CALVINISM: The height of Spiritual depravity

[Logikos]

recapitulation of the world?
Me oh my that there is a six syllable word my friends .
I dont even know what it means , let alone if i can pronounce the thing .

Terrific example of the depth of the average post on this website.

 

[Rightglory]

Satan has no control over physical death directly. Satan had to get permission from God to bring death to the family of Job. Jesus has overcome spiritual death by his death on the cross. Everyone dies physically: Heb 9:27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,

Where is Jesus resurrection called the recapitulation of the world?

In ancient texts. You can use the simplier word, repeat, renew. Or the word scripture uses, reconcile the world,

My answers to those passages in RED

Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and (spiritual) death through sin, and so (spiritual) death spread to all men because all sinned--

Rom 5:18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

Adam's sin led to Original Sin; Jesus' righteousness lead to overturning Original Sin to replace it with Original Grace.

1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made (spiritually) alive. Some will die the second (spiritual) death (Rev 20:6).

1Co 15:53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality.

1Co 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.

Heb 2:9 But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste (spiritual) death for everyone.

2Ti 1:10 and which now has been manifested through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished (spiritual) death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel,

Why the addition of words to scripture?
What does this even mean, spiritual death?
How did Christ die a spiritual death?
How are spiritual dead people raised from that spiritual death?
Could you explain just how Christ saved us from spiritual death?

The Tree of Life was not a cure; it only treated the symptoms. The Tree of Life did not bring immortality; rather, death would be prevented so long as Adam ate of the fruit. That is why God ejected him from the Garden. The physical body was not, is not and will not be immortal. Nothing of this physical universe, animate or inanimate, will last forever (2 Pet 3).

1Co 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.

I do not understand the desire, the proclivity, to wanting eternal life to be a physical existence. This flesh of the physical body, sarx in the Greek, is the source of nearly all sin. Why anyone would want to continue with such a body in heaven is quite beyond me.

Scripture says it will be physical existence. Christ assumed our human nature, He was raised with that same human nature, it became glorified,. He ascended with that human nature and now sits on the right hand of God with that same nature, and will come again in the same manner as He was lifted up.
You are right though that our present human body, is the source of our sin. That is because it is mortal. That is why it needed to die once to rid this body of sin. We will be raised, incorruptble, and immortal and glorified.
Besides Adam was created with this same human nature. If he had not sinned he would have attained immortality

 

[Logikos]

What does this even mean, spiritual death?

Spiritual death occurs when one's spirit is separated from God. It's cause is sin - our own sin.

How did Christ die a spiritual death?

Jesus, God the Son, was separated from the Father for three days. He became sin for us and voluntarily laid down His own life. Suffering the consequences of sin (i.e. death) in our stead.

How are spiritual dead people raised from that spiritual death?

Is this a serious question? Perhaps I'm not understanding what you're asking. Do you mean, "How was Jesus raised from the dead?"

By the power of God. I don't think there is a more specific answer. The actual procedure is unknown to us. What we know is that Jesus had the power to lay down His life and the power to take it up again. Anything much beyond that is speculation.

Could you explain just how Christ saved us from spiritual death?

By dying, both physically and spiritually on the cross and raising from the dead three days later by His own power.

(Jesus is THE God Himself as is the Father and the Holy Spirit and so it is not inaccurate to say the He was raised by the Father by the power of the Holy Spirit. They are separate but also One in the same. The details of this divine relationship are not explained to us.)

This satisfies the demands of justice and permits us to avoid ever spiritually dying at all! For, while we who believe are in this corrupted flesh, we are identified spiritually in Him, by faith, and when we are absent from the body (i.e. when our soul/spirit is separated from our physical body) we will be present spiritually with the Lord and will, at some point, be given new glorified physical bodies that are similar to that which Christ already has, never to die again in any sense of the word.

 

[Robert Pate]

Spiritual death occurs when one's spirit is separated from God. It's cause is sin - our own sin.


Jesus, God the Son, was separated from the Father for three days. He became sin for us and voluntarily laid down His own life. Suffering the consequences of sin (i.e. death) in our stead.


Is this a serious question? Perhaps I'm not understanding what you're asking. Do you mean, "How was Jesus raised from the dead?"

By the power of God. I don't think there is a more specific answer. The actual procedure is unknown to us. What we know is that Jesus had the power to lay down His life and the power to take it up again. Anything much beyond that is speculation.


By dying, both physically and spiritually on the cross and raising from the dead three days later by His own power.

(Jesus is THE God Himself as is the Father and the Holy Spirit and so it is not inaccurate to say the He was raised by the Father by the power of the Holy Spirit. They are separate but also One in the same. The details of this divine relationship are not explained to us.)

This satisfies the demands of justice and permits us from ever spiritually dying at all! For, while we who believe are in this corrupted flesh, we are identified spiritually in Him, by faith, and when we are absent from the body (i.e. when our soul/spirit is separated from our physical body) we will be present spiritually with the Lord and will, at some point, be given new glorified physical bodies that are similar to that which Christ already has, never to die again in any sense of the word.

How nice it is when Christians are able to communicate without hostility. I love both of you. I am terminally ill, but I just got a taste of what it will be like in heaven.

 

[Rightglory]

Spiritual death occurs when one's spirit is separated from God. It's cause is sin - our own sin.


Jesus, God the Son, was separated from the Father for three days. He became sin for us and voluntarily laid down His own life. Suffering the consequences of sin (i.e. death) in our stead.

So, for three days the Trinity did not exist. The Son was separated from the from the Father?

Is this a serious question? Perhaps I'm not understanding what you're asking. Do you mean, "How was Jesus raised from the dead?"

You have a spiritual death, so how does one have a spiritual resurrection. Where in scripture do you find texts that support this idea of a spiritual death of Jesus. The texts I used earlier have never been used except for physical death.

By the power of God. I don't think there is a more specific answer. The actual procedure is unknown to us. What we know is that Jesus had the power to lay down His life and the power to take it up again. Anything much beyond that is speculation.

Now you change your words from a spiritual to life. Scripture says it was by the Holy Spirit, but nevertheless it was a physical death and physical life was given at the time of the resurrection. It was life to our human natures as well. Which is why there can be a resurrection of the dead in the eschaton. The human nature of Adam, of Christ and every human being is the same, they are consubstantial. A change in one is a change in everyone. And because man was created from the dust of the earth, man is, thus Christ, consubstantial with the created order, the world, which makes it possible to have an eternal existence, either in heaven or hell.

By dying, both physically and spiritually on the cross and raising from the dead three days later by His own power.

Now you have two forms of death. Where in scripture does it support to forms of death as you describe them. The scriptural definition of spiritual death is a break in our relationship with God. This happens every time we sin, which is why repentance is a daily event in the lives of believers.

Jesus is THE God Himself as is the Father and the Holy Spirit and so it is not inaccurate to say the He was raised by the Father by the power of the Holy Spirit. They are separate but also One in the same. The details of this divine relationship are not explained to us.)

This satisfies the demands of justice and permits us to avoid ever spiritually dying at all! For, while we who believe are in this corrupted flesh, we are identified spiritually in Him, by faith, and when we are absent from the body (i.e. when our soul/spirit is separated from our physical body) we will be present spiritually with the Lord and will, at some point, be given new glorified physical bodies that are similar to that which Christ already has, never to die again in any sense of the word.

You seem to be saying here that He satisfied justice, but only for believers. Being spiritually identified with Him by faith,, but a believer can lose faith, can reject Christ, thus by your use of the word, can spiritually die.
Then the obvious question, what about those that don't ever believe or never repent, thus be condemned to hell. How are they raised? Where in scripture do we have a resurrection to overcome the death of unbelievers?
I don't find much in scripture to support some of your views.

 

[Logikos]

So, for three days the Trinity did not exist.

What? No! I didn't say that Jesus ceased to exist! What are you talking about?

The Son was separated from the from the Father?

That's what the bible seems to clearly teach!

Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”​

​

Psalms 16:10 For You will not leave my soul in Sheol,​

Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.​

​

Matthew 12:40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.​

​

Jonah 2:1 Then Jonah prayed to the Lord his God from the fish’s belly. 2 And he said:​

​

“I cried out to the Lord because of my affliction,​

And He answered me.​

​

“Out of the belly of Sheol I cried,​

And You heard my voice.​

3 For You cast me into the deep,​

Into the heart of the seas,​

And the floods surrounded me;​

All Your billows and Your waves passed over me.​

4 Then I said, ‘I have been cast out of Your sight;​

Yet I will look again toward Your holy temple.’​

5 The waters surrounded me, even to my soul;​

The deep closed around me;​

Weeds were wrapped around my head.​

6 I went down to the moorings of the mountains;​

The earth with its bars closed behind me forever;​

Yet You have brought up my life from the pit,​

O Lord, my God.​

You have a spiritual death, so how does one have a spiritual resurrection. Where in scripture do you find texts that support this idea of a spiritual death of Jesus.

See above.

The texts I used earlier have never been used except for physical death.

Saying it doesn't make it so. Christianity is not about preventing physical death. From what I've seen so far, which isn't a lot, you seem to be reading your doctrine into the text.

Now you change your words from a spiritual to life. Scripture says it was by the Holy Spirit, but nevertheless it was a physical death and physical life was given at the time of the resurrection. It was life to our human natures as well. Which is why there can be a resurrection of the dead in the eschaton. The human nature of Adam, of Christ and every human being is the same, they are consubstantial. A change in one is a change in everyone. And because man was created from the dust of the earth, man is, thus Christ, consubstantial with the created order, the world, which makes it possible to have an eternal existence, either in heaven or hell.

You want to talk about a doctrine that next to no one believes? This is it!
I've been debating doctrine over the internet and in person for three decades and I've never heard of anyone who denied the existence of spiritual death or postulated the idea that what Jesus accomplished was biological in nature.

There are those who do not understand that Jesus was separated from the Father, if you disagree with that, then that's not surprising but I do have biblical reasons to believe it and it is by no means anything that would fall outside of what one might call the "pail of orthodoxy" (as much as I hate that term). This idea of yours, however, is frankly odd and so rare and extraordinary that it seems, of the two of us, it is you who have the burden of proof. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Now you have two forms of death. Where in scripture does it support to forms of death as you describe them.

Are you being serious?

Matthew 10:28 Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.​

​

John 8:51 Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he will never see death.”​

​

Romans 7:9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died.​

​

Ephesians 2:1-2 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.​

​

Colossians 2:11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.​

​

2 Corinthians 5:8 We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord.​

​

Revelation 2:11 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who overcomes will not be hurt by the second death.’​

​

Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years.​

​

Revelation 21:8 But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”​

I literally feel like I could almost quote the entire New Testament!

The scriptural definition of spiritual death is a break in our relationship with God.

Yes!

"Break" - "Separation"

tomato /təˈmɑːtəʊ/ - tomato /təˈmeɪtəʊ/

This happens every time we sin, which is why repentance is a daily event in the lives of believers.

You're mixing dispensations here but that's definitely a topic for another thread.

You seem to be saying here that He satisfied justice, but only for believers.

He satisfied justice - period. He is therefore free to offer mercy to those whom He chooses and remain righteous. He chooses to be merciful to those who respond to Him in faith and those who reject Him, He grants their wish to remain apart from Him.

Being spiritually identified with Him by faith,, but a believer can lose faith, can reject Christ, thus by your use of the word, can spiritually die.

Again, mixing dispensations here and again sufficiently off the topic that it should be reserved for another thread.

Then the obvious question, what about those that don't ever believe or never repent, thus be condemned to hell. How are they raised? Where in scripture do we have a resurrection to overcome the death of unbelievers?

You believe that unbelievers are going to be resurrected?

Out of curiosity, what sort of church do you attend? I need to read up on your doctrine.

I don't find much in scripture to support some of your views.

Well, that's what we're here for, right? To be exposed to new ideas and see if those ideas can be supported and whether the view we hold can hold their own against all comers.

As for me...

There is no such thing as an irrational truth and all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, therefore, correct doctrine WILL be BOTH scripturally AND rationally sound. Also, the bedrock of all Christian doctrine is that God is righteous (i.e. just - same thing). All correct doctrine proceeds from that single premise.

 

[Rightglory]

What? No! I didn't say that Jesus ceased to exist! What are you talking about?


That's what the bible seems to clearly teach!

Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”​

​

Psalms 16:10 For You will not leave my soul in Sheol,​

Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.​

​

Matthew 12:40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.​

​

Jonah 2:1 Then Jonah prayed to the Lord his God from the fish’s belly. 2 And he said:​

​

“I cried out to the Lord because of my affliction,​

And He answered me.​

​

“Out of the belly of Sheol I cried,​

And You heard my voice.​

3 For You cast me into the deep,​

Into the heart of the seas,​

And the floods surrounded me;​

All Your billows and Your waves passed over me.​

4 Then I said, ‘I have been cast out of Your sight;​

Yet I will look again toward Your holy temple.’​

5 The waters surrounded me, even to my soul;​

The deep closed around me;​

Weeds were wrapped around my head.​

6 I went down to the moorings of the mountains;​

The earth with its bars closed behind me forever;​

Yet You have brought up my life from the pit,​

O Lord, my God.​

See above.


Saying it doesn't make it so. Christianity is not about preventing physical death. From what I've seen so far, which isn't a lot, you seem to be reading your doctrine into the text.


You want to talk about a doctrine that next to no one believes? This is it!
I've been debating doctrine over the internet and in person for three decades and I've never heard of anyone who denied the existence of spiritual death or postulated the idea that what Jesus accomplished was biological in nature.

There are those who do not understand that Jesus was separated from the Father, if you disagree with that, then that's not surprising but I do have biblical reasons to believe it and it is by no means anything that would fall outside of what one might call the "pail of orthodoxy" (as much as I hate that term). This idea of yours, however, is frankly odd and so rare and extraordinary that it seems, of the two of us, it is you who have the burden of proof. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.


Are you being serious?

Matthew 10:28 Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.​

​

John 8:51 Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he will never see death.”​

​

Romans 7:9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died.​

​

Ephesians 2:1-2 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.​

​

Colossians 2:11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.​

​

2 Corinthians 5:8 We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord.​

​

Revelation 2:11 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who overcomes will not be hurt by the second death.’​

​

Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years.​

​

Revelation 21:8 But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”​

I literally feel like I could almost quote the entire New Testament!


Yes!

"Break" - "Separation"

tomato /təˈmɑːtəʊ/ - tomato /təˈmeɪtəʊ/


You're mixing dispensations here but that's definitely a topic for another thread.


He satisfied justice - period. He is therefore free to offer mercy to those whom He chooses and remain righteous. He chooses to be merciful to those who respond to Him in faith and those who reject Him, He grants their wish to remain apart from Him.


Again, mixing dispensations here and again sufficiently off the topic that it should be reserved for another thread.


You believe that unbelievers are going to be resurrected?

Out of curiosity, what sort of church do you attend? I need to read up on your doctrine.


Well, that's what we're here for, right? To be exposed to new ideas and see if those ideas can be supported and whether the view we hold can hold their own against all comers.

As for me...

There is no such thing as an irrational truth and all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, therefore, correct doctrine WILL be BOTH scripturally AND rationally sound. Also, the bedrock of all Christian doctrine is that God is righteous (i.e. just - same thing). All correct doctrine proceeds from that single premise.

We differ on several essentials of Christianity. I hold to the historical Orthodox faith that was given to us 2000 years ago.
On the topic we were discussing, among the very large volume of evidence, two books would be helpful to you. On The Incarnation, by St Athanasius and The Ancestral Sin by John S. Romanides.

 

[Logikos]

I hold to the historical Orthodox faith...

I see.

It is true that I have had very little contact over the years with Orthodox Christians (I presume you mean "Eastern Orthodox"), which would explain my reaction to your doctrine and the strangeness it presents to my hearing.

....that was given to us 2000 years ago.

You know that the baptists make similar claims, right? (as do the Catholics and several others, by the way).

I do not call myself a Baptist because there are sufficient differences between their doctrine and mine that I don't think that the title fits very well but of all the main stream denominations that exist, the Baptist doctrine comes the closest to what I believe, (more specifically Independent Baptists due to their strong belief in free will and other conservative beliefs.) As such, the history of the doctrines that Baptists teach (not the name "Baptists" per se, but their doctrinal beliefs) have long been of interest to me.

You should note that Baptists in particular are definitely not "Protestant", the overwhelming testimony of those who publish on the internet not withstanding, and there is good evidence from a Catholic source that the doctrines taught by Baptists go as least as far back as anything that is identifiable as Catholic (or Orthodox).

Here's a brief excerpt from an excellent article on the subject....

"Baptists make no effort to trace a historical succession back to the age of the Apesties. Their only claim is that at every age in church history there have been groups that have held to the same doctrines that Baptists hold today. These groups may or may not have been connected and they have been known by various names. There were the Montanists (150 A.D.), the Novatians (240 A.D.), Donatists (305 A.D.), Albigenses (1022 A.D.), Waldensians (1170 A.D.), and the name Anabaptists came into prominence just before the time of the Protestant Reformation. Full historical data immediately refutes the view that there was only one religious group — the Roman Catholic church -until the time of Martin Luther. Anyone who claims this simply has not done his homework.​

​

l wish to purposely introduce non-Baptist testimony to the great antiquity of Baptist people. Cardinal Hosius (1504-1579) was a Roman Catholic prelate who had as his life work the investigation and suppression of non-Catholic groups. By Pope Paul IV he was designated one of the three papal presidents of the famous Council of Trent. Hosius carried on vigorously the work of the counter-reformation. If anyone in post-reformation times knew the doctrines and history of nonCatholic groups, it was Hosius. Cardinal Hosius says, “Were it not that the Baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past 1,200 years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers” (Letters Apud Opera, pp.112, 113). Note carefully that this knowledgeable Catholic scholar has spoken of the vicious persecution Baptists have endured, that he clearly distinguishes them from the Reformers, and that he dates them 1,200 years before the Protestant Reformation." - From "Why Baptists Are Not Protestants" by Vernon C Lyons​

​

Note that 1200 years before the Protestant Reformation would be the early 4th century and no church, not Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Asian Orthodox nor any other sect of Christianity can directly trace their lineage any further back than that and neither the Catholics nor the Eastern Orthodox church lay claim to such as the Montanists (150 A.D.), the Novatians (240 A.D.) or the Donatists (305 A.D.) as do the Baptists (doctrinally speaking and in part).​

​

In short, doctrinally speaking, you've got nothing concerning "2000 years of history" that I can't stand toe to toe with.​

​

Besides that, and more importantly, a group can easily can make a wrong turn and remain off course for 2000 years, which is precisely the reason that there exists a logical fallacy called an "appeal to tradition". I have no doubt that you'd say that there have always been heretical groups to which I could, with equal validity, respond, "Yes, we call them Catholics (and/or Orthodox)" to which you could have no rational rejoinder, thus the fallacy and why I recommend sticking to arguments that are biblical in nature.​

​

We differ on several essentials of Christianity.

I'm sufficiently unfamiliar with Eastern Orthodox doctrine that I wonder if you'd agree to give a brief and direct answer to the following question....

(I apologize for the negative manner in which the question is asked. It isn't intended to engender conflict, it's just that I've found over the years that it is a more efficient way of asking the question, that's all.)

Do you deny ANY of the following.....

• God exists and is the Creator of all things and He is perfect, holy, and just.
• We, having willfully done evil things and rebelled against God, who gave us life, deserve death.
• Because God loves us, He provided for Himself a propitiation (an atoning sacrifice) by becoming a man whom we call Jesus Christ.
• Jesus, being the Creator God Himself and therefore innocent of any sin, willingly bore the sins of the world and died on our behalf.
• Jesus rose from the dead.
• If you confess with you mouth, the Lord Jesus Christ (i.e. openly acknowledge your need of a savior and that He is that Savior) and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, YOU WILL BE SAVED.

If so, with which do you disagree and why?



Lastly, you don't have any further response to my post?

I feel like I did a pretty descent job of establishing biblical cause to believe that Jesus was separated from the Father (at least in some sense) and I'm perfectly happy with altering that phrasing to say that there was a "break in His relationship with the Father" of some kind, if that's suits you better. The extent of the "break" or "separation" isn't made clear in scripture and I suspect that any break at all would have been sufficient to get the needed job done.

Regardless, I was surprised and disappointed to see no response from you on that issue.

 

[Rightglory]

I see.

It is true that I have had very little contact over the years with Orthodox Christians (I presume you mean "Eastern Orthodox"), which would explain my reaction to your doctrine and the strangeness it presents to my hearing.


You know that the baptists make similar claims, right? (as do the Catholics and several others, by the way).

I do not call myself a Baptist because there are sufficient differences between their doctrine and mine that I don't think that the title fits very well but of all the main stream denominations that exist, the Baptist doctrine comes the closest to what I believe, (more specifically Independent Baptists due to their strong belief in free will and other conservative beliefs.) As such, the history of the doctrines that Baptists teach (not the name "Baptists" per se, but their doctrinal beliefs) have long been of interest to me.

You should note that Baptists in particular are definitely not "Protestant", the overwhelming testimony of those who publish on the internet not withstanding, and there is good evidence from a Catholic source that the doctrines taught by Baptists go as least as far back as anything that is identifiable as Catholic (or Orthodox).

Here's a brief excerpt from an excellent article on the subject....

"Baptists make no effort to trace a historical succession back to the age of the Apesties. Their only claim is that at every age in church history there have been groups that have held to the same doctrines that Baptists hold today. These groups may or may not have been connected and they have been known by various names. There were the Montanists (150 A.D.), the Novatians (240 A.D.), Donatists (305 A.D.), Albigenses (1022 A.D.), Waldensians (1170 A.D.), and the name Anabaptists came into prominence just before the time of the Protestant Reformation. Full historical data immediately refutes the view that there was only one religious group — the Roman Catholic church -until the time of Martin Luther. Anyone who claims this simply has not done his homework.​

​

l wish to purposely introduce non-Baptist testimony to the great antiquity of Baptist people. Cardinal Hosius (1504-1579) was a Roman Catholic prelate who had as his life work the investigation and suppression of non-Catholic groups. By Pope Paul IV he was designated one of the three papal presidents of the famous Council of Trent. Hosius carried on vigorously the work of the counter-reformation. If anyone in post-reformation times knew the doctrines and history of nonCatholic groups, it was Hosius. Cardinal Hosius says, “Were it not that the Baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past 1,200 years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers” (Letters Apud Opera, pp.112, 113). Note carefully that this knowledgeable Catholic scholar has spoken of the vicious persecution Baptists have endured, that he clearly distinguishes them from the Reformers, and that he dates them 1,200 years before the Protestant Reformation." - From "Why Baptists Are Not Protestants" by Vernon C Lyons​

​

Note that 1200 years before the Protestant Reformation would be the early 4th century and no church, not Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Asian Orthodox nor any other sect of Christianity can directly trace their lineage any further back than that and neither the Catholics nor the Eastern Orthodox church lay claim to such as the Montanists (150 A.D.), the Novatians (240 A.D.) or the Donatists (305 A.D.) as do the Baptists (doctrinally speaking and in part).​

​

In short, doctrinally speaking, you've got nothing concerning "2000 years of history" that I can't stand toe to toe with.​

​

Besides that, and more importantly, a group can easily can make a wrong turn and remain off course for 2000 years, which is precisely the reason that there exists a logical fallacy called an "appeal to tradition". I have no doubt that you'd say that there have always been heretical groups to which I could, with equal validity, respond, "Yes, we call them Catholics (and/or Orthodox)" to which you could have no rational rejoinder, thus the fallacy and why I recommend sticking to arguments that are biblical in nature.​

As all groups, churches want to claim some historical relevance. Only the Orthodox Church has a continuous line of bishops from the early Churches including Jerusalem, Antioch, even Rome which broke off more or less officially after the Council of Trent.
All of those groups you listed are heresies from the Orthodox Church.

​

I'm sufficiently unfamiliar with Eastern Orthodox doctrine that I wonder if you'd agree to give a brief and direct answer to the following question....

(I apologize for the negative manner in which the question is asked. It isn't intended to engender conflict, it's just that I've found over the years that it is a more efficient way of asking the question, that's all.)

Do you deny ANY of the following.....

• God exists and is the Creator of all things and He is perfect, holy, and just.
• We, having willfully done evil things and rebelled against God, who gave us life, deserve death.
• Because God loves us, He provided for Himself a propitiation (an atoning sacrifice) by becoming a man whom we call Jesus Christ.
• Jesus, being the Creator God Himself and therefore innocent of any sin, willingly bore the sins of the world and died on our behalf.
• Jesus rose from the dead.
• If you confess with you mouth, the Lord Jesus Christ (i.e. openly acknowledge your need of a savior and that He is that Savior) and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, YOU WILL BE SAVED.

If so, with which do you disagree and why?

Rather than answer your specific notations, I will put the Nicene Creed which was written by the Catholic Chruch as a result of the first two ecumenical councils, 325, 381, that should cover most of your notations.

Lastly, you don't have any further response to my post?

I feel like I did a pretty descent job of establishing biblical cause to believe that Jesus was separated from the Father (at least in some sense) and I'm perfectly happy with altering that phrasing to say that there was a "break in His relationship with the Father" of some kind, if that's suits you better. The extent of the "break" or "separation" isn't made clear in scripture and I suspect that any break at all would have been sufficient to get the needed job done.

Your wording is not precise enough for me. Christ died, meaning His humanity died, thus the soul (spirit) leaves that body. That is what physical death means. To say Jesus was separated without the distinction between His Divine Nature and human nature can mislead in understanding.
As to your whole concept of a spiritual death, which for me means a break in a relationship. There was no break within the Trinity between Jesus and the Father. Also, sin is what causes spiritual death, a break in man's relationship with God, not Jesus who did not sin.

 

[BreadOfLife]

As all groups, churches want to claim some historical relevance. Only the Orthodox Church has a continuous line of bishops from the early Churches including Jerusalem, Antioch, even Rome which broke off more or less officially after the Council of Trent.
All of those groups you listed are heresies from the Orthodox Church.

Rather than answer your specific notations, I will put the Nicene Creed which was written by the Catholic Chruch as a result of the first two ecumenical councils, 325, 381, that should cover most of your notations.

Your wording is not precise enough for me. Christ died, meaning His humanity died, thus the soul (spirit) leaves that body. That is what physical death means. To say Jesus was separated without the distinction between His Divine Nature and human nature can mislead in understanding.
As to your whole concept of a spiritual death, which for me means a break in a relationship. There was no break within the Trinity between Jesus and the Father. Also, sin is what causes spiritual death, a break in man's relationship with God, not Jesus who did not sin.

Not sure where you get your information – but “History”, it ain’t . . .

At NO time did the Catholic Church “break off”. Being the Original Tree of Christianity, it could HARDLY break off from itself. Historically-speaking – the Early Christian Church was being called “The Catholic Church” by the end of the FIRST century.

Ignatius of Antioch was an Apostolic Father who was a lifelong student of the Apostle John. He succeeded the See of Antioch from Peter, who ordained him. He wrote the following on the way to his execution while John was presumably still alive:

Ignatius of Antioch
Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 107]).

And I think you’re confusing “break-offs” after Trent in the 16th century with the Protestant Revolt of the same time.

 

[Rightglory]

Not sure where you get your information – but “History”, it ain’t . . .

At NO time did the Catholic Church “break off”. Being the Original Tree of Christianity, it could HARDLY break off from itself. Historically-speaking – the Early Christian Church was being called “The Catholic Church” by the end of the FIRST century.

Ignatius of Antioch was an Apostolic Father who was a lifelong student of the Apostle John. He succeeded the See of Antioch from Peter, who ordained him. He wrote the following on the way to his execution while John was presumably still alive:

Ignatius of Antioch
Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 107]).

And I think you’re confusing “break-offs” after Trent in the 16th century with the Protestant Revolt of the same time.

You have some facts correct but essentially verified the existence of the Eastern Orthodox Church from the beginning.
Peter never was a bishop, no apostle was ever a bishop. Evodius was the first bishop of Antioch 53-68 and Ignatius 68-107.
You are correct which I had indicated, that the Catholic Church existed from the beginning until the 11th century when they finally split and Rome did not come back as it had on other occasions earlier. Talks continued until the Council of Trent which became the final break. They became the Roman Catholic Church, (western) and the other five Seas became the Eastern Orthodox Church. They remain the same to this day. Rome has changed and added may new doctrines to what was held by the Church in unity until the 11th century.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You have some facts correct but essentially verified the existence of the Eastern Orthodox Church from the beginning.
Peter never was a bishop, no apostle was ever a bishop. Evodius was the first bishop of Antioch 53-68 and Ignatius 68-107.

WRONG.

In Acts 1, when the Apostles and about 110 others gathered to elect a successor to Judas - Peter quotes Psalm 109 when he says:
Acts 1:20
“‘Let another take his office.’

The Greek word used here for office is “Episkopay”, which means “Bishopric”.
The Apostles occupied the office of BISHOP.

You are correct which I had indicated, that the Catholic Church existed from the beginning until the 11th century when they finally split and Rome did not come back as it had on other occasions earlier. Talks continued until the Council of Trent which became the final break. They became the Roman Catholic Church, (western) and the other five Seas became the Eastern Orthodox Church. They remain the same to this day. Rome has changed and added may new doctrines to what was held by the Church in unity until the 11th century.

WRONG.

As I showed you – Ignatius writes about the “Catholic Church”. NO mention of the “Orthodox Church”. There was ONE Church until the Eastern schism. The connection and continuity that the Orthodox Church has with the Apostolic Church is that it was part of the ONE Catholic Church.

 

[Logikos]

As all groups, churches want to claim some historical relevance. Only the Orthodox Church has a continuous line of bishops from the early Churches including Jerusalem, Antioch, even Rome which broke off more or less officially after the Council of Trent.

Interesting but not relevant to either the validity of their doctrine. If it isn't biblical it doesn't count.

All of those groups you listed are heresies from the Orthodox Church.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Rather than answer your specific notations, I will put the Nicene Creed which was written by the Catholic Church as a result of the first two ecumenical councils, 325, 381, that should cover most of your notations.

I have yet to find a single person - and I mean that literally, not one single solitary person - who refused to answer that question who turned out to be a Christian at all.

Best evidence right now is that you are not a believer and I will give you the benefit of the boubt and presume that you are not until given sufficient evidence to the contrary.

Your wording is not precise enough for me. Christ died, meaning His humanity died, thus the soul (spirit) leaves that body. That is what physical death means.

All death is a separation of one kind or other. As you say, physical death (for a human being) happens when the spirit separates from the physical body. Spiritual death is also a separation and, as you have mentioned in a previous post, it is a spiritual separation from God, or as you put it, "a break in relationship" with God.

Jesus died in both ways. His physical death is obvious and not denied by anyone who calls himself "Christian". But, as I have already presented biblical evidence for, Jesus also was separated, at least in some sense, from the Father (see biblical references in my previous post) and He told the thief dying on the cross next to Him that they'd be together that day in "Paradise", otherwise known as "Abraham's bosom" which was the place of the righteous dead which was not in the presence of God because that could not happen prior to the atonement being made. Thus Christ went and "preached to those who were in prison" as Peter records.

I short, Jesus died in every way that any other righteous person has ever died.

To say Jesus was separated without the distinction between His Divine Nature and human nature can mislead in understanding.

Jesus did not have two natures in the way you mean it here. Jesus was God in the flesh - period. He had one body, one spirit and one soul, all of which were divine.

As to your whole concept of a spiritual death, which for me means a break in a relationship.

Who elected you to decide what it means? It isn't a matter of personal opinion.

There was no break within the Trinity between Jesus and the Father.

Call it what you will. "Break", "Separation" or whatever term you want to use. The fact that you cannot get around is that Jesus Himself allowed the following words to pass His lips while on the cross...

“My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” (Matthew 27:46)

Also, sin is what causes spiritual death, a break in man's relationship with God, not Jesus who did not sin.

Jesus BECAME SIN!

2 Corinthians 5:21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

 

[Logikos]

Correction!

In a previous post I quoted an excerpt from an article that misquoted something. I had been made aware of the error a long time ago but had forgotten about it until I happened across something a few moments ago that reminded me and so wanted to post a correction...

in the article I cited, the author made the following quotation...

"Cardinal Hosius says, “Were it not that the Baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past 1,200 years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers” (Letters Apud Opera, pp.112, 113).

That quotation is incorrect. First of all, there is no such thing as "Apud Opera"., at least not in any of Cardinal Hosius' writings. The correction quation is as follows....

For not so long ago I read the edict of the other prince who lamented the fate of the Anabaptists who, so we read, were pronounced heretics twelve hundred years ago and deserving of capital punishment. He wanted them to be heard and not taken as condemned without a hearing. (translated from Latin by Carolinne White, Ph.D, Oxford University, Head of Oxford Latin)​

Here's the original Latin...

Nam & alterius Principis edictum non ita pridem legi, qui vicem Anabaptistarum dolens, quos ante​

mille ducentos annes haeretisos, capitalique supplicio dignos esse pronunciatos legimus, vult, ut​

audiantur omnino, nec indicta causa pro condemnatis habeantur. (The letters of Cardinal Stanislaus​

Hosius, Liber Epistolarum 150, titled "Alberto Bavariae Duci" in about 1563 A.D.)​

​

This, of course, does not alter the point that was being made by citing the quote. It still places these "rebaptizers" (that's what "anabaptists" means) in the early 4th century but the correction hopefully serves to prevent further dissemination of a false quotation and the potential damage that might have on the argument itself as a result.

 

[brightfame52]

Calvinism as to the Five Points TULIP is the Gospel of Christ and of Gods Grace,

Hear what Mr Spurgeon concluded and I agree:

And I have my own private opinion that there is no such a thing as preaching Christ and him crucified, unless you preach what now-a-days is called Calvinism. I have my own ideas, and those I always state boldly. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in his dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering, love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the peculiar redemption which Christ made for his elect and chosen people; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having believed. Such a gospel I abhor. The gospel of the Bible is not such a gospel as that. We preach Christ and him crucified in a different fashion, and to all gainsayers we reply, "We have not so learned Christ." (Sermon number 98 New Park Street Pulpit 1:100)

 

[Robert Pate]

Calvinism as to the Five Points TULIP is the Gospel of Christ and of Gods Grace,

Hear what Mr Spurgeon concluded and I agree:

Spurgeon was a Calvinist. What good is that? A Calvinist quoting another Calvinist is like taking a long trip without a map.

 

[Rightglory]

WRONG.

In Acts 1, when the Apostles and about 110 others gathered to elect a successor to Judas - Peter quotes Psalm 109 when he says:
Acts 1:20
“‘Let another take his office.’

The Greek word used here for office is “Episkopay”, which means “Bishopric”.
The Apostles occupied the office of BISHOP.

Luke is quoting the Psalms here. The Hebrew word is supervisor. Acts was written by Luke and written about 70-72 AD. By that time the officer of a Church was known as bishop, though Paul also uses the word presbyter (overseer). They were being used interchangably in the early Church. So its a non issue.

WRONG.

As I showed you – Ignatius writes about the “Catholic Church”. NO mention of the “Orthodox Church”. There was ONE Church until the Eastern schism. The connection and continuity that the Orthodox Church has with the Apostolic Church is that it was part of the ONE Catholic Church.

Obviously you show a Roman Catholic interpretation of the facts. Anyone can read the History. Oxford History of Christianity is a start.

 

[Rightglory]

Interesting but not relevant to either the validity of their doctrine. If it isn't biblical it doesn't count.

Absolutely, but by whose interpretation. A man's or the Church.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

It is stated historically by the Church.

I have yet to find a single person - and I mean that literally, not one single solitary person - who refused to answer that question who turned out to be a Christian at all.

Best evidence right now is that you are not a believer and I will give you the benefit of the boubt and presume that you are not until given sufficient evidence to the contrary.

So you don't believe in the Nicene Creed, I thought that this was one of the guides for this forum?

All death is a separation of one kind or other. As you say, physical death (for a human being) happens when the spirit separates from the physical body. Spiritual death is also a separation and, as you have mentioned in a previous post, it is a spiritual separation from God, or as you put it, "a break in relationship" with God.

Jesus died in both ways. His physical death is obvious and not denied by anyone who calls himself "Christian". But, as I have already presented biblical evidence for, Jesus also was separated, at least in some sense, from the Father (see biblical references in my previous post) and He told the thief dying on the cross next to Him that they'd be together that day in "Paradise", otherwise known as "Abraham's bosom" which was the place of the righteous dead which was not in the presence of God because that could not happen prior to the atonement being made. Thus Christ went and "preached to those who were in prison" as Peter records.

I short, Jesus died in every way that any other righteous person has ever died.


Jesus did not have two natures in the way you mean it here. Jesus was God in the flesh - period. He had one body, one spirit and one soul, all of which were divine.

Quite the contrary. Christ had two natures, Divine and Human. His Human nature has everything that our human nature has, body, will, soul. See the Council of Chalcedon, What was not assumed cannot be saved. Athanasius's book, "On the Incarnation" explains that very clearly.

Who elected you to decide what it means? It isn't a matter of personal opinion.

I don't develop my personal opinion on the meaning of scripture. I accept what the Church, the Body of Christ says it means. It has held that belief for 2000 years.

Call it what you will. "Break", "Separation" or whatever term you want to use. The fact that you cannot get around is that Jesus Himself allowed the following words to pass His lips while on the cross...

“My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” (Matthew 27:46)

I don't have a problem with Jesus saying this in His human nature. This is NOT His Divine Nature speaking.

Jesus BECAME SIN!

2 Corinthians 5:21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Agreed, that is what the text says.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Luke is quoting the Psalms here. The Hebrew word is supervisor. Acts was written by Luke and written about 70-72 AD. By that time the officer of a Church was known as bishop, though Paul also uses the word presbyter (overseer). They were being used interchangably in the early Church. So its a non issue.

Semantics.

The very definition of “Bishop” is “Overseer” and “Ecclesiastical Supervisor”– so both Luke and Paul were talking about Bishops.

Obviously you show a Roman Catholic interpretation of the facts. Anyone can read the History. Oxford History of Christianity is a start.

And obviously YOU don’t have a case or you would have presented historical evidence as I did.

 

[Logikos]

Absolutely, but by whose interpretation. A man's or the Church.

Nonsensical self-contradictory question.

The interpretation of the bible should be done in the most objectively rational way possible but it cannot be done at all absent mankind.

It is stated historically by the Church.

"The church" whatever that undefined entity is has been repeatedly wrong throughout history precisely because fools choose to believe whatever "it" says is the truth is so by virtue of the fact that "it" said it.

So you don't believe in the Nicene Creed, I thought that this was one of the guides for this forum?

I couldn't care less, one way or the other about the Nicene or any other creed and I do not care at all about what this forum endorses. I care about scripture and sound reason. Appeals to creeds or churches or anything else have no effect in regards to convincing me of anything other than that whomever is citing them may well be practicing a religion other than biblical Christianity.

Quite the contrary. Christ had two natures, Divine and Human. His Human nature has everything that our human nature has, body, will, soul. See the Council of Chalcedon, What was not assumed cannot be saved. Athanasius's book, "On the Incarnation" explains that very clearly.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

I don't develop my personal opinion on the meaning of scripture.

Of course you do. Your very next sentence prove it!

I accept what the Church, the Body of Christ says it means. It has held that belief for 2000 years.

That's so completely not true that even you must have known it was false when you wrote this!

What percentage of the those in positions of influence within the Orthodox church feel like Homosexuals should be ministered to with compassion and understanding rather than advocating for the biblical position that such perversion should be recriminalized and that those convicted of the crime should be executed.

Isn't it so that the Orthodox Church believes that the death penalty contradicts "the Church's" teachings on the sanctity of life?

How can it be that "the Church" apposes as unjust, the very thing they say saves them from sin?

In short, don't even pretend to think that you're going to convince me that "the church" even knows right from wrong, never mind how to rightly interpret the bible!

I don't have a problem with Jesus saying this in His human nature. This is NOT His Divine Nature speaking.

Saying it doesn't make it so!

Where is you evidence that there were two Jesuses?

I'm pretty sure that there was only One that anyone cares anything about! There was for sure only One Jesus handing on that cross!

Agreed, that is what the text says.

Should I take your completely lack of response to the argument as evidence that you have no answer or that you're too lazy to offer it?

I don't understand why anyone would bother showing up on one of these forums if they were either incapable or unwilling to produce any more depth than this.

I'd be either embarrassed or bored to death!