The Way/Theosis/entire sanctification.

[Hepzibah]

It's not a mere ritual but there is power in it. If there is power in the Lord's supper such that people are dying/falling asleep because of treating it as a common thing then there is power in it period. Power to accomplish the purpose for which Jesus ordained it for believers. Which is to re-fresh His sacrifice to us, so to speak, as we examine ourselves and confess sins and bring any sins to the cross as we have need. It is a washing of our feet, because "we offend in many ways all". And this is why Jesus washed the disciples feet at that last passover.

I think that believers were reprimanded over the Lord's supper because the purpose of it was in awaiting for the coming of Christ on them, as they 'showed forth His death', meaning I believe that they were prepared for Spirit baptism, admitting that they were repentant for their state of falling from their first love of the Saviour and were therefore mourning the loss of His presence. Their spiritual sickness in this affected their physical health, as it does.

Your second point there......as the early believers were left bereft of the presence of Jesus for 10 days after He ascended and before the Holy Spirit was poured out and in Rev it refers to 10 days of tribulation......that is why I mentioned His coming.....I am considering whether some of these things were a pattern for us. And the three days also that you mentioned, yes.


No, never been Mormon. Was raised in the Catholic church as a child, but had never even heard of such a thing as being baptized for the dead until I saw that in scripture when the Lord led me to be baptized for a close relative who had died, having come to faith but she had not been water baptized. Paul does not censure or correct the practice but treats it as legitimate. I think we must be led by the Spirit for such things though and not by rote. And I know I did the right thing in eventually obeying (was reluctant at first, but the Lord kept insisting) because the Holy Spirit came and put a song in my mouth as I came up out of the water.


Oh ye of little faith. ;) (on that matter, I don't mean generally)

:) we'll see.

I don't think anybody could know how it affected them going forward. I just observed that lack of strength with people I had known who hadn't been baptized. And that revelation of baptism as being a prophetic act.....it seals something in the spirit.

So I found out. That's why I couldn't find anyone to baptize me for that one who was deceased and ended up doing it myself in my bathtub. The Mormon's approach to it discredits something that is legitimate in the Lord.....nothing new under the sun with that. The flesh is always handling things of God wrong much to the devil's delight. I've learned never to be put off things of God just because someone or some group is handling it wrong. We would never launch out in faith and do anything in that case, just sit in a bunker with a tin hat on, because everything gets mishandled somewhere at some time by someone. That someone is doing something in a wrong way, is NOT an argument in itself, against that thing itself. We are in a battle and the devil is always seeking to discredit legitimate things of God.

This is why I stick to the ECF's in rejecting anything that has developed since. They had the faith that was handed down to them even though there were disagreements. God never intended us to know it all. They disagreed but stuck together.

What we do see written is what baptism is a clear picture of. Being baptized into His death and being raised to newness of life. A prophetic act.....we need the Holy Spirit to give us understanding that there is power in obeying the Lord in something HE is ordaining.

Spirit baptism saves.

I gather as the church was growing it was taking up too much of his time, like waiting on tables, when he had a more important mission that he needed to concentrate on, so he needed to delegate certain things. Yes, it could have occurred at the same time...there are a lot of testimonies of people being filled with the Spirit as they come up out of the water.

Yes I have read of this but do not consider it to be necessary.

 

[Lizbeth]

I think that believers were reprimanded over the Lord's supper because the purpose of it was in awaiting for the coming of Christ on them, as they 'showed forth His death', meaning I believe that they were prepared for Spirit baptism, admitting that they were repentant for their state of falling from their first love of the Saviour and were therefore mourning the loss of His presence. Their spiritual sickness in this affected their physical health, as it does.

Reading the scripture on that, it seems it was because some were treating it as a common thing.....just a free meal to greedily satiate physical hunger....rather than as something ordained by the Lord and therefore holy. Jesus said except we eat his body and drink His blood we would have no part with Him. Notice He said the same thing to Peter about allowing Him to wash his feet.

This is why I stick to the ECF's in rejecting anything that has developed since. They had the faith that was handed down to them even though there were disagreements. God never intended us to know it all. They disagreed but stuck together.

What do we do with where Paul said after he departed this life wolves would come in not sparing the flock?

I don't place my trust in anyone but God any more, including myself, though of course He will occasionally use human vessels, but that is not the same thing as relying on them. "Thou shall have no other gods before me." At some point we need to be weaned off man, onto the Lord and being taught by Him.

Spirit baptism saves.

Faith saves doesn't it? We are saved by faith, justified by faith. And baptism only saves when it is by faith. It's as though our faith is sealed through making the commitment of undergoing water baptism. Giving our life to God and giving Him permission so to speak, to apply the death and resurrection of Jesus to us. And then a deeper sealing and consecration and fruitfulness through being baptized in the Holy Spirit. When Jesus commissioned the disciples to go and make disciples, baptizing them.....I don't see why we can't take it to mean both baptisms. Speaking in the spirit, and alluding to more than one thing at the same time. "One thing God has spoken, two things have I heard"...?

 

[GodsGrace]

Reading the scripture on that, it seems it was because some were treating it as a common thing.....just a free meal to greedily satiate physical hunger....rather than as something ordained by the Lord and therefore holy. Jesus said except we eat his body and drink His blood we would have no part with Him. Notice He said the same thing to Peter about allowing Him to wash his feet.


What do we do with where Paul said after he departed this life wolves would come in not sparing the flock?

I don't place my trust in anyone but God any more, including myself, though of course He will occasionally use human vessels, but that is not the same thing as relying on them. "Thou shall have no other gods before me." At some point we need to be weaned off man, onto the Lord and being taught by Him.


Faith saves doesn't it? We are saved by faith, justified by faith. And baptism only saves when it is by faith. It's as though our faith is sealed through making the commitment of undergoing water baptism. Giving our life to God and giving Him permission so to speak, to apply the death and resurrection of Jesus to us. And then a deeper sealing and consecration and fruitfulness through being baptized in the Holy Spirit. When Jesus commissioned the disciples to go and make disciples, baptizing them.....I don't see why we can't take it to mean both baptisms. Speaking in the spirit, and alluding to more than one thing at the same time. "One thing God has spoken, two things have I heard"...?

What's the difference between baptism and baptism in the spirit?
Did Jesus state that there are two baptisms?

 

[Hepzibah]

Reading the scripture on that, it seems it was because some were treating it as a common thing.....just a free meal to greedily satiate physical hunger....rather than as something ordained by the Lord and therefore holy. Jesus said except we eat his body and drink His blood we would have no part with Him. Notice He said the same thing to Peter about allowing Him to wash his feet.

Indeed. It is a holy thing to be convicted of the Holy Spirit for the need for Theosis. We are to partake of His body and blood spiritually, moment by moment.

What do we do with where Paul said after he departed this life wolves would come in not sparing the flock?

They did indeed but the wolves would be a few then increasing, so as to fool the flock and that is why the pre- Nicene teachings are preferred. We cannot do without the very early teachings if we want to avoid adding to the faith, and many doctrines have been added. By the tine of Augustine we can see many have been added by him and after all he was not a theologian but a philosopher, and rated a low score in the east.

I don't place my trust in anyone but God any more, including myself, though of course He will occasionally use human vessels, but that is not the same thing as relying on them. "Thou shall have no other gods before me." At some point we need to be weaned off man, onto the Lord and being taught by Him.

Of course but we need a guideline to know if we are interpreting the scriptures correctly. Revelation then confirmation from scripture and respected teachers. There are some things I believe that are not found yet so far by me so I hold to them lightly. I have been greatly encouraged to find some things in the early church that I understood from scripture but not found in the modern church.

Faith saves doesn't it? We are saved by faith, justified by faith. And baptism only saves when it is by faith. It's as though our faith is sealed through making the commitment of undergoing water baptism. Giving our life to God and giving Him permission so to speak, to apply the death and resurrection of Jesus to us. And then a deeper sealing and consecration and fruitfulness through being baptized in the Holy Spirit. When Jesus commissioned the disciples to go and make disciples, baptizing them.....I don't see why we can't take it to mean both baptisms. Speaking in the spirit, and alluding to more than one thing at the same time. "One thing God has spoken, two things have I heard"...?

It looks like we will not agree about water baptism. It was through Spirit baptism that the church was formed in Acts at Pentecost. The disciples were able to lay hands for others to be Spirit baptized in the early days so I do not see any problems there.

We are saved through grace by faith indeed. To be Spirit baptized is to have faith in the sacrifice God requires in seeing our flesh put to death.

 

[Lizbeth]

We are saved through grace by faith indeed. To be Spirit baptized is to have faith in the sacrifice God requires in seeing our flesh put to death.

I have to go out so don't have time to reply to everything right now........I don't know if I'm misunderstanding but are you denying the foundation of faith in Christ here? It's as though some people who believe in a "higher walk" or "theosis" despise the day of small beginnings when those small beginning are the gateway into the kingdom and salvation. No salvation unless baptized in the Spirit? What about where Jesus blew on the disciples and said "receive the Holy Spirit", before the Holy Spirit was poured out at Pentecost? Were they not saved and one of Jesus' own before Pentecost?

 

[Hepzibah]

I have to go out so don't have time to reply to everything right now........I don't know if I'm misunderstanding but are you denying the foundation of faith in Christ here? It's as though some people who believe in a "higher walk" or "theosis" despise the day of small beginnings when those small beginning are the gateway into the kingdom and salvation. No salvation unless baptized in the Spirit? What about where Jesus blew on the disciples and said "receive the Holy Spirit", before the Holy Spirit was poured out at Pentecost? Were they not saved and one of Jesus' own before Pentecost?

No I am not despising the small beginnings. They are very important. But we must go on to perfection.

When Jesus blew on them the Holy Spirit, I believe it was for illumination or truth and that they would be prepared for the waiting for the Spirit to fill them. They were of one accord showing that they all had the truth revealed, that something else was required apart from the call of Jesus on their lives and their following up till then. So they gathered and waited.

 

[marks]

I have to go out so don't have time to reply to everything right now........I don't know if I'm misunderstanding but are you denying the foundation of faith in Christ here? It's as though some people who believe in a "higher walk" or "theosis" despise the day of small beginnings when those small beginning are the gateway into the kingdom and salvation. No salvation unless baptized in the Spirit? What about where Jesus blew on the disciples and said "receive the Holy Spirit", before the Holy Spirit was poured out at Pentecost? Were they not saved and one of Jesus' own before Pentecost?

Though not yet born again, the disciples (excepting Judas of course) were definately saved even before the cross. "Of all you gave me I've lost none, except the son of perdition, that the Scriptures be fulfilled", something like that.

When Jesus breathed on them to receive the Holy Spirit, this is something that we are only told happened this one time, to these men only. This was not about receiving illumination, though receiving the Holy Spirit, He does illuminate us. This passage is about the disciples receiving the person of the Holy Spirit into them.

I believe we need to stay with the actual wording used, and not substitute different ideas for what is being expressed.

Jesus then did something else unique to these men. He commissioned them "as I've been sent, so I send you", giving them an apostleship equal to His own. He likewise gave them the same authority He himself had to forgive sins. There is nothing in Scripture to indicate this continued past these particular men, or was transferable to others.

After this happened, Jesus told them about the coming promised baptism in the Holy Spirit, therefore, this event was not that.

While it's not stated in the Bible when the disciples in the upper room were in fact born again, this would seem to me to fit that this baptism in the Holy Spirit is the "one baptism" that is into Jesus Christ, the one baptism that makes us one, that unites us to Christ, that gives us new life in Christ, being crucified with Him, and now alive with Him.

If this is so, then Pentecost marks the beginning of the church, the body of Christ, as the new believers are baptized into Him. And all who would believe will be added to this number.

Concerning the day of small beginnings, New Testament Christianity is all about an amazing and complete new beginning, being born again in Christ.

"And all who call upon the Name of the LORD shall be saved", not, "all who call upon the Name of the LORD and who are then able to get your ducks in a row shall be maybe saved after a while".

Romans 10:8-10 KJV
8) But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9) That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10) For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

We do not add to His Word, even though many who have gone before us have done just that.

If the Bible speaks of Theosis (unity with God to the healing of our soul unto an entire sanctification) it speaks of it clearly in our rebirth, describing the state of the inner man, while we then go on to gain control over the outer man, both by building a better character (healing of corrupted brains/minds) and by walking in the Spirit (transcending flesh). The desired goal for the Christian life is consistent walking in the Spirit.

1 John 3:2-3 KJV
2) Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
3) And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.

Knowing that we will be transformed to be like Him when we see Him - knowing for a fact that this will happen - if we know this, we purify ourselves. We just do.

Jude 1:20-21 KJV
20) But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,
21) Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

Having trusted in Jesus to save us . . . having the testimony of His Spirit within us . . . let's look for His mercy when He comes, and not to question and wonder, will I ever in fact be really born again, finally saved? Will I ever have done enough "self crucifying" to qualify for the benefit of His crucifixion?

Much love!

 

[Lizbeth]

What's the difference between baptism and baptism in the spirit?
Did Jesus state that there are two baptisms?

I don't know if you read my posts about that in this thread. The Lord opened my eyes to a principle of first the natural, then the spiritual.

 

[Lizbeth]

No I am not despising the small beginnings. They are very important. But we must go on to perfection.

When Jesus blew on them the Holy Spirit, I believe it was for illumination or truth and that they would be prepared for the waiting for the Spirit to fill them. They were of one accord showing that they all had the truth revealed, that something else was required apart from the call of Jesus on their lives and their following up till then. So they gathered and waited.

Just sharing some thoughts here - subject to more illumination and confirmation (or correction), I am tentatively seeing water baptism leading to an initial spirit baptism as being all part and parcel of the small beginnings. All belongs to crossing the Red Sea. I've known many including myself who have received an initial baptism of the Spirit early or fairly earl on, but who I don't think could be described as necessarily suddenly becoming "perfect" or even mature. I notice that the apostles did not appear to impose any "qualifiers" apart from faith in Christ before praying for new believers to receive the Holy spirit...it was done for anyone who was a believer and was willing to receive. But I'm not opposed to the idea that there may be a greater impartation of grace and strength in a further spirit baptism later on which for most requires further and deeper preparation and consecration, wilderness experience of dying to the old man flesh nature and growing to maturity etc, to have faith to enter and receive that. Crossing the Jordan which seems to imply a cutting off of the Adamic nature - flood waters of the Jordan being held back all the way to a town called Adam - described as being circumcised a "second time".

I think maybe water baptism could be seen as a "wedding ceremony" which leads to a "consummation" of receiving a Holy Spirit baptism. A woman can go live with a man and keep themselves only to themselves, but that is not the same as having a wedding whereby they are essentially consenting and committing to each other in covenant...something is missing without expressing commitment which seals the marriage. A contract is not "binding" unless it is signed. Three fold cord is not easily broken, but a two fold cord can be more easily broken. What GOD has joined together let no man tear asunder. In water baptism it is like we are invoking God's witness and participation in sealing the covenant with His Son to make it a marriage and not just a tenuous living arrangement that is more easily cancelled.

This all makes sense to me at the moment, but we'll see. As long as I'm not being too cut and dried in my thinking, because things of the spirit are not necessarily cut and dried. Think I'll leave it at that for now.

 

[GodsGrace]

I don't know if you read my posts about that in this thread. The Lord opened my eyes to a principle of first the natural, then the spiritual.

I don't believe Jesus mentioned two baptisms.
If so, you'd have to show this from what He taught.

No. Usually members that come to a thread have not read all your posts.

 

[Lizbeth]

The Bible says there is one baptism:

Eph 4:4There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 5One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

As you say, as we lay our flesh on the altar, it is burned up and we are cleansed by the fire. When we first come to Christ, we really have no idea about the flesh and the journey we have just begun. It takes many trials for us to understand. Agree, the whole is significant. Prior to that we were offering bits and pieces, but then it has to be the whole of it.

Two river/sea crossings yes.

Coming back to this for a sec. Just in case it helps. It might help God'sGrace to understand where I;m coming from too because I dont' have the stamina right now to go back over everything again.

So yes, as there are two crossings of water here as you said...... here we see two baptisms being depicted (and I'm considering water baptism and first spirit baptism to be tied together as part and parcel of the Red Sea crossing) ....and yet the bible says there is one baptism. Go figure. We know the bible never contradicts itself, so we need ears to hear what the spirit is saying....to hear what is meant by saying there is one baptism, one faith etc.. They are all of one is the only way I know how to express it. All are Christ's baptisms, of the one faith....of Him and for Him and to Him and into Him. I just dont' know how else to say it. But think we could say that each succeeding one is deeper.....each succeeding one giving a greater and deeper grace and strength (spiritual).

 

[Hepzibah]

Just sharing some thoughts here - subject to more illumination and confirmation (or correction), I am tentatively seeing water baptism leading to an initial spirit baptism as being all part and parcel of the small beginnings. All belongs to crossing the Red Sea. I've known many including myself who have received an initial baptism of the Spirit early or fairly earl on, but who I don't think could be described as necessarily suddenly becoming "perfect" or even mature. I notice that the apostles did not appear to impose any "qualifiers" apart from faith in Christ before praying for new believers to receive the Holy spirit...it was done for anyone who was a believer and was willing to receive. But I'm not opposed to the idea that there may be a greater impartation of grace and strength in a further spirit baptism later on which for most requires further and deeper preparation and consecration, wilderness experience of dying to the old man flesh nature and growing to maturity etc, to have faith to enter and receive that. Crossing the Jordan which seems to imply a cutting off of the Adamic nature - flood waters of the Jordan being held back all the way to a town called Adam - described as being circumcised a "second time".

I think maybe water baptism could be seen as a "wedding ceremony" which leads to a "consummation" of receiving a Holy Spirit baptism. A woman can go live with a man and keep themselves only to themselves, but that is not the same as having a wedding whereby they are essentially consenting and committing to each other in covenant...something is missing without expressing commitment which seals the marriage. A contract is not "binding" unless it is signed. Three fold cord is not easily broken, but a two fold cord can be more easily broken. What GOD has joined together let no man tear asunder. In water baptism it is like we are invoking God's witness and participation in sealing the covenant with His Son to make it a marriage and not just a tenuous living arrangement that is more easily cancelled.

This all makes sense to me at the moment, but we'll see. As long as I'm not being too cut and dried in my thinking, because things of the spirit are not necessarily cut and dried. Think I'll leave it at that for now.

Hang on, four baptisms now :) lol. I think a lot of confusion is due to 'progressive' theology which has spilled over to a gradual sanctification which is not in line with the three definite stages in the early church, and the two definite stages in the Holiness Movement of the 19th C.

There are blessings of course and I think people get confused with them. There are only two states of man according to Genesis, one feeding from the tree of knowledge and the other the tree of life. A sinner or a saint. And this difference is due to the baptism of the Holy Spirit or the fiery sword yielded by the cherubim at the gate of Eden. To get back into the kingdom requires the fire of baptism.

Most of Christianity in the west says that coming to Christ for forgiveness gives us that, but that is not what reality shows. If we have had the Holy Baptism, we will have the fruit (not fruits) of the Spirit. You cannot have little bits of God gained over time.

So this is the only really important thing - have we been baptized since we believed?

We are now in the age where the ceremonies and physical under the old covenant have been taken over by the Spiritual, the shadow and type by the spiritual reality. The water baptism of the old by the Spirit baptism of the new.

That is all that I will say about water baptism and the clear words of scripture that there is only one baptism. I don't see a need for speculation. If we have received blessings out side of this then good, but we should not let them be above scripture.

 

[Johann]

Hang on, four baptisms now :) lol. I think a lot of confusion is due to 'progressive' theology which has spilled over to a gradual sanctification which is not in line with the three definite stages in the early church, and the two definite stages in the Holiness Movement of the 19th C.

There are blessings of course and I think people get confused with them. There are only two states of man according to Genesis, one feeding from the tree of knowledge and the other the tree of life. A sinner or a saint. And this difference is due to the baptism of the Holy Spirit or the fiery sword yielded by the cherubim at the gate of Eden. To get back into the kingdom requires the fire of baptism.

Most of Christianity in the west says that coming to Christ for forgiveness gives us that, but that is not what reality shows. If we have had the Holy Baptism, we will have the fruit (not fruits) of the Spirit. You cannot have little bits of God gained over time.

So this is the only really important thing - have we been baptized since we believed?

We are now in the age where the ceremonies and physical under the old covenant have been taken over by the Spiritual, the shadow and type by the spiritual reality. The water baptism of the old by the Spirit baptism of the new.

That is all that I will say about water baptism and the clear words of scripture that there is only one baptism. I don't see a need for speculation. If we have received blessings out side of this then good, but we should not let them be above scripture.

Fasting must be very important to you-right @Hepzibah.

 

[Hepzibah]

Fasting must be very important to you-right @Hepzibah.

I fast from anything of the world. As for food I have only a few foods I am not allergic to, and not in a position of health whereby I can fast from all foods. My liver is damaged from mercury and cannot store glycogen. I do fast from fast foods and other unhealthy foods, eating only food as it is given to us from nature. Otherwise I would abstain from food for as long as God guides me. How about you?

 

[Hepzibah]

@Lizbeth I think that there are cleansings depicted by the river and sea, given to us for encouragement of what can be for us, but they are not the one baptism of the Spirit that delivers us from sin.

 

[Johann]

I fast from anything of the world. As for food I have only a few foods I am not allergic to, and not in a position of health whereby I can fast from all foods. My liver is damaged from mercury and cannot store glycogen. I do fast from fast foods and other unhealthy foods, eating only food as it is given to us from nature. Otherwise I would abstain from food for as long as God guides me. How about you?

I avoid sugar and junk food, sticking to oats in the morning and mielie meal with meat at night. I've noticed that overeating disrupts my connection with the Holy Spirit and my fellowship with Jesus.

 

[Hepzibah]

@Johann well done. Not all in the first world are fatties addicted to McDonalds.

 

[Johann]

@Johann well done. Not all in the first world are fatties addicted to McDonalds.

Having said that, that is not the reason I live as I do.
FASTING IN EASTERN ORTHODOXY TO THE PRESENT:
PART OF TRADITION AND THEOSIS
The Eastern Orthodox churches offer a living example of continuity in Christian fasting traditions. They place fasting within their doctrine of theosis, or divinization, as part of the sanctification (or for them, salvation) process. These aspects will be explored below, with attention to the contribution the Orthodox might make for developing an evangelical theology of fasting.

FASTING AS PART OF CHRISTIAN TRADITION
Eastern Orthodoxy has held the teachings and practices of the Church Fathers in high regard through the centuries. Without the earthquake of the Reformation that so affected Western Christianity, the Orthodox communities have transmitted ancient practices into the modern era in a rather organic way. Whatever the actual fasting practices may be on a local level, it is clear that official Orthodoxy has sought to maintain continuity with the past. For the Orthodox, “tradition is not something limited to that found in the Early Church. It is that which binds the past and present and which survives today.”623 The characters in Scripture, the Church Fathers, the councils and bishops, are all part of the same community that is alive and worships today. This idea, “that the Church is always identical with herself,” helps to shape the Orthodox approach to fasting.624 It is not surprising, then, to see Orthodox treatments of fasting begin with Scriptures, move through patristic teachers of authority (especially the Greek fathers), and then make fairly direct applications for the church.625

FASTING AS PART OF THEOSIS
Akakios says that to understand the importance of fasting for the Eastern Orthodox, one must understand the place of asceticism within its cosmology, and he notes these elements: “its view of human sin, salvation and restoration, and theosis (or divinization) and enlightenment.”626 Humanity’s fall from paradise is not viewed so much in Augustinian understandings of original sin, as in “a dynamic process of deviation which led to disobedience and which changed the course of human growth from something natural to something unnatural.”627 As a result, salvation is also viewed as more of a dynamic process, a restoration to the right path for humanity that has deviated from it. In a collection of Orthodox essays on fasting, Lazar Puhalo says this:

Fasting is a special keystone in our struggle to acquire the Holy Spirit and to become robed in the “wedding garment” of divine grace. To understand the fasts and to keep them is, therefore, fundamental to our salvation itself. To fail to keep the fasts in a true Orthodox fashion is to undermine our salvation and turn ourselves away from the Heavenly Kingdom.628

The transformation that takes place in the believer is theosis, the process of becoming like God; but more than like God, this is done through partaking in his nature, the Holy Spirit, so that there is a deep sense of one’s unity with God in this saving, transforming process. 629 While its full realization awaits death, the process of theosis divinizes a person by degrees throughout life. The Orthodox resist the judicial approach to justification prominent in the Western Christian tradition, because there fasting has been viewed as part of a legal covenant between man and God.630

In clarifying theosis, or deification, for Western Christians, Bishop Kallistos (Timothy) Ware makes six points:

1. Deification is not reserved for a few, but is intended for all alike.

2. Deification involves a continual attitude of repentance, and does not expect freedom from sin.

3. The methods for deification are not extraordinary, esoteric or mystical, but normal and moral.

4. Deification is a social process of loving God and neighbor.

5. Love of God and neighbor must be practical, issuing in good deeds.

6. Deification presupposes life in the church and sacraments, where the coinherence of believers with the Spirit can be realized.631

Chapter 5: Toward A Contemporary Christian Theology Of Fasting | Bible.org

This chapter will suggest an integrative theological approach to fasting that is based on the scriptural and historical insights studied so far. These will first be set in the context of the renewal of fasting practices in certain Christian traditions, and then oriented toward an eschatological...

bible.org

 

[Hepzibah]

I have already said that you can find anything you want in Orthodoxy. Many began to fall away from the Apostolic faith from the early years. And now barely any know of it.

Their fasting consists of avoiding meat and dairy for certain days of the week. As I cannot eat grains, that would be impossible for me even if I wanted to follow them which I do not.

 

[Johann]

I have already said that you can find anything you want in Orthodoxy. Many began to fall away from the Apostolic faith from the early years. And now barely any know of it.

Their fasting consists of avoiding meat and dairy for certain days of the week. As I cannot eat grains, that would be impossible for me even if I wanted to follow them which I do not.

Question is: Which Orthodoxy?

1. Eastern Orthodoxy:
Communion: Eastern Orthodoxy is a communion of autocephalous (self-governing) churches that share the same faith and sacraments. These churches are united in doctrine and practice, despite being administratively independent.

Major Churches: The largest and most well-known churches within Eastern Orthodoxy include:
The Russian Orthodox Church
The Greek Orthodox Church
The Serbian Orthodox Church
The Romanian Orthodox Church
The Bulgarian Orthodox Church
The Georgian Orthodox Church
The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople
The Orthodox Church in America (OCA)
Estimated Adherents: Eastern Orthodoxy has around 220 to 260 million adherents worldwide.

**2. Oriental Orthodoxy:
Communion: Oriental Orthodoxy refers to a separate communion of churches that rejected the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD due to theological differences regarding the nature of Christ. These churches are also autocephalous and maintain their own distinct liturgical traditions and theological perspectives.

Major Churches: The Oriental Orthodox communion includes:
The Coptic Orthodox Church (Egypt)
The Armenian Apostolic Church
The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
The Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church
The Syriac Orthodox Church
The Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church (India)
Estimated Adherents: Oriental Orthodoxy has around 60 to 80 million adherents globally.

**3. Other Orthodox Traditions:
Eastern Catholic Churches: While not "Orthodox" in the same sense, there are also Eastern Catholic Churches that follow Eastern liturgical traditions but are in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. They are sometimes confused with Orthodox churches due to their similar practices, but they are distinct in their ecclesial allegiance.

**4. Global Presence:
Geographical Spread: Both Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy have a strong presence in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and parts of Africa and Asia. Significant diaspora communities also exist in North America, Western Europe, and Australia.

So, forgive me if I'm Protestant and believe that Scripture contains all the answers, even though no one can claim to have their theology completely right.
J.