Apostasy from true Christianity

Author: Mopac
Orthodox survival course

Posts

Total: 193
Topic's author
#151
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Tradesecret
There has never been a period of church history without controversy. Nothing unusual here.

The Roman Catholics have been trying to force reunion for centuries. It won't work. Not as long as they cling to their heresies.

The problem here is you aren't arguing from an honest position. You yourself desire no union with Rome, even less so with us. Union with Rome couldn't happen without compromising the truth. It is the same with union with protestants. 

If we were to do as you suggest, the church would cease to exist. 

Could you do me a favor and crunch everything you are saying to a few points rather than dumping so much all at once? Short posts are better. Thanks.


 
#152
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Mopac
There has never been a period of church history without controversy. Nothing unusual here.
Agreed. But not an excuse is it? 

The Roman Catholics have been trying to force reunion for centuries. It won't work. Not as long as they cling to their heresies.
I would think it is a good thing to try and reconcile. Don't you?  And there needs to be dialogues to determine where the heresy is? 

The problem here is you aren't arguing from an honest position. You yourself desire no union with Rome, even less so with us. Union with Rome couldn't happen without compromising the truth. It is the same with union with protestants. 
Sorry but that untrue.  I am concerned for the integrity of the whole church.  I desire a reunion with all churches, so far as it is true reconciliation and not simply words which have no meaning. For example - the Orthodox Church not meaning it when it says that the anathemas are torn up.  And I actually think the Protestants have more in common with the OC than they do with the RC.  I certainly have no desire to compromise the truth. But that works both ways. The OC needs to stop compromising if it wants to have any credibility. Or it needs to repent of its sin. 

If we were to do as you suggest, the church would cease to exist. 
On the contrary, the Church would not cease to exist.  As I indicated before, the two choices are either stop compromising, get out of the WWC and excommunicate the church of Constantinople or repent of your sins. Two ways. Standing in the middle like you are now - is to minimise sin.  That is the only sure way to ensure that church will cease.  




Topic's author
#153
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Tradesecret
The Orthodox involvement in the WCC is not intended to legitimize these churches. There is plenty written on this subject within the church.

The controversy is about bad ecumenism. That is, when legitimacy IS given to these churches. Our involvement is moreso intended to act as a way to introduce The Church to these churches who are largely ignorant of it.

Since the founding of the WCC, the prevailing view is that these meetings are mostly unproductive. The reason? The heretical churches want legitimacy. We can't do that, because to do that would be to compromise the truth.

As long as the pope of Rome holds to this view of Papal supremacy, reunification will not be possible. Don't get it backwards, the pope who makes himself king of all Christendom cannot in any way engage us with humility. That is why even contemporary saints have refused to even speak with him until he humbles himself.





Topic's author
#154
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Tradesecret
I would think it is a good thing to try and reconcile. Don't you?  And there needs to be dialogues to determine where the heresy is? 
We already know where the heresy is. Make no mistake, we would love to reconcile. It has been a constant effort from the start. However, we can't compromise the faith that was handed to us from the start.

I am concerned for the integrity of the whole church.  I desire a reunion with all churches, so far as it is true reconciliation and not simply words which have no meaning. For example - the Orthodox Church not meaning it when it says that the anathemas are torn up.
The actions of one bishop do not constitute the view of the church. We desire unity too, but that will only happen when people abandon their heretical churches and join the real one.
 
As I indicated before, the two choices are either stop compromising, get out of the WWC and excommunicate the church of Constantinople or repent of your sins. Two ways. Standing in the middle like you are now - is to minimise sin.  That is the only sure way to ensure that church will cease.  
Bishops don't tend to throw around anathemas and excommunications haphazardly. The church moves slowly. Lleaves room for repentence.

The Patriarch of Moscow and The Patriarch of Constantinople are currently not in communion.
#155
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Mopac
The Orthodox involvement in the WCC is not intended to legitimize these churches. There is plenty written on this subject within the church.
Whatever the OC intends by its involvement is anyone's guess.  Every church I suppose has its own agenda for joining the WCC.  Every church writes volumes on the reasons for its involvement in the WCC.  The point is however that any church joining the WCC legitimizes every other church by its mere presence.  It is a World council of churches per se - and the only way any church is able to join is with the express agreement that every other church is legitimate. If a church does not agree that any or every other church on the WCC is legitimate, then it would not join.  Again, how many OC families are within the WCC? It simply is a fraud to be a full member on the WCC and deny that any other church is legitimate. 

The controversy is about bad ecumenism. That is, when legitimacy IS given to these churches. Our involvement is moreso intended to act as a way to introduce The Church to these churches who are largely ignorant of it.
The OC involvement might have such an intended manner - but don't be fooled. Every other church is also introducing itself to the OC and its adherents.  And whether the controversy is about bad ecumenism is really beside the point because the OC is engaged in ecumenism. As such the OC is also operating in bad faith. On one hand it says every other church is legitimate and on the other hand they are saying they are the only true church and every other church is heretical.  Bad faith and hypocritical. And deceitful. It is shameful - and I cannot think why you think this is acceptable. 

Since the founding of the WCC, the prevailing view is that these meetings are mostly unproductive. The reason? The heretical churches want legitimacy. We can't do that, because to do that would be to compromise the truth.
I think that its engagement and continuing with the WCC is not about other church's seeking legitimacy. There seems almost a sense of the OC wanting to seek its own legitimacy. Certainly it wants its cake and to eat it as well.  Too late, you have compromised.  And if you cannot see this - then you are continuing in blindness. 

As long as the pope of Rome holds to this view of Papal supremacy, reunification will not be possible. Don't get it backwards, the pope who makes himself king of all Christendom cannot in any way engage us with humility. That is why even contemporary saints have refused to even speak with him until he humbles himself.
I can still adhere to the view that the Roman Church is a legitimate church even though I disagree completely with its error in relation to Papal supremacy.  There is no reason why the OC could not humble itself recognizing the Roman Church as legitimate, and also refuse its authority over them.  There is no reason that it the OC cannot continue to act exactly as it is now - each church within its jurisdiction with separate authority but part of the One Church.  Given the things we have discussed today in relation to Constantinople and other OC - most other jurisdictions from your position consider it appropriate to remain in communion with Constantinople yet disagree with its position on the papacy. This is a precedent which enables the OC to reconcile with the Papacy and not be subject to its errors in papacy. 

The pope might well say he is the king of the Church.  So what? He has no authority over me or my congregation.  Yet this does not mean that his is an illegitimate church. Just as yours is still legitimate despite the fact that I think you practice a works based salvation. 

I also reject your view that the pope is unable to demonstrate humility. The mutual position where both the pope and the patriarch expressed regret and tore up documents of anathema on both sides is humiliation for both sides.  This was engagement in humility.  Why is it that you cannot see this? He expressed that the church had got it wrong. This was the point of the ceremony. 

I think rather it seems as though the OC - at least those parts not associated with an attempt to reconcile are the ones with the problem of pride.  Unable to come to the table to reconcile and admit the possibility of being wrong. It is shameful to remain in such unforgiveness - and to continue to have communion. 


#156
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Mopac
I would think it is a good thing to try and reconcile. Don't you?  And there needs to be dialogues to determine where the heresy is? 
We already know where the heresy is. Make no mistake, we would love to reconcile. It has been a constant effort from the start. However, we can't compromise the faith that was handed to us from the start.
Yes you might know where it is. But the Romans don't accept this as true.  Dialogue means talking it through. Not coming with unrealistic expectations. You need to remember that the RC does not wish to compromise either.  True humility does not commence with thinking you are correct. It starts with serving others. Like Jesus when he washed his disciples feet. 

I am concerned for the integrity of the whole church.  I desire a reunion with all churches, so far as it is true reconciliation and not simply words which have no meaning. For example - the Orthodox Church not meaning it when it says that the anathemas are torn up.
The actions of one bishop do not constitute the view of the church. We desire unity too, but that will only happen when people abandon their heretical churches and join the real one.
 No, but they constitute what some parts of the church are saying. And not to recognize this is to cut off a leg or an arm. I hear you say you desire unity - but there is no evidence to support this from you. When your patriarch attempted towards unity - you call him controversial. This is nonsense. 


As I indicated before, the two choices are either stop compromising, get out of the WWC and excommunicate the church of Constantinople or repent of your sins. Two ways. Standing in the middle like you are now - is to minimise sin.  That is the only sure way to ensure that church will cease.  
Bishops don't tend to throw around anathemas and excommunications haphazardly. The church moves slowly. Lleaves room for repentence.

The Patriarch of Moscow and The Patriarch of Constantinople are currently not in communion.
Yes. I can accept that.  Yet it does not mean that Bishops cannot get it wrong. Nor that they should re-examine what occurred in the first place.  Remember repentance is not just going to happen willy nilly. It sometimes needs to be pointed out in a discussion. 

If the Patriarch of Moscow is not in communion with Constantinople - that demonstrates that the OC is not united but divided. Is your jurisdiction in communion with both Moscow and Constantinople? And if so - how does that work? And if not, with whom are you not in communion with and with whom are you not in communion with and why? 

It seems to me the more we get into understanding your church - that it is more and more divided and inconsistent. What about the American Jurisdiction? Is it communion with Constantinople and with Moscow?



Topic's author
#157
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Tradesecret
Excuse me, I know you protestants love to deliver long sermons(having even replaced your altars with the lecturer's podium), but I am not interested in reading through your long broken up tirades to get to the crux of what you are saying.

Stop breaking up my posts into pieces please. Make it shorter. Make a point or two at most. It is overwhelming for me to have to hold several conversations at once. 

What am I getting out of what you are saying? That you have judged the church. Even unfairly so.

Of course we can't be one. We don't share the same faith. Union with your church is just as abominable as having union with Aryans or Nestorians. It's no exageration. If you want unity, if you want to end the schisms, do it the right way. Become orthodox. We aren't going to compromise. If a few renegade bishops betray the church, in the end they will be rejected. 

I certainly could not return to my own vomit and become a protestant. It's orthodox or nothing for me.
#158
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Mopac
Excuse me, I know you protestants love to deliver long sermons(having even replaced your altars with the lecturer's podium), but I am not interested in reading through your long broken up tirades to get to the crux of what you are saying.

Stop breaking up my posts into pieces please. Make it shorter. Make a point or two at most. It is overwhelming for me to have to hold several conversations at once. 

What am I getting out of what you are saying? That you have judged the church. Even unfairly so.

Of course we can't be one. We don't share the same faith. Union with your church is just as abominable as having union with Aryans or Nestorians. It's no exageration. If you want unity, if you want to end the schisms, do it the right way. Become orthodox. We aren't going to compromise. If a few renegade bishops betray the church, in the end they will be rejected. 

I certainly could not return to my own vomit and become a protestant. It's orthodox or nothing for me.

I am not judging your church. I am simply pointing out that what you say about it is that it is divided and not divided.  You seem to criticize everyone - including your own Bishops.  You are the one who wants to stay separate. I have not asked you to compromise. I have not asked you to become protestant.  You say your renegade bishops will be rejected. When? Is your church in communion with both Constantinople and with Moscow? 
Topic's author
#159
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
I legitimately find your idea of unity offensive. You clearly don't understand the implications of this false unity for unity sake.

Union with Rome! What a joke. I wonder what Calvin would think?

Not really. No other reformer in the protestant movement has so thoroughly had their teachings deemed heretical as John Calvin. Like hell we'd join up with churches that still point to this man as if he were some great theologian.
Topic's author
#160
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Tradesecret
My church is in communion with both Moscow and Constantinople. Most churches are. The bishops as I said are prudent about these things.

I guarantee that if he actually made a false union with Rome, he would be rejected. Even if all the bishops betrayed the church but one, we will have another St Mark of Ephesus!

The gates of hell will not overcome the church.
Topic's author
#161
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
"It is impossible to recall peace without dissolving the cause of the schism— the primacy of the Pope exalting himself equal to God." ~ St Mark of Ephesus
#162
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Mopac
I legitimately find your idea of unity offensive. You clearly don't understand the implications of this false unity for unity sake.

Union with Rome! What a joke. I wonder what Calvin would think?

Not really. No other reformer in the protestant movement has so thoroughly had their teachings deemed heretical as John Calvin. Like hell we'd join up with churches that still point to this man as if he were some great theologian.
I am not trying to be offensive. Nor am I saying that you should unite for the sake of unity over and above truth. I have said this several times. 

I however do find your consideration that union with Rome at all - offensive and robs the cross of its power.  Calvin was never opposed to the Roman Church being reformed. Hence upon the right circumstances he would have united. His heart was towards forgiveness - not division. 

Calvin was a godly man.  He was a true pastor in God's church.  His doctrines were in complete accordance with Augustine. If Calvin was a heretic so was Augustine. Yet even the Roman Church nor the OC threw Augustine out. Or Athanasius, another wonderful student whom the Reformers embraced fondly. 
Topic's author
#163
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Tradesecret
I have been consistant from the start.

Unity with Rome can only happen when they abandon their heresies. As long as they hold this doctrine of Papal Supremacy in particular, it is impossible.


#164
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Mopac
My church is in communion with both Moscow and Constantinople. Most churches are. The bishops as I said are prudent about these things.

I guarantee that if he actually made a false union with Rome, he would be rejected. Even if all the bishops betrayed the church but one, we will have another St Mark of Ephesus!

The gates of hell will not overcome the church.
Interesting. You seem to agree with Moscow's position to not be in communion with Constantinople. Yet your own church remains in communion with two churches which are not in communion. How do you really justify such a hypocritical stance? SO prudence - which is really another word for compromise does have a line in a sand.  You talk with a double forked tongue when you talk of unity.  Constantinople is no longer in excommunication with Rome. Rome no longer is excommunicated. This is the fact. It is not reconciliation. Moscow has excommunicated Constantinople.  Yet your church remains united to both - and so unity (or prudence) as you might put gives way to truth. 

By the way- gates defend. and gates are a place of wisdom or where the elders hang out.  The Gates of Hell not prevailing is not a picture of Satan attacking the church - it is the church attacking the Gates of Hell.  The Church will prevail over Satan and will storm the gates of Hell.  In all of its defenses and all of its wisdom. 

But you have lost me as a potential convert to the OC. You have demonstrated that the OC is no different to any other congregation that says one thing - no unity and yet will compromise on unity with prudence.  You reject Rome because you refuse to compromise - and yet you accept Constantinople out of prudence - a significant compromise - and clearly witnessed by a truer church - Moscow. 

In other words, Moscow has demonstrated integrity by not compromising. Not your church. Even Constantinople demonstrates greater integrity than your church by understanding that reconciliation is worth pursuing.  Yet your church - cannot figure out whether it is hot or cold.  Prudence???? 
#165
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Mopac
I have been consistant from the start.

Unity with Rome can only happen when they abandon their heresies. As long as they hold this doctrine of Papal Supremacy in particular, it is impossible.
What about unity with Constantinople? Are you happy to remain in communion with them despite their agreement to dispense with the disunity? 

By remaining in communion with Constantinople you give credence to his position in respect of Rome. Moscow refused to compromise and to remain compromised. 

But your church out of "prudence" has compromised.   

I wonder how much longer Moscow will tolerate your church's stance on compromise?  
Topic's author
#166
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Tradesecret
Blessed Augustine was the first church father I studied in depth. The church I spent the most time in at the time was a Calvinist one even.

I believe Calvin interpreted St Augustine wrong. That the big take away for me.

I was really interested in patristics. In the end, this prepared me to accept Orthodoxy.

St Athansius' "On The Incarnation" is practically required catechuman reading.


Topic's author
#167
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Tradesecret
You don't really understand how our church works. It's not really any of your business either.

We all have the same doctrine. We all have the same liturgy. There is a great deal more unity in the church than you think. At the same time, there is plenty of room for varying viewpoints.

Guess what? If someone from Constantinople visited Russia to take communion, they would be accepted just fine. 
#168
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Mopac
Blessed Augustine was the first church father I studied in depth. The church I spent the most time in at the time was a Calvinist one even.

I believe Calvin interpreted St Augustine wrong. That the big take away for me.

I was really interested in patristics. In the end, this prepared me to accept Orthodoxy.

St Athansius' "On The Incarnation" is practically required catechuman reading.

I am pleased you attended a Calvinist Church. Your understanding of Calvinism however seems deficient. 

Because of your deficiency of Calvin's doctrines it is difficult for me to agree with you that Calvin interpreted Augustine wrong. If your doctrines in respect of Calvin were right or accurately presented his position, then you would have more credibility in saying Calvin misunderstood Augustine. That is a big take away for me. 

Athanasius ought to be required reading for any seminary student.  He, like Augustine, and Calvin share common theology. This is why in reformed colleges Augustine, Athanasius, and other early church fathers of both East and West are required reading.  We do not shy away from their teaching - we embrace it. It is incorrect to suggest that Reformed colleges do not teach early church history. It is absolutely required for a reformed position to try and not repeat the errors of the past, but to learn from it.  
Topic's author
#169
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Tradesecret
I never considered myself a Calvinist.

As the church has deemed his teachings heretical, I have no good reason to study Calvin further. 

#170
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Mopac
I never considered myself a Calvinist.

As the church has deemed his teachings heretical, I have no good reason to study Calvin further. 
So how can you in good faith suggest Calvin interpreted Augustine wrong? 

That is nothing short of slander. 
Topic's author
#171
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Tradesecret
By the canons of the 3rd ecumenical council, Calvin is a heretic for refusing to call Mary theotokos, or mother of God.

By the canons of the 6th ecumenical council, Calvin is a heretic for teaching monoenergism.

By the canons of the 7th ecumenical council, Calvin is a heretic for his iconoclasm.


#172
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
I do  understand Orthodoxy. I studied and was tutored by academics, scholars, and priests and fathers from the Orthodox Church. 
Which ones?


Topic's author
#173
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Tradesecret
"At the Lord's table we do not commemorate martyrs in the same way that we do others who rest in peace so as to pray for them, but rather that they may pray for us that we may follow in their footsteps." ~ St Augustine

John Calvin certainly didn't agree with blessed Augustine's view on asking the saints to pray for us.

But all of this is truly irrelevent anyway. In the west, a great overemphasis was put on blessed Augustine. As if he was the supreme authority! We certainly have a more balanced approach. We do not elevate any one saint to such an extent that the west did with blessed Augustine. Not everything blessed Augustine wrote was accepted. He himself wrote retractions.

St Augustine himself was a man who was loyal to The Church. Calvinists, finding themselves cut off from the church, had to invent a new ecclesiology to justify themselves. That is why John Calvin rejected apostolic succession, something St Augustine certainly accepted as proven by his writings and even by the fact that he himself was a carrier of the torch of apostolic succession!





#174
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Mopac
By the canons of the 2nd ecumenical council, Calvin is a heretic for refusing to call Mary theotokos, or mother of God.

By the canons of the 6th ecumenical council, Calvin is a heretic for teaching monenergism.

By the canons of the 7th ecumenical council, Calvin is a heretic for his iconoclasm.

Your statements are wrong on so many levels. Firstly, just to be clear, Calvin was not specifically declared a heretic by any of these councils.  Each council occurred almost a 100 years prior to Calvin. 

Secondly, the term for Mary, is misleading.  This was what Nestorious attempted to explain in the first place.  Theo - meaning God and Tokos - meaning bearer.  Mary unhelpfully has almost been deified by both the OC and the RC.  She is the most blessed woman in history, to give birth to the Incarnate God.  This can never be taken away from her. And she deserves all honor and respect. But she should never be deified. She is not God. And she should not worshiped.   I for the record have no issue with the notion that Mary was the mother of the Incarnate God, Jesus. But what is misleading is to use the general term God, which may refer to Trinity. Mary is NOT the mother of the Trinity. 

I think the term "bearer" is more appropriate than the term "Mother". Tokos does not mean mother.  The OC and the RC have both given to Mary "attributes" well above what the Scriptures give to her. They suggest that their reverence for her is their intent. Yet, to pray to Mary or to any of the saints lifts them to a position of deity.  Saints in Heaven do not work independently to God.  Praying to Mary or any of the Saints attribute to them omniscience. How can any one human, even in heaven, hear more than one prayer at at time? Yet millions of people pray to Mary simultaneously. This is nonsense. And why anyone would pray to Mary or any of the Saints and not to God is absurd. Why go to second best or third best when the Best is available and willing to assist?

Furthermore, suggestions that she remained a virgin for her entire life are inconsistent with the Scriptures, firstly in respect to the fact that James is clearly her child. Secondly, for Jesus to be the Son of David, required a marriage to take place between Mary and Joseph. A marriage is not a real marriage without consummation. If Mary remained a virgin, then her marriage was not never consummated, meaning it was a fake marriage.  Not only is this suggestion suggesting God is fraudulent, but that it was not a real marriage, but ultimately means that Jesus would be unable lawfully to claim to be the Son of David.  The implications are significant when we move away from Scripture to embrace a nonsense doctrine. 

In relation to your false assertion that Calvin was a  guilty of monoenergism. This is untrue. Calvin agreed with the ruling of that council in relation to the heresy of monoenegism. That doctrine related to the will of Christ. You are however mistaking this heresy with Calvin's view in relation to the work of the Spirit which is labled Monergism.  Admittedly they are very close in spelling and it is easy to see why you made a mistake in one sense.  Yet, they are quite different and the fact that you chose to use this - provides a hint of your dislike for him. You would prefer to see him in the worst light, rather than seeing him as made in the image of God.   It seems you have simply picked up a textbook somewhere and believed it without checking the sources or the truth of the matter. One can only imagine that if this is an example of how you research, the conclusions you reach are probably also reached in a similar way. 

Iconoclasm is something that Calvin would have been. Yet I find it difficult to know why this particular view would cause someone to be labeled a heretic. I would think that the Orthodox position on Jesus not being capable of being the Son of David is a much more significant heresy.  Cavin as all Reformers hold to what is called the Regulative Principle of Worship.  This they believe is derived from the Scriptures and for my part it is clearly true. Luther on the other hand, like the Roman Catholics and OC held to what is called the Normative Principle of Worship. This is why Luther in line with the RC and the OC and indeed every other Christian denomination and sect hold too - they can each see icons and other religious relics as part and parcel of worship in the church.  The difference however is quite stark and I might add one of the significant reasons that I am reformed in Worship.  And essentially why it would be impossible for me to become a member in a non-reformed church. 

The Regulative Principle of Worship stipulates that not all worship is correct worship or acceptable to God. The story of Cain and Abel illustrates that well enough. Similarly David's attempt to bring the Arc of the Covenant in a non- proper method brought swift judgment to those carrying the Arc even when they sincerely attempted to protect it from falling over.  For the Reformed position - the ends do not justify the means. Yet it also a clear continuity with the OT and ancient practices. We worship God in the way God wants us to worship him, not in the way that want too. 

The regulative principle in crude terms means that "unless the Bible commands it, it is forbidden. 
The normative principle in crude terms means that "unless the Bible forbids it, it is permissible. 

Obviously the two are quite stark in contrast. The second is used by Charismatics to worship God by bringing in wrestlers into the church building and to use coke and mars bars for holy Communion. The first would be able to denounce both of those forms of worship.  The second Icons are not commanded in the Bible. Hence to utilize them in worship is for the reformed person, forbidden and directly moves towards not just veneration - but idolatry. 

It is my view and that of the Reformers that it is the usage of the normative principle - that has created the schisms around the world. When people think that they can worship God in any way they like - it is bound to create diverse opinions about what that looks like. And so far as the bible does not forbid - then they will continue to spread. The OC holds to this principle. Only the Reformed Churches hold to the regulative principle, the other churches abandoning the ancient practices of worship. 

I would add that Calvin is not a heretic for being iconclastic in his position.  Yes that was the position of the 7th council. Yet Many Christians do not accept Councils after the 4th for good reason because each of the following councils rejected the position of the 4th. Not overtly but in their practice. Prior to that time - heresies were determined by the council. At that council - another authority was put up - the Scriptures as the binding authority. Yet, despite this - after that time, the councils proceeded to reject this principle and follow church tradition and practice and leaders - not the Scriptures.  

To be honest - for me Calvin is not my God. Calvin was a man. Sinful like the rest of us. He has a good mind and knew the Scriptures exceedingly well. Yet he made his mistakes just like ALL of the Saints before him. Who can forget Peter, the great apostle and his denial of Jesus? 

I don't call my self a Calvinist as a matter of practice. I don't even call myself Reformed or Presbyterian.  These are handy labels in different circumstances - but my allegiance is to the Lord Jesus Christ and to Him I am bound.  And I would reject any of these labels if I found them to be a distraction from serving my Lord. 




#175
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
I saw your question before and decided not to answer it. It frankly is none of your business. I do not propose to leave any more personal details on this site for your continuing abuse and exploitation. 
#176
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Mopac
Calvin rejected Apostolic Succession because it is not commanded in the Bible.  Apart from the event at the beginning of Acts to replace Judas, no new apostles were appointed to make up the 12. The 12 play a significant part in the church just like the 12 tribes play a part in the OT.  Paul, was different. He was selected by Christ as Apostle to the Gentiles. Yet no other apostles were called. 

I also agree that we should not pray to the Saints. What a preposterous and adulterous and idolatrous notion. Giving the Saints the sense of deity is to attribute to them godhood.  

Augustine had some things right. I also think he was wrong in relation to Apostolic Succession. Indeed it is his writings which gave the pope credibility.  He was also incorrect in relation to church governement. Like Calvin he got things wrong - a little like the patriarch of Constantinople or Moscow. 
Topic's author
#177
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Tradesecret
Calvin rejected apostolic succession because it makes him a schismatic and a heretic.

The apostles certainly appointed bishops, and the bishops who followed them certainly considered themselves successors ro the apostles. The church fathers certainly took this apostolic succession as an outward sign to distinguish the true church from the heresies that popped up in opposition to The Church.

It was Saint Athanasius who you claimed to honor that said "God became man so that man could become God."

But such a statement would be an enigma to someone who doesn't understand salvation in the same manner that the historical church does.

It is written in the 7th ecumenical council, "We salute the voices of the Lord and of His Apostles through which we have been taught to honor in the first place her who is properly and truly the Mother of God and exalted above all the heavenly Powers; also the holy and angelic powers; and the blessed and altogether lauded Apostles, and the glorious Prophets and the triumphant Martyrs which fought for Christ, and the holy and God-bearing Doctors, and all holy men; and to seek for their intercessions, as able to render us at home with the all-royal God of all, so long as we keep His commandments, and strive to live virtuously."

And even before this, there is much in the writings of the church fathers concerning the saints praying for us in heaven. 





#178
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Mopac
Calvin rejected apostolic succession because it makes him a schismatic and a heretic.

The apostles certainly appointed bishops, and the bishops who followed them certainly considered themselves successors ro the apostles. The church fathers certainly took this apostolic succession as an outward sign to distinguish the true church from the heresies that popped up in opposition to The Church.

It was Saint Athanasius who you claimed to honor that said "God became man so that man could become God."

But such a statement would be an enigma to someone who doesn't understand salvation in the same manner that the historical church does.

It is written in the 7th ecumenical council, "We salute the voices of the Lord and of His Apostles through which we have been taught to honor in the first place her who is properly and truly the Mother of God and exalted above all the heavenly Powers; also the holy and angelic powers; and the blessed and altogether lauded Apostles, and the glorious Prophets and the triumphant Martyrs which fought for Christ, and the holy and God-bearing Doctors, and all holy men; and to seek for their intercessions, as able to render us at home with the all-royal God of all, so long as we keep His commandments, and strive to live virtuously."

And even before this, there is much in the writings of the church fathers concerning the saints praying for us in heaven. 
Calvin rejected apostolic succession because it is wrong. If you think he is wrong, prove it from the bible. Do you think that the methodology of the disciples to select a new apostle is the way to select new apostles? By lot.  And because they have seen the risen Christ. Which one among your church has not only been taught directly by Jesus, since the beginning and has seen the Risen Lord Jesus?  None. And if that was the method - and there are no others in the bible, then the time of the Apostles ended with the last Apostle dying out - with their words recorded in the NT. 

The church fathers - some of them took it more seriously than others. Appointing bishops is not the same as appointing Apostles. They are not the same thing at all. James was a bishop - or elder of Jerusalem. But he was not an apostle. Why is it that OC do not know these things? Because they rely to heavily on their church traditions and not the Words of God. 

Athanasius' words are good words. I have used them many times in the past. But they are not words used to justify apostleship or the succession of apostles. 

Real Christians would never pray to a Saint when they can pray to the God of Heaven. Honoring the saints and even Mary does not mean praying to them. I take the view that by praying to the Saints and to Mary dishonors them. It elevates them to a place which is not theirs. Honoring them is to place them humbly as servants of the Lord. 



Topic's author
#179
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Tradesecret
More accurately, we ask for the saints to pray for us. We do honor them as servants of the lord. The veneration we have towards them is in no way apart from the Christ that lives in them. You say you are educated in our way, you even claim to have been taught by those among us. Well, we are educated by the saints. The historical doctors of the church. You read a few excerpts from a handful of western saints, then get everything else from the reformers and those  who followed after them.

Every single one of the church fathers believed in the apostolic succession of the bishops. So well known and obvious was this fact that it was hardly worth mentioning. It was a given. If you deny apostolic succession, you are in direct contradiction to what the church has taught since the start. What was one of the things apostoloc succession was supposed to help distinguish? The real church from the heretics. The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. What does apostolic refer to here? It is a mark of the church, an unbroken continuity from the apostles to this day through the bishops.

John Calvin was an innovator. "hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." Is what the scriptures say. The Church has that Holy Tradition, and keeps it. Passes it down. Calvin created his own tradition, and that is what you follow. You have made the choice to trust this man over all the church fathers and the millenia of Christendom that came before. Why though?

Know this, Calvin will never be accepted by us. He was an iconoclast. And consistwnt with his iconoclasm is an ecclesiology that if accepted would destroy the church. The very church which Christ entrusted to his disciples. The disciples who entrusted the church to the bishops. The bishops who have kept the church intact despite constant persecution from pagans, heretics, invasion, genocide, and all manner of evil.

That is how we can discern that your church is being utilized by anti-Christ to make war against the faith. If you were truly Christian, you would join with us, the very church of Christ. Instead, you prefer schism. Then you judge us for doing what the church has always done! We will not compromise with heretics, for to do so is not loving. We cannot be equally yoked with unbelievers. Least of all iconoclasts.

Can you even call Mary theotokos? Or do you impiously refer to her as Christotokos as Nestorius did? Well know this, the ecumenical councils declare anathema to those who cannot call Mary the theotokos. Just as they declare anathema against the iconoclasts. Just as they declare anathema who hold the impious opinion that it is idolatry to venerate the saints, and ask for their prayers. Just as it is anathema to act in schism from the church. How no church is properly so without a bishop! How a church cannot be a church without an altar! Without the relics of a saint! 

Rather, you would do things apart  from us. And why is this? Because you are against us. And who are we? Not the church that was founded a hundred years ago or even five hundred years. Ours is the ancient church, the mother church. The very church that all can trace their deviancy from. And rejecting the heretical papalists, you did not return to the church from which she deviated. Rather, you started your own church in opposition to us! And surely as Christ's body is not divided, you are against us. Yet you would desire false unity with us. You in your arrogance would desire to reform our church. You want to destroy us. Why? To legitimize yourselves, and justify your heresy.

God forbid it should ever happen. If you wish to be one body with us, then come with humility as everyone has. Become orthodox. Be taught by us, not our enemies. There is no other path to unity. The church that has taught the same throughout the ages soundly rejects union with heretics. We do not share the same faith.




#180
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Mopac
I apologize for breaking your paragraph up - but it had many points and it makes sense that I address them as they arise. 

More accurately, we ask for the saints to pray for us. We do honor them as servants of the lord. The veneration we have towards them is in no way apart from the Christ that lives in them. You say you are educated in our way, you even claim to have been taught by those among us. Well, we are educated by the saints. The historical doctors of the church. You read a few excerpts from a handful of western saints, then get everything else from the reformers and those  who followed after them.
The saints are in heaven. What good are their prayers now? Where in the Bible does it say that the Saints in heaven pray for us? Nowhere. Surely the saints in heaven know what GOD is doing here on earth. You speak as though they are simply translated to Heaven but have  no knowledge of God's plans for earth. You have no idea who I have read.  You attribute to the Saints omniscience. How can any one saint hear more than one prayer at a time? Please answer that question. I only became aware of the reformed faith later in my life. I did not grow up in it at all.  You speak about which you do not know. 

Every single one of the church fathers believed in the apostolic succession of the bishops. So well known and obvious was this fact that it was hardly worth mentioning. It was a given. If you deny apostolic succession, you are in direct contradiction to what the church has taught since the start. What was one of the things apostoloc succession was supposed to help distinguish? The real church from the heretics. The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. What does apostolic refer to here? It is a mark of the church, an unbroken continuity from the apostles to this day through the bishops.
This is not true. If it were believed by all of the early fathers, there would be no dispute about the papacy of Rome. It is the inevitable conclusion of such teaching. The Apostolic teaching is in the NT. That is where truth from error is discerned even as the 4th ecumenical council decided. It is not by men - but by the inspired words of God through the teaching of the apostles. This is the mark of the church. Not apostolic succession. You still did not provide any evidence from the Bible nor did you respond to my question about the methodology of choosing successors.  Successorship cannot help decide anything but who is going to lead. It cannot by its very nature determine error from right. Yet the Scriptures do this - the true teaching of the apostolic function. 

John Calvin was an innovator. "hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." Is what the scriptures say. The Church has that Holy Tradition, and keeps it. Passes it down. Calvin created his own tradition, and that is what you follow. You have made the choice to trust this man over all the church fathers and the millenia of Christendom that came before. Why though?
You just demonstrate you have not read Calvin. He was not opposed to true biblical traditions of the church.  He was not an innovator - clearly teaching against such things.  Calvin followed the tradition of the NT and the early church fathers. If you have read his works, you would see this. But you simply follow blindly, tradition and not truth. 

Know this, Calvin will never be accepted by us. He was an iconoclast. And consistwnt with his iconoclasm is an ecclesiology that if accepted would destroy the church. The very church which Christ entrusted to his disciples. The disciples who entrusted the church to the bishops. The bishops who have kept the church intact despite constant persecution from pagans, heretics, invasion, genocide, and all manner of evil.
Why would I care if Calvin is accepted by your congregation? He is dead and he is in heaven.  His iconclastic position is biblical and you have not refuted it - except to say it is against the teaching of the Orthodox church - a congregation which has been excommunicated from the church because it refused to follow the words of Scripture. 

That is how we can discern that your church is being utilized by anti-Christ to make war against the faith. If you were truly Christian, you would join with us, the very church of Christ. Instead, you prefer schism. Then you judge us for doing what the church has always done! We will not compromise with heretics, for to do so is not loving. We cannot be equally yoked with unbelievers. Least of all iconoclasts.
Your church actually takes a position different to your own. I by the way am not a iconclastic.  I would not destroy such items - Calvin lived in different times to us. He had different battles to fight.  I find it ironic that an excommunicated congregation such as yours - and one who is quite content to be in communion with other congregations who unite with the Catholic church and even the reformed churches - takes such a hard line - and yet does not have the courage of your convictions to excommunicate Constantinople. It is utter hypocrisy.  

Can you even call Mary theotokos? Or do you impiously refer to her as Christotokos as Nestorius did? Well know this, the ecumenical councils declare anathema to those who cannot call Mary the theotokos. Just as they declare anathema against the iconoclasts. Just as they declare anathema who hold the impious opinion that it is idolatry to venerate the saints, and ask for their prayers. Just as it is anathema to act in schism from the church. How no church is properly so without a bishop! How a church cannot be a church without an altar! Without the relics of a saint! 
I told you I had no issue with theotokus - the bearer of the Incarnate God. The term Christotokos is also true.  Both terms are not mutually exclusive. Jesus Christ is both God and human. And he was and remains the Christ. Do you deny this? You try and belittle this - but that is because your heart is not the right place.  Altars belong to the OT. Christ destroyed the human altar preferring instead to be the High Priest of Heaven. You belittle his role everytime you crucify Christ over and over again - despite the Word of God clearly saying he died once and for all. 

Rather, you would do things apart  from us. And why is this? Because you are against us. And who are we? Not the church that was founded a hundred years ago or even five hundred years. Ours is the ancient church, the mother church. The very church that all can trace their deviancy from. And rejecting the heretical papalists, you did not return to the church from which she deviated. Rather, you started your own church in opposition to us! And surely as Christ's body is not divided, you are against us. Yet you would desire false unity with us. You in your arrogance would desire to reform our church. You want to destroy us. Why? To legitimize yourselves, and justify your heresy.
No, we just wait for your repentance. Our hearts are already forgiving towards you - indeed we are the ones who are able to call your brothers despite your ungodly and unbiblical teachings. It is you who are schismatic and who prefer to remain that way.  I never started another church. Every congregation that is legitimate begins with Christ. Covenantally there must be two or three witnesses. If no legitimate church is there to be a witness - or if a legitimate church is exploiting or abusing the authority Christ has given her, then the two witnesses may be a legitimate State and legitimate family.  

In the part of the Reformed churches, the legitimate church of Roman Catholicism and the Orthodox churches were both exploiting and abusing the power God gave them - they were both acting out of accord with the Christian doctrines handed down to them, They were both usurping the authority of the Scriptures - so in accord with the Scriptures - and the commencement of any institution - the Legitimate State and legitimate families within those states were in accord able as two out of three witnesses biblically permitted to commence a new institution or congregation of the church.  

God forbid it should ever happen. If you wish to be one body with us, then come with humility as everyone has. Become orthodox. Be taught by us, not our enemies. There is no other path to unity. The church that has taught the same throughout the ages soundly rejects union with heretics. We do not share the same faith.

You cut of your nose to spite your face.  I just thank God that not all Orthodox are as schismatic as you. With respect a little bit of humility would go a long way.