, but how unfortunate as the Spirit in fact does nothing on His own, ,
However, when the Spirit of truth comes,
He will guide you into all truth. For He will not
speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears,
and He will declare to you what is to come. He will glorify
Me by taking from what is Mine and disclosing it to you, ,‘’
(John 16:13)
Really, what's going on here? Responses indicate a whole lot of resistance without direct refuting. Have I offended you? Well, if that's all I get is the rabbit hole, then I'll take the complement of apparently being over the target. Me? Only blessings in return.
The BHSP is power all right, but not just power over the enemy. The Disciples themselves had power over the enemy before the promise of the Spirit (Luke 10:17). His is the glory here to convict and convince among other things.Here we go again, or are you and 'Cameron134' theologians yourselves? I see gave a thumbs up to this, but how unfortunate as the Spirit in fact does nothing on His own, ,
However, when the Spirit of truth comes,
He will guide you into all truth. For He will not
speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears,
and He will declare to you what is to come. He will glorify
Me by taking from what is Mine and disclosing it to you, ,‘’
(John 16:13)
Really, what's going on here? Responses indicate a whole lot of resistance without direct refuting. Have I offended you? Well, if that's all I get is the rabbit hole, then I'll take the complement of apparently being over the target. Me? Only blessings in return.
It sounds like you have questions about delegation. Question: When someone delegates another to do a certain task, is the one doing the task or the one who delegated the task actually doing the work. The answer is "yes".
Ask questions if you don't understand and I will gladly expound on this.
-
1
- Show all
Correct: all things are done through Christ. He is the template for all creation.
It sounds like you have questions about delegation. Question: When someone delegates another to do a certain task, is the one doing the task or the one who delegated the task actually doing the work. The answer is "yes".
Ask questions if you don't understand and I will gladly expound on this.
It sounds like you have questions about delegation. Question: When someone delegates another to do a certain task, is the one doing the task or the one who delegated the task actually doing the work. The answer is "yes".
Ask questions if you don't understand and I will gladly expound on this.
Ah yes, as we all know, large OR small, the response speaks volumes. Very well, if we can’t agree on earth of something so inconceivable to even speak of the top verse’s intent, then I’ll allow something for the Lord’s heritage, the Body of Christ (BOC) to experience in the dust of the digital, brought to us by the expertise of AI. I’ll set the fictitious parameters for AI to follow the course of strong appeal amongst the strong and very diverse allegiance I’ll refer to as (SECT) to free the captive BOC. This might be interesting.
. . . .
The air in the dimly lit tent crackled with tension. The BHS’ quiet strength belied a sharp intellect in the reserves of the Spirit who sat opposite of the detainer of the nameless intent. Years had passed since the abduction of BOC’s extended family, years of agonizing uncertainty. Now, the moment of truth had arrived. The release of SECTS had been a victory hard-won, a testament to BHS's cunning power, but this… this was different. This was about the BOC, His Bride’s entire family.
“You’ve proven your point,” BHS began, His voice calm and measured, cutting through the heavy silence. “You’ve demonstrated your power, your reach. The world knows you can take what you want. You’ve established yourselves. But what have you gained?”
He paused, letting the question hang in the air. The detainer, with eyes that seemed to see through bone, remained impassive.
“Fear,” BHS continued, answering his own question. “You’ve gained fear. And fear, while potent, is a finite resource. It diminishes with time. People adapt. They rebuild. They learn to live with the shadow of your power, but they no longer cower in its light.”
He leaned forward, his gaze locking with the detainer’s. “You want more than fear. You crave respect. You crave recognition. You want to be seen as more than just having ruthless allegiance. You want to be… wise.”
A flicker of something – perhaps interest, perhaps amusement – crossed the detainer’s face.
“Wise men,” BHS went on, “understand the long game. They understand that true power lies not in taking, but in giving. You have taken much. Now, I offer you the opportunity to give. To give back what you have taken, not as a sign of weakness, but as a demonstration of your ultimate strength.”
He gestured to the empty space beside him. “The world watches. They see you holding these families captive. They see you demanding… what, exactly? What tangible benefit do you gain from their continued division? Nothing. Their captivity serves no strategic purpose. It brings you no resources, no leverage. It only perpetuates the fear, the hidden resentment. It brands you as… bandits.”
BHS’s words hung heavy in the air. He knew he was walking a tightrope, one wrong step and everything would fall apart.
“But imagine,” he said, his voice dropping to a near whisper, “imagine the narrative shift. Imagine the world seeing you, not as takers, but as givers. Imagine the respect you would command, the influence you would wield, if you released these families, not for a ransom, not for a concession, but simply… because it is the right thing to do.”
He met the detainer’s gaze, holding it steady. “You would not lose power. You would gain something far more valuable: legitimacy. You would transform from a feared group into a force to be reckoned with, a force that understands mercy, a force that understands the true meaning of power.”
BHS paused, allowing his words to sink in. He had appealed not to the detainer’s emotions, but to his pragmatism, to his desire for something more than simple fear. He had offered him a chance to rewrite his story, to become something more than a captor, to become… a legend.
The detainer remained silent for a long moment, his eyes fixed on the BHS. Then, a slow smile spread across his face. “You are strong, BHS,” he said, finally, securing the first step to at last agree. “Strong indeed.”
And with those words, the BHS knew that He had won the first step. Not just the release of BOC’s family, but something more. He had planted a seed of doubt in the detainer’s mind, a seed that would, perhaps, one day grow into something resembling… ‘’wisdom’’.
. . . .
The air in the dimly lit tent crackled with tension. The BHS’ quiet strength belied a sharp intellect in the reserves of the Spirit who sat opposite of the detainer of the nameless intent. Years had passed since the abduction of BOC’s extended family, years of agonizing uncertainty. Now, the moment of truth had arrived. The release of SECTS had been a victory hard-won, a testament to BHS's cunning power, but this… this was different. This was about the BOC, His Bride’s entire family.
“You’ve proven your point,” BHS began, His voice calm and measured, cutting through the heavy silence. “You’ve demonstrated your power, your reach. The world knows you can take what you want. You’ve established yourselves. But what have you gained?”
He paused, letting the question hang in the air. The detainer, with eyes that seemed to see through bone, remained impassive.
“Fear,” BHS continued, answering his own question. “You’ve gained fear. And fear, while potent, is a finite resource. It diminishes with time. People adapt. They rebuild. They learn to live with the shadow of your power, but they no longer cower in its light.”
He leaned forward, his gaze locking with the detainer’s. “You want more than fear. You crave respect. You crave recognition. You want to be seen as more than just having ruthless allegiance. You want to be… wise.”
A flicker of something – perhaps interest, perhaps amusement – crossed the detainer’s face.
“Wise men,” BHS went on, “understand the long game. They understand that true power lies not in taking, but in giving. You have taken much. Now, I offer you the opportunity to give. To give back what you have taken, not as a sign of weakness, but as a demonstration of your ultimate strength.”
He gestured to the empty space beside him. “The world watches. They see you holding these families captive. They see you demanding… what, exactly? What tangible benefit do you gain from their continued division? Nothing. Their captivity serves no strategic purpose. It brings you no resources, no leverage. It only perpetuates the fear, the hidden resentment. It brands you as… bandits.”
BHS’s words hung heavy in the air. He knew he was walking a tightrope, one wrong step and everything would fall apart.
“But imagine,” he said, his voice dropping to a near whisper, “imagine the narrative shift. Imagine the world seeing you, not as takers, but as givers. Imagine the respect you would command, the influence you would wield, if you released these families, not for a ransom, not for a concession, but simply… because it is the right thing to do.”
He met the detainer’s gaze, holding it steady. “You would not lose power. You would gain something far more valuable: legitimacy. You would transform from a feared group into a force to be reckoned with, a force that understands mercy, a force that understands the true meaning of power.”
BHS paused, allowing his words to sink in. He had appealed not to the detainer’s emotions, but to his pragmatism, to his desire for something more than simple fear. He had offered him a chance to rewrite his story, to become something more than a captor, to become… a legend.
The detainer remained silent for a long moment, his eyes fixed on the BHS. Then, a slow smile spread across his face. “You are strong, BHS,” he said, finally, securing the first step to at last agree. “Strong indeed.”
And with those words, the BHS knew that He had won the first step. Not just the release of BOC’s family, but something more. He had planted a seed of doubt in the detainer’s mind, a seed that would, perhaps, one day grow into something resembling… ‘’wisdom’’.
To date: the Bond of Unity prefers its own on this matter. ‘Long live’ this spot on the ministry.
Behold, now is “A FAVORABLE TIME,” behold, now is “A DAY OF SALVATION”— giving no reason for
taking offense in anything, so that the ministry will not be discredited, , Our mouth has
spoken freely to you, you [Christians], our heart is opened wide. You are not restrained by us,
but you are restrained in your own affections. Now in the same way in exchange—
I am speaking as to children—open wide your hearts to us, you as well.
(2Cor 6:2,3,11-13, NASB)
taking offense in anything, so that the ministry will not be discredited, , Our mouth has
spoken freely to you, you [Christians], our heart is opened wide. You are not restrained by us,
but you are restrained in your own affections. Now in the same way in exchange—
I am speaking as to children—open wide your hearts to us, you as well.
(2Cor 6:2,3,11-13, NASB)
In another place and time, an Orthodox Priest (Non-CC-member) acquaintance, spoke of the pro and con of divisions as well as what separates each of their given persuasion. But only long enough to offer his perspective of what divisions ail the Body of Christ, for he soon withdrew his contributions of rich knowledge. Though I did enquire why so little visibility from him on that Christian website which has since ceased from the web?
I'll use this as his opener,
“There are three “groupings” of Christianity: Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox. I have made myself thoroughly knowledgeable about every grouping before even speaking a word on this forum or any other. It is disrespectful to even argue with me if you have not seriously looked at the 2000 year old Orthodox Christian position on the matters that we are talking about. I have looked THOROUGHLY at all of the protestant positions. Can you not reciprocate?”
As always, reciprocate only by GW. Though absent, I’ll be presenting his points on this in the near future to be used as reference to what divides the masses. Helpful ways, I hope.
‘’The reason why I have generally stopped posting on virtually every
internet forum is that I feel like a calculus teacher in an arithmetic
class arguing over what a plus sign means. It is too much.’’ – Father Harry
internet forum is that I feel like a calculus teacher in an arithmetic
class arguing over what a plus sign means. It is too much.’’ – Father Harry
I'll use this as his opener,
“There are three “groupings” of Christianity: Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox. I have made myself thoroughly knowledgeable about every grouping before even speaking a word on this forum or any other. It is disrespectful to even argue with me if you have not seriously looked at the 2000 year old Orthodox Christian position on the matters that we are talking about. I have looked THOROUGHLY at all of the protestant positions. Can you not reciprocate?”
As always, reciprocate only by GW. Though absent, I’ll be presenting his points on this in the near future to be used as reference to what divides the masses. Helpful ways, I hope.
-
1
- Show all
To use a modern analogy, i have compared the Orthodox church to the Mac OS in terms of getting viruses.
MacOS doesn't even get negative attention from the hackers because they're a small segment of the market.
But Windows or Catholics and Protestants get all the attention since they're the majority of the market.
Orthodox Church barely has around 200 million people worldwide.
Catholics have 1.2 billion members and Protestants have close to a billion.
I understand the sentiment from that priest, he could have expressed himself better but i get him.
Personally, at this point in my life i don't see 'divisions', i see uniqueness.
'Fights' among denominations can show a bit of immaturity like children in the yard saying "i'm better", but when you think about it even the 'bully' in the yard is trying to please God with his interpretation (if he's being genuine of course) so even he is not being a 'bully' in my view.
Please share some of this priest's views so we can talk about what Biblical points he saw as 'divisive'.
Personally i can tell you right here that all 'divisive' points come from the understanding of Salvation or How can we get into Heaven.
That's like 60% of the talks in this forum which have different angles in approach towards Salvation.
Then comes Revelation and predictions which make about 20% and the rest is conspiracy theory and miscellaneous.
Among this diversity, i still find edifying messages from members who have said interesting things about Salvation and other topics.
So, in my eyes i don't see the whole denomination thing as 'division'.
MacOS doesn't even get negative attention from the hackers because they're a small segment of the market.
But Windows or Catholics and Protestants get all the attention since they're the majority of the market.
Orthodox Church barely has around 200 million people worldwide.
Catholics have 1.2 billion members and Protestants have close to a billion.
I understand the sentiment from that priest, he could have expressed himself better but i get him.
Personally, at this point in my life i don't see 'divisions', i see uniqueness.
'Fights' among denominations can show a bit of immaturity like children in the yard saying "i'm better", but when you think about it even the 'bully' in the yard is trying to please God with his interpretation (if he's being genuine of course) so even he is not being a 'bully' in my view.
Please share some of this priest's views so we can talk about what Biblical points he saw as 'divisive'.
Personally i can tell you right here that all 'divisive' points come from the understanding of Salvation or How can we get into Heaven.
That's like 60% of the talks in this forum which have different angles in approach towards Salvation.
Then comes Revelation and predictions which make about 20% and the rest is conspiracy theory and miscellaneous.
Among this diversity, i still find edifying messages from members who have said interesting things about Salvation and other topics.
So, in my eyes i don't see the whole denomination thing as 'division'.
Another thing i'd like to add is that in the Orthodox church we are okay with Mysteries of God, which in English means "I don't know".
Saying "I don't know" is a more honest position as opposed to saying "i know" and then during discussion your position doesn't hold up during scrutiny.
Other differences is that we don't believe in Sola Scriptura which causes differences with Protestants and we don't believe in the Pope either which causes differences with Catholics.
Saying "I don't know" is a more honest position as opposed to saying "i know" and then during discussion your position doesn't hold up during scrutiny.
Other differences is that we don't believe in Sola Scriptura which causes differences with Protestants and we don't believe in the Pope either which causes differences with Catholics.
Interesting! Looks as though a small variable is at work there between you two. No harm, but back in 2008, things have gotten a little screwy since then. Back then, the only notable splinter was within the RCC's (liberal wing). Shortly after that, the Episcopalism, Lutheranism and Methodism etc. hit rough waters. I'll get to more of his works as I'm one of those low-level on competence tech chart. Just now learning OCR in word to convert his screen shots to text. One related to your above example was this,
"Most posters, and YES, I said most (some of which have admitted it), have not at all researched Orthodox Christianity (the SECOND LARGEST grouping of Christianity in the world) at all, not at all. Yet, they wish to speak of unity. What a joke and insult. There can BE NO DIALOGUE unless you care to at least minimally investigate the point of view of those Who you seek to dialogue with.
Imagine that there was a family dispute, and that one sibling said “we should all just come together, and here is my position.” The other two siblings (older siblings, mind you), say "we have already read your position thoroughly. Here is where we differ." The younger sibling says "waaaa, you do not love me." The older siblings say: "we loved you enough to spend a long time on your position. Have you done so reciprocally?' Younger sibling: waaaa..."
Father Harry liked to remind us that Orthodox and Catholics were NOT to be considered denominations. Only the much younger protestants.
"Most posters, and YES, I said most (some of which have admitted it), have not at all researched Orthodox Christianity (the SECOND LARGEST grouping of Christianity in the world) at all, not at all. Yet, they wish to speak of unity. What a joke and insult. There can BE NO DIALOGUE unless you care to at least minimally investigate the point of view of those Who you seek to dialogue with.
Imagine that there was a family dispute, and that one sibling said “we should all just come together, and here is my position.” The other two siblings (older siblings, mind you), say "we have already read your position thoroughly. Here is where we differ." The younger sibling says "waaaa, you do not love me." The older siblings say: "we loved you enough to spend a long time on your position. Have you done so reciprocally?' Younger sibling: waaaa..."
Father Harry liked to remind us that Orthodox and Catholics were NOT to be considered denominations. Only the much younger protestants.
While i understand what he's saying completely, i think that he is being a bit too idealistic about unity especially since he might or might not consider culture.
I have been going to Protestant churches for decades so i can understand them better.
For me initially it was a huge culture shock. This means that if you're compassionate and able to put yourself in the shoes of the other person, you should realize that for the Protestants, there would be an equal amount of culture shock if you took them to an Orthodox Church and then went through with the liturgy and the traditions.
So, not everyone wants to make this journey to understand the other side better.
I also agree with his view where he says that Catholics are the younger Protestants because they (Catholics) split during the great schism because they wanted a Pope based on what Christ told Peter.
But i am not sure who this Father Harry is but when you get that image converted to OCR please post them here for discussion.
I have been going to Protestant churches for decades so i can understand them better.
For me initially it was a huge culture shock. This means that if you're compassionate and able to put yourself in the shoes of the other person, you should realize that for the Protestants, there would be an equal amount of culture shock if you took them to an Orthodox Church and then went through with the liturgy and the traditions.
So, not everyone wants to make this journey to understand the other side better.
I also agree with his view where he says that Catholics are the younger Protestants because they (Catholics) split during the great schism because they wanted a Pope based on what Christ told Peter.
But i am not sure who this Father Harry is but when you get that image converted to OCR please post them here for discussion.
Precious friend, you mean like this, that "is The Main Divider of the masses"?:
How many traditions of baptisms are there, "for the masses"!???:
1) believe AND be baptized {i.e. immersion to contact their Christ's blood}?
2) immersion with a symbolic interpretation?
3) immersion Once in the "name of Jesus?
4) immersion Thrice in the "name of the Triune Godhead?
5) immersion {whether once or thrice} for "membership" in their traditional assembly?
6) sprinkling water on babies inducting them into religion, washing away their original sin?
7) sprinkling water on babies inducting them into some covenant?
8) sprinkling water on babies inducting them into their parent's custody that they promise to raise them right? { into Mass Confusion? }
9) sprinkling water on babies, admitting that their ritual is UNscriptural, but "we do it anyway, because it is OUR tradition!"?
10) pouring water onto babies or adults for Whatever traditional reason religion "can come up with"?
11) immersion of young and middle-aged women 'similar' to worldly/ungodly 'wet t-shirt' contests?
12) immersion Discriminates Against All "those who Cannot 'obey' this ritual" ie: the
God is Certainly 'Not the author' (1 Corinthians 14:33) of all this "carnal Division"
which is similar to what Paul addresses in (1 Corinthians 1:9-17), Correct?
Why all this Confusion?
When God Simply Teaches In His HOLY Word, Under Grace, There Is ONE And Only!:
ONE [ Spiritual ] Baptism!!
Amen.
How many traditions of baptisms are there, "for the masses"!???:
1) believe AND be baptized {i.e. immersion to contact their Christ's blood}?
2) immersion with a symbolic interpretation?
3) immersion Once in the "name of Jesus?
4) immersion Thrice in the "name of the Triune Godhead?
5) immersion {whether once or thrice} for "membership" in their traditional assembly?
6) sprinkling water on babies inducting them into religion, washing away their original sin?
7) sprinkling water on babies inducting them into some covenant?
8) sprinkling water on babies inducting them into their parent's custody that they promise to raise them right? { into Mass Confusion? }
9) sprinkling water on babies, admitting that their ritual is UNscriptural, but "we do it anyway, because it is OUR tradition!"?
10) pouring water onto babies or adults for Whatever traditional reason religion "can come up with"?
11) immersion of young and middle-aged women 'similar' to worldly/ungodly 'wet t-shirt' contests?
12) immersion Discriminates Against All "those who Cannot 'obey' this ritual" ie: the
hospitalized, the bedridden, the homebound, the invalids, the traumatized, etc.
God is Certainly 'Not the author' (1 Corinthians 14:33) of all this "carnal Division"
which is similar to what Paul addresses in (1 Corinthians 1:9-17), Correct?
Why all this Confusion?
When God Simply Teaches In His HOLY Word, Under Grace, There Is ONE And Only!:
ONE [ Spiritual ] Baptism!!
Amen.
-
1
- Show all
Great post! I guess it's true, in my current assembly of worship (Lutheran), they employ sprinkling of adults as well, but also honor my Baptist's immersion. But, I get your point. I suppose, some of those are quite adamant over their protocol of choice too! So, how far we have come, may we all shudder? We certainly could for having wreaked clearly, so separate of thought. What a classic example!!!!
-
1
- Show all
Orthodox Priest on the Possible Expanse of Unity, July 7, 2009
[Rather than do bulk italicized typography, I'll put F. Harry's content in violet.]
''It is important for people to realize that there is not just "Protestant" and "Catholic," but also that there is "Orthodox," a third perspective that was never tied up in the "Reformation" or "Counter-reformation" so to speak, and that it is my job to make it known. So, I am doing so here. For those unaware of what I am referring to, here is an definition Of the Orthodox Church:
“official name Orthodox Catholic Church one of the three major doctrinal and jurisdictional groups Of Christianity. It is characterized by its continuity with the apostolic church, its liturgy...and has a worship service that is theologically and spiritually rich • (Eastern (Christianity) Britannica Online Encyclopedia).
Orthodox Christianity is neither Roman Catholic nor protestant. It is not a denomination. Denominations came in the protestant reformation, and have been multiplying ever since. I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR that the ONLY ONE OF THE THREE FORMS OF CHRISTIANITY, the youngest form, Protestantism has produced “denominations”, in that this was something that did not exist before the protestant reformation. Some of you judge Roman Catholicism based on a preconceived caricature of it and have never set foot inside a Roman Catholic Church (others of you left, and Of course, I am not referring to you). But most of you, as already mentioned, have not, before this forum, even heard of Orthodoxy, nor did you know that it was distinct from both Protestantism and Roman Catholicism.
It should be said that the following writing Of Timothy Ware may not be as applicable as it once was, in that Roman Catholicism is in the process of rediscovering its ancient eastern roots, and the dialogue between Roman Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity has drawn closer. Nonetheless, it gives the view that Orthodoxy had for centuries on the “Protestant-Catholic” debates:
"'All Protestants are Crypto-Papists,' wrote the Russian theologian Alexis Khomiakov to an English friend in the year 1846. ‘. . . To use concise language Of algebra, all the West knows but one datum a; whether it be preceded by the positive sign + , as with the Romanists, or with the negative sign -, as with the Protestants, the a remains the same. Now a passage to Orthodoxy seems indeed like an apostasy from the past, from its science, creed, and life. It is rushing into a new and unknown world. Khomiakov, when he spoke of the datum a, had in mind the fact western Christians, whether Free Churchmen, Anglicans, or Roman Catholics, have a common background in the past.
All alike (although they may not always care to admit it) have been profoundly influenced by the same events: by the Papal centralization and scholasticism of the Middle Ages, by the Renaissance, by the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. But behind the members of the Orthodox Church-Greeks, Russians, and the rest-there lies a very different background. They have known no middle ages (in the western sense) and have undergone no Reformations or Counter-Reformations. ; that have only been affected in an oblique way by the cultural and religious upheaval which transformed western Europe in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Christians in the west, both Roman and Reformed, generally start by asking the same questions, although they may disagree about the answers.
In Othodoxy, however, it is not merely the answers that are different-the questions themselves are not the same as in the west. Orthodox sees history in another perspective. Consider, for example, the Orthodox attitude toward western religious disputes. In the West it is usual to think of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism as oppostite extremes; but to an Othodox, they appear as two sides of the same coin.” (Ware, The Othodox Church, p.2)
Again, this statement of Khomiakov is certainly less applicable today, as T. Ware later points out that' Orthodoxy has in the recent past (first part of the 20th century) had a very cordial relationship with Anglicanism, and also has, in the even more recent past, found very much common ground with Roman Catholicism, as the two have drawn especially close in the past decades as Roman Catholicism has been rediscovering both its ancient roots in the east and west, and the two have been in very cordial and open dialogue, discovering less differences in thinking than what was previously thought. Nonetheless, Orthodoxy also sympathizes with the Protestant Reformation on a few points. Much of the Reformation came about because of innovations of the Roman Church such as indulgences, the "temporal fires" of purgatory, limbo, papal infallibility, the de-emphasis on Scripture (for a time, but NOT applicable today) etc. [note, to be fair, from the Orth. point of view they are innovations, from the Roman
Catholic point of view they are doctrinal developments]. However, also to be fair, we must acknowledge that Rome also has some of the same sympathies for the past.''
[Rather than do bulk italicized typography, I'll put F. Harry's content in violet.]
''It is important for people to realize that there is not just "Protestant" and "Catholic," but also that there is "Orthodox," a third perspective that was never tied up in the "Reformation" or "Counter-reformation" so to speak, and that it is my job to make it known. So, I am doing so here. For those unaware of what I am referring to, here is an definition Of the Orthodox Church:
“official name Orthodox Catholic Church one of the three major doctrinal and jurisdictional groups Of Christianity. It is characterized by its continuity with the apostolic church, its liturgy...and has a worship service that is theologically and spiritually rich • (Eastern (Christianity) Britannica Online Encyclopedia).
Orthodox Christianity is neither Roman Catholic nor protestant. It is not a denomination. Denominations came in the protestant reformation, and have been multiplying ever since. I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR that the ONLY ONE OF THE THREE FORMS OF CHRISTIANITY, the youngest form, Protestantism has produced “denominations”, in that this was something that did not exist before the protestant reformation. Some of you judge Roman Catholicism based on a preconceived caricature of it and have never set foot inside a Roman Catholic Church (others of you left, and Of course, I am not referring to you). But most of you, as already mentioned, have not, before this forum, even heard of Orthodoxy, nor did you know that it was distinct from both Protestantism and Roman Catholicism.
It should be said that the following writing Of Timothy Ware may not be as applicable as it once was, in that Roman Catholicism is in the process of rediscovering its ancient eastern roots, and the dialogue between Roman Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity has drawn closer. Nonetheless, it gives the view that Orthodoxy had for centuries on the “Protestant-Catholic” debates:
"'All Protestants are Crypto-Papists,' wrote the Russian theologian Alexis Khomiakov to an English friend in the year 1846. ‘. . . To use concise language Of algebra, all the West knows but one datum a; whether it be preceded by the positive sign + , as with the Romanists, or with the negative sign -, as with the Protestants, the a remains the same. Now a passage to Orthodoxy seems indeed like an apostasy from the past, from its science, creed, and life. It is rushing into a new and unknown world. Khomiakov, when he spoke of the datum a, had in mind the fact western Christians, whether Free Churchmen, Anglicans, or Roman Catholics, have a common background in the past.
All alike (although they may not always care to admit it) have been profoundly influenced by the same events: by the Papal centralization and scholasticism of the Middle Ages, by the Renaissance, by the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. But behind the members of the Orthodox Church-Greeks, Russians, and the rest-there lies a very different background. They have known no middle ages (in the western sense) and have undergone no Reformations or Counter-Reformations. ; that have only been affected in an oblique way by the cultural and religious upheaval which transformed western Europe in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Christians in the west, both Roman and Reformed, generally start by asking the same questions, although they may disagree about the answers.
In Othodoxy, however, it is not merely the answers that are different-the questions themselves are not the same as in the west. Orthodox sees history in another perspective. Consider, for example, the Orthodox attitude toward western religious disputes. In the West it is usual to think of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism as oppostite extremes; but to an Othodox, they appear as two sides of the same coin.” (Ware, The Othodox Church, p.2)
Again, this statement of Khomiakov is certainly less applicable today, as T. Ware later points out that' Orthodoxy has in the recent past (first part of the 20th century) had a very cordial relationship with Anglicanism, and also has, in the even more recent past, found very much common ground with Roman Catholicism, as the two have drawn especially close in the past decades as Roman Catholicism has been rediscovering both its ancient roots in the east and west, and the two have been in very cordial and open dialogue, discovering less differences in thinking than what was previously thought. Nonetheless, Orthodoxy also sympathizes with the Protestant Reformation on a few points. Much of the Reformation came about because of innovations of the Roman Church such as indulgences, the "temporal fires" of purgatory, limbo, papal infallibility, the de-emphasis on Scripture (for a time, but NOT applicable today) etc. [note, to be fair, from the Orth. point of view they are innovations, from the Roman
Catholic point of view they are doctrinal developments]. However, also to be fair, we must acknowledge that Rome also has some of the same sympathies for the past.''
-
1
- Show all
Orthodox Priest on the Possible Expanse of Unity
“But once again we return to a difference on approach. Although Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism have much in common, from an Orthodox perspective, Protestantism and Roman Catholicism have far more in common with each other than what they think: The very thing that Orthodoxy finds objectionable to the "new dogma" of the "immaculate conception" is the only thing that Protestants would agree with about the dogma: Original Sin. For the Christian East, original sin has never been about a transferred "guilt" of Adam, but rather about a transferred corruption and death of the sin of Adam. From the Orthodox point of view, a baby is not guilty of Adam's sin, but does inherit the “original" or "ancestral" sin, that is, death and corruption, and thus a tendency toward personal sin. The Creed of Nicea-ConstantinopIe speaks of "one baptism for the remission of sins." For Orthodox, there is a clear distinction between forgiveness and remission. The inherited ancestral sin requires remission (such as the remission of cancer), whereas personal sin requires both forgiveness and remission; forgiveness is found in repentance, remission in union With God.
I myself have made a long journey, but one that brought me full circle. I believe that we must take a deeper look to be able to find ourselves in a place of reversing the divisions. I therefore urge all of you who despise denominationalism, and have only known Protestantism or groups with a post reformation history (historically speaking) to take a closer look, without the prejudices of the past, without your "baggage" of preconceived notions or emotions against what you heretofore understood as "church," to look at those other two forms of Christianity that predate denominationalism: Orthodox Christianity and Roman Catholicism. l, of course, believe firmly in Orthodoxy, but I also find it to be good to be knowledgeable about the whole picture of Christianity and Christian history, about the good things not only of Orthodoxy but also of Roman Catholicism that perhaps you did not know, and to make an informed decision about where one is rather than just being complacently ignorant of the possible road that the Lord has set before you. I also believe that that gaps of the past are closing between the two, in that we are learning to see more of each Other in each other.
In order to reverse the divisions of the past, we have to not look at creating a new thing, but on getting back to the well-founded thing that existed right from the beginning. The only way to do that is to look honestly at the newly created doctrines of the past several centuries invented by individuals that have resulted in yet further denominationalist divisions and individualist separations; to look at some of the valid things said by some, but to reject the innovated garbage Which sounds nice but distracts us from the otherwise true teachings that many now misunderstand (or reject under false pretenses or misunderstandings), that were held by the undivided Church in the first millennium. For those of you who find yourselves rebels to the end, although you may be nice people, this may not be the website for you.
You have considered the "what if those are wrong." But I ask you to ask yourselves, "what if one of these are right? What am I doing about it?"
“But once again we return to a difference on approach. Although Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism have much in common, from an Orthodox perspective, Protestantism and Roman Catholicism have far more in common with each other than what they think: The very thing that Orthodoxy finds objectionable to the "new dogma" of the "immaculate conception" is the only thing that Protestants would agree with about the dogma: Original Sin. For the Christian East, original sin has never been about a transferred "guilt" of Adam, but rather about a transferred corruption and death of the sin of Adam. From the Orthodox point of view, a baby is not guilty of Adam's sin, but does inherit the “original" or "ancestral" sin, that is, death and corruption, and thus a tendency toward personal sin. The Creed of Nicea-ConstantinopIe speaks of "one baptism for the remission of sins." For Orthodox, there is a clear distinction between forgiveness and remission. The inherited ancestral sin requires remission (such as the remission of cancer), whereas personal sin requires both forgiveness and remission; forgiveness is found in repentance, remission in union With God.
I myself have made a long journey, but one that brought me full circle. I believe that we must take a deeper look to be able to find ourselves in a place of reversing the divisions. I therefore urge all of you who despise denominationalism, and have only known Protestantism or groups with a post reformation history (historically speaking) to take a closer look, without the prejudices of the past, without your "baggage" of preconceived notions or emotions against what you heretofore understood as "church," to look at those other two forms of Christianity that predate denominationalism: Orthodox Christianity and Roman Catholicism. l, of course, believe firmly in Orthodoxy, but I also find it to be good to be knowledgeable about the whole picture of Christianity and Christian history, about the good things not only of Orthodoxy but also of Roman Catholicism that perhaps you did not know, and to make an informed decision about where one is rather than just being complacently ignorant of the possible road that the Lord has set before you. I also believe that that gaps of the past are closing between the two, in that we are learning to see more of each Other in each other.
In order to reverse the divisions of the past, we have to not look at creating a new thing, but on getting back to the well-founded thing that existed right from the beginning. The only way to do that is to look honestly at the newly created doctrines of the past several centuries invented by individuals that have resulted in yet further denominationalist divisions and individualist separations; to look at some of the valid things said by some, but to reject the innovated garbage Which sounds nice but distracts us from the otherwise true teachings that many now misunderstand (or reject under false pretenses or misunderstandings), that were held by the undivided Church in the first millennium. For those of you who find yourselves rebels to the end, although you may be nice people, this may not be the website for you.
You have considered the "what if those are wrong." But I ask you to ask yourselves, "what if one of these are right? What am I doing about it?"
-
1
- Show all