the refutation of the false church of Eastern Orthodoxy.
the refutation of the false church of Eastern Orthodoxy.
the refutation of the false church of Eastern Orthodoxy.
VOCABULARY 1: a - h
a gold mine of information about Eastern Orthodoxy.
SORTING AREA - HERESIES
Reorganisation area in progress.......
106) Oversimplification of the character of God: (important)
they say if God is love (a scripture) he cannot have wrath. It is a puerile oversimplification of God's character, leads to other heresies like denying Hell, and when the bible says Jesus "saves" us in 1 Cor 5::1-4 is not from the wrath of God or fires of Hell, there are staggeringly long lists of scriptures that prove the "wrath of God" and that he has anger.
108) The Hypostatic Union Reconciliation Theory. - a mega important issue in Orthodoxy, a false idea that is exalted to importance on a level with the crucifixion of Christ! That Christ, in the hypostatic union (incarnation), healed the corporate fallen nature of all mankind. This is linked to their belief in "ancestral sin" as opposed to "original sin" nature.
note: For Christ to have "ancestral sin" nature in order to heal it is a controversy, as many (including me) believe Jesus was born with the unfallen nature of Adam. if mankind before the incarnation had "ancestral sin nature" what did they have after the incarnation? .......... this is linked to their refusal to recognize sin as acts, and their redefinition it as more like "sin is an illness of a person's state of being" notice here the nebulous expression "more like" allowing them to flexibly reinvent their theology when you bring them to the point of refutation.
It is important to establish the date of these doctrines, and if Catholics ever believed them., and if Irenaeus of Lyons was ever really responsible for them. and If so was he the earliest traceable sacerdotalist heretic preaching the strange distorted reconciliation theories of Orthodoxy? (my present personal view right now is that the doctrines were developed far later, and they are trying to predate them to Irenaeus to give them credibility that a doctrine developed late would not have.) A far kinder view of St. Irenaeus was he was an early writer trying to understand salvation, and had not completed the entire picture yet, at least in his writings, and the accusation he believed in priestcraft salvation was and is false. The polar opposite view is St. Irenaeus was a second rate, would-be theologist whom the Orthodox decided to erroneously build upon, just because his writings were old.
The bible has Christ dealing with this sin his passion and crucifixion. and giving justification in the resurrection (a simple gospel) Orthodoxy spreads out the issues into the hypostatic union, and life of Christ, in a complex fashion, made further complex by the incompletion of it in Christ, needing priestcraft add ons to supply grace, and works also.
The life of Christ - explaining the differing aspects in the Protestant versus Orthodox view, that is preservation of his sinlessness to be the "spotless sacrifice" for sin, and "keeping the law" perfectly etc. One of the more complicated areas in differences in theology with the Orthodox.
Recapitulation theory - the Orthodox seem to have a warped specific form of this doctrine, not at all like other ideas of it. The end result is there are so many confused forms of the doctrine I do not want to discuss it under that title, as it is already variously explained aside from Orthodox angles on it in such a multiplicity of ways I think it is unhelpful to do it, and I think the title itself is rather high-minded. Irenaeus of Lyons is (once again) linked to it.
"The term is used in its verbal form in Eph 1:10. where God is said to sum up all things in Christ. and from this passage was taken over by the Fathers (so called). The concept of recapitulation was elaborated esp. by St. Irenaeus, who interpreted it both as the restoration of fallen humanity to communion with God through the obedience of Christ and as the summing up of the previous revelations of God in past ages in the Incarnation.
Besides these two meanings, which are common in patristic literature, there is a third found in St. Chrysostom, who applies the word to the reunion of both angels and men under Christ as their common head." unquote . oxford dictionary of the christian church:
Oxford English dictionary:
an act or instance of summarizing and restating the main points of something: his recapitulation of the argument.
• [ mass noun ] Biology the repetition of an evolutionary or other process during development or growth.
• Music a part of a movement (especially one in sonata form) in which themes from the exposition are restated." unquote .
refutation often cited of the recapitulation theory (in combination with hypostatic union in Orthodoxy) - it has been said that, as docetism over emphasised the deity of Christ, denying his humanity to the point of heresy, so the recapitulation theory over emphasises his humanity, in that in it Christ undid what Adam did by perfectly obeying the law through all the stages of human life, but that means Jesus could have died a natural death and still make atonement, which is not the revealed plan of salvation from God in scripture, and its inclusion in Orthodoxy is why they do not make the cross and resurrection the primary root of salvation,
Christ died and was resurrected to achieve resurrection for all - Orthodoxy denies the simplicity of the 1 Cor 15:1-4 and Luke 24:44-48 and see the cross and resurrection as earning the resurrection of both the sinners and the saints. I believe the resurrection would happen simply as part of the natural plan of the justice of God, and that Christ earned a positive resurrection for all those that believe (not the belief of all Protestants) otherwise we say Jesus died to make a way to burn billions in Hell.
The only way to be saved?
The only way possible to ever have been saved?
please notice these are two very different questions!!!
- I really must emphasise something of supreme importance here, because the Orthodox have a simply huge disagreement over this with Protestants, and that is the use of words and phrases by Protestants concerning the cross and resurrection as the gospel of salvation like "the only way we could ever have beev saved" and "therefore Christ must die". Believe it or not I think that both the Orthodox, and many Protestants managed to get this issue wrong for two entirely different reasons, total polar opposites, both missing the correct middle ground.
question: is the only possible way God could secure salvation for mankind the cross and resurrection? (inserting a clause into the question "is this the only way to be saved")
Orthodox answer = No (as they deny that gospel - thus are right and wrong at the same time)
Protestant 2 answers - Yes, and some say No. The reason? I say the answer to that very specific question is no! Why? Because it attacks the omnipotence or Almightiness of God. The truth is God decided or chose that this is the one and only way man could be saved in the new and better covenant, it was not for some supernaturally intrinsic reason the only possible way (attacking God's ability to do anything). It is not that there is some big division in Protestantism over this, all Protestants are just about the same on it, it is that some Protestants are not understanding the question properly and can also be blasé about the use of phrases.
In order to muddy the waters on this issue the Orthodox change the issue from "the gospel by which we are saved" in the new covenant (a subject they always want to avoid the existence of) to the issue of forgiving sin in general, that is..... before the cross Jesus did forgive individual sins, and in the old covenant God did this also through attending a yearly sacrifice. Believe it or not, the blasé use by some Protestants of the phrase "the only way" is then used by the Orthodox to accuse Protestant of having a doctrine of God where he is an evil God demanding a blood sacrifice, and they then will even compare God himself to Moloch, as a massive blasphemous attack on the gospel that contradicts their mode for dealing with sin via the hypostatic union and a form of doctrine similar to the recapitulation theory.
note - the issue of - Did Jesus offer up himself, or was his life taken from him, is involved, but the Orthodox get around is to simply say "offered up himself" but then say to attain the resurrection, not salvation.
note - on old testament forgiveness of sin there is the topic of retrospective grace permeating history a very difficult subject to discuss.
note - you will definitely see a division among Protestants as to whether Jesus earned a resurrection of salvation or damnation for all (that is a general resurrection) in the gospel, OR as I believe - that he earned a positive resurrection for all, which positivity is accessed by belief. My refutation is - that Jesus did not die and rise again to secure damnation for the dead by raising them wherein they would not have otherwise been risen again.
Definition of grace - frankly the Eastern Orthodox blasphemously make grace sound like a reservoir of "salvific God energy" they alone can funnel to humanity through their rites, rituals and religiosity, when the word "grace" simply means "unmerited favour" as is plain from Ephesians 2:8-9 and Romans 11:6 (this may be why the Catholics have omitted half the verse in Romans 11:6). It is the same desire of Simon the Sorcerer who craved powers relating to God, that could be used as the equivalent of his magic deceptions. I will gladly stand before God as having directly accused the Orthodox priesthood of sorceries. Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise.
126) Canon Law - an admixture of truth and heresy that to the Orthodox has more authority than the new testament.
127) The pill - Orthodoxy is lax on the progesterone / pill issue, whereas Catholics are strict.
120) Refusal to recognize the Holy Spirit is our primary teacher - let's face facts, this issue is based in the born again Christian primary "relationship with God" issue, where a person is saved entirely by Christ, and the primary teacher is entirely God in out ongoing relationship with him, and often "The Holy Spirit" specifically. That is very different from the draconian systematic indoctrination by priests the catechumen faces.
The fact some people are spiritual, and others are not as spiritual as they would like to think, can lead (and has) to a diversity of sects in Protestantism, some "in the Spirit" some slightly astray, others very astray, indeed 1 Cor 11:19 refers to this issue, quote "For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you." The Orthodox and Catholic solution to this inevitable problem is having one big
Resistance to the simplification of your Faith. - very useful in securing the salvation of those making a last minute commitment to Christ, or those slowly dying wishing to simplify their Faith down to only that which is necessary to believe. One of the chief characteristics of the real good news is, if like the prodigal son you come to your senses near the end of your days, and realise you have not brought forth enough fruit or kept holy enough to give a good witness of Christ at work in you, is that if you truly simply and honestly repent, you can be and will be put into a state of salvation there and then should you die, through trusting in Christ. Salvation will not be attained by God looking at bar charts about how much you attained in this or that.
LIST OF 10 example PHARISEE SINS :
1) They devour widows houses
2) Wear long robes