Civil Religious Discussions : all things Christianity II

[foszoe]

Before going any further I am not saying any of these theological positions are judgements on the salvation of anyone as that is not my place.

However, wrong teachings can and do lead us astray no matter how benign they may appear. The division of the church is a sin against the body of Christ and these new doctrines should be known by their fruit and the fragmentation they have brought upon the body of Christ in the United States and judged accordingly.

If they aren't salvific they should not be worth splitting a church. Christians need to quit treating theologoumenon as dogma.

Revelation 7:4
And I heard the number of those who were sealed. One hundred and forty-four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel were sealed:
Revelation 14:1 NKJV
Then I looked, and behold, a Lamb standing on Mount Zion, and with Him one hundred and forty-four thousand, having His Father's name written on their foreheads.
The sealing of the 144,000 comes after the 6th seal is broken.
These are of 12 tribes of Israel.
My understanding you do not believe the modern Israeli are real Jews or the chosen people is what I gather from your posts.
If that is the case how do you explain this prophesy that definitely has not been fulfilled?

I believe that prophecy is being fulfilled. The number 144,000 is meant to mean a great multitude that no one could number. For an Orthodox Christian, reading this passage immediately calls to mind the mystery of chrismation where one is anointed with oil upon the forehead in the sign of the Cross. Just as in Ezekiel 9:1-8 where tradition has it that the mark placed upon the forehead was the Hebrew letter tau, a cross.

I believe the number is symbolic as I said before 12 a number of completeness multiplied by 1000, the largest unit of counting in Biblical Hebrew just as we are not to forgive 70x7 but an innumerable amount. Or that God only owns the cattle on a 1000 hills and not all of them. Or that a 1000 years are but as a day in His sight. There were 12 tribes, there were 12 disciples, when the tribe of Levi, was removed, the tribe of Joseph was split. When Judas betrayed Christ, a 12th apostle was needed. These numbers are taken for symbolic value throughout the Bible so there is no necessity to take them literally here.

To anyone who insists on the literal interpretation, I invite the treatment of John 6 in the same manner.

Another reason to believe it is symbolic is that the list of the tribes here does not line up with the OT lists. It is missing Dan, a tribe which is believed to have fallen into idolatry and the source of the antichrist so this list has Joseph added back to the list even though Manasseh and Benjamin are still on the list which were the and the tribe of Levi is added.

I believe the chosen people of God are Christians.

But what do others say? I believe they say enough that one should not be dogmatic in the belief that the number 144,000 is a literal number, the 12 tribes are the actual 12 tribes of Israel, that the tribes are represented by the modern state of Israel.

I believe they say enough that the literal interpretation is not the teaching believed everywhere in every time.

From the Wesleyan Bible Commentary vol 6.

The identity of the 144,000 depends somewhat on one’s approach to the entire book of Revelation. Beckwith describes four views with which he does not agree. First, “they are Jewish Christians” in contrast to those in verses 9–17 who are “Christians of all nations, including Jews.” Second, “they are Israel’s ‘Remnant’ ” who believe that Jesus is their Messiah. Third, they are the Israelites mentioned in Romans 11, “who shall ultimately be grafted into the people of God.” Fourth, they are a select group out of the Church who will be spared from the final tribulation. Beckwith’s own view is that they represent “the whole body of the Church, and that they are identical with the multitude in verses 9–17.”43a
A further identification must be made. How can a great multitude, which no man could number be identified with the exact number of 144,000? The answer lies in the fact that John was writing in an Old Testament context, as we have seen before. The prophet Ezekiel provided the pattern for the sealing of God’s people in the incident where the man with the writer’s inkhorn was told by God to go and “set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry over all the abominations that are done in the midst thereof” (Ezek. 9:1–8). In this frame of thinking John wrote of the new Israel (the Church) in terms of the old Israel. The universal scope of the Church would therefore be expressed in terms of the totality of Israel—twelve tribes. Twelve times twelve hundred from each tribe denotes completeness as well as diversity within an essential unity. The 144,000 becomes symbolic of the Christian Church, and any attempt to make the number apply to some certain select group of Christians must be rejected.

Harvey J. S. Blaney, Hebrews-Revelation, 1966, 6, 450.

From: Revelation: A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition

The number of those who were sealed was 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel.
Literal interpretations of this group have created many problems.
First, some have understood the number 144,000 to represent an actual number of people. The obvious symbolism of multiples of 12 and 10, numbers representing completeness, the tribes of Israel, and the apostles of Christ, would expand the meaning of an actual, limited number.Second, the limitation of the tribes of Israel to Jews or even Jewish Christians misses the vital point that the Revelation never makes a distinction between Jews and Gentiles, but understands a newly formed people of God incorporating both.
The symbolic richness of the number 144,000 shows how God is still the Good Shepherd who knows each of His sheep by name and has even the most insignificant and lost sheep in His purview. None of God’s faithful will be lost. As the amassed people are given greater amplification, the description becomes clearer. The multitude is made up of those who have gone through the great tribulation and survived to praise God.


Richard K. Eckley, Revelation: A Commentary for Bible Students, (Indianapolis, IN: Wesleyan Publishing House, 2006), 111–112.

John then heard the number of those who were sealed, and it was one hundred and forty-four thousand from every tribe of the sons of Israel, twelve thousand from each tribe. The concept of numbering a people or of taking a census originally had a military feel to it. Israel of old was thus numbered before entering into battle (see Num. 1:2; 1 Sam. 14:15). Kings would count their soldiers so they could have some notion of whether victory was assured or impossible. A king had to decide “whether he was strong enough with ten thousand to meet the one coming against him with twenty thousand” (Luke 14:31). These ancient census numbers therefore were not theoretical, but had practical military significance.
In numbering the servants of God who were sealed, the angels present the Church as the army of God mustered for battle, as the sons of Israel ready to follow the Lord, the heavenly Commander. For the Church is the true Israel and the inheritor of all God promised in the Law and the Prophets.
As is usual in apocalyptic literature, the numbers here have symbolic significance. One thousand is the number of vast plurality. To say that God owns “the cattle on a thousand hills” (Ps. 50:10) is to say that He owns the cattle on all the hills. Further, twelve is the number that denotes completeness—such as in the twelve tribes of Israel, the twelve apostles. To say that twelve thousand were sealed from each of the twelve tribes is therefore to speak of vastness and completion, to say that all the People of God were included in this sealing; not the least one was left out. All were counted and cared for.
Some may ask why the tribe of Dan was omitted from this list of the twelve tribes and the half-tribe of Manasseh (which with the half-tribe of Ephraim made up the tribe of Joseph) put in its place. It is impossible to say with certainty. It may be noted, however, that in apocalyptic literature, the tribe of Dan had a reputation for idolatry and evil. First Kings 12:29 mentions an idolatrous shrine as being located in Dan. Whether for this reason or some other, the apocalyptic Testament of Dan describes Satan as the prince of that tribe. If the Apocalypse is heir to this tradition, the omission of the tribe of Dan expresses the truth that the Church, mustered by God and preserved by Him, is devoid of any evil and treason. “Those who are with Him are called and chosen and faithful” (Rev. 17:14).


Lawrence R. Farley, The Apocalypse of St. John: A Revelation of Love and Power, The Orthodox Bible Study Companion, (Chesterton, IN: Ancient Faith Publishing, 2011), 92–93.

Adam C Clarke Commentary

Verse 4. I heard the number of them which were sealed] In the number of 144,000 are included all the Jews converted to Christianity; 12,000 out of each of the twelve tribes: but this must be only a certain for an uncertain number; for it is not to be supposed that just 12,000 were converted out of each of the twelve tribes.
Verses 5–8. Of the tribe of Juda, &c.] First, we are to observe that the tribe of Levi is here mentioned, though that tribe had no inheritance in Israel; out they now belonged to the spiritual priesthood. Secondly, That the tribe of Dan, which had an inheritance, is here omitted; as also the tribe of Ephraim. Thirdly, That the tribe of Joseph is here added in the place of Ephraim. Ephraim and Dan, being the principal promoters of idolatry, are left out in this enumeration.


Adam Clarke, The Holy Bible with a Commentary and Critical Notes, New Edition., (Bellingham, WA: Faithlife Corporation, 2014), 6:996–997.

From another Wesleyan Commentator

4. And I heard the number—Omitting the element of time, the present verse assumes the sealing as all done and the number reported. The whole number, not including the great multitude of verse 9; but the number of the sealed of all the tribes of … Israel is alone given. A hundred and forty and four thousand—A decisive instance of an exact for an inexact number, and decisive proof that there are symbol-numbers as well as symbol-objects. The basis is the symbol tribal-number, twelve; it is squared and multiplied by the cube of the number of universality, ten. It is, therefore, the churchly number, raised by multiplication of itself to a seemly magnitude, with the decimal symbolizing the inclusion of an immense whole. See notes on 9:16; 11:13; 20:4.
5–8. Of … tribe—Wordsworth gives a table of the six catalogues of the twelve tribes in scripture. 1. The births of the twelve patriarchs, Gen. 29:32; 30:1–24; 35:16–20. 2. In the blessing of Jacob, Gen. 49:1–29. 3. The list of Exodus 1. 4. The order of the twelve standards at the tabernacle, Num. 2. 5. Order of tribal inheritance; and 6. The present list in the order of sealing.
Here, 1. Judah, as the tribe of the Messiah, stands first, in place of Reuben, first in all other lists, as being the firstborn. 2. For ethical reasons, the idolatrous tribes of Ephraim and Dan are excluded. Their place is filled by Levi and Joseph; Levi having been, as the uninheriting priestly tribe, omitted from the distribution of tribal territory, and Joseph having been omitted as being represented by his two sons Ephraim and Manasseh. 3. The order of birth and the division of names according to the concubine and legitimate mothers, is disregarded. These changes arise from the new view introduced by the gospel.


D. D. Whedon, Titus–Revelation, A Popular Commentary on the New Testament, (New York; Cincinnati: Phillips & Hunt; Cranston & Stowe, 1880), V:385–386.

You seen to think that some scripture is better than others according to this all scripture is good.

I think that there are two ways to interpret scripture. Exegesis and eisegesis. The correct way is exegesis. Eisegesis is how many people support the doctrine of a rapture.

From what you posted is your belief. "In one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church." Sounds like only your doctrine is the only one.

There is only one dogma/doctrine/Church that is a correct statement. God does not speak with a forked tongue. To say that in no way implies a judgement on the salvation of any person.

1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 NKJV

For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. [17] Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.



1 Thessalonians 5:1-3 NKJV

But concerning the times and the seasons, brethren, you have no need that I should write to you. [2] For you yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so comes as a thief in the night. [3] For when they say, "Peace and safety!" then sudden destruction comes upon them, as labor pains upon a pregnant woman. And they shall not escape.



John 14:3 NKJV

And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also.



Mark 13:32-33 NKJV

"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. [33] Take heed, watch and pray; for you do not know when the time is.



Revelation 3:10 NKJV

Because you have kept My command to persevere, I also will keep you from the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth.



Daniel 12:1-2 NKJV

"At that time Michael shall stand up, The great prince who stands watch over the sons of your people; And there shall be a time of trouble, Such as never was since there was a nation, Even to that time. And at that time your people shall be delivered, Every one who is found written in the book. [2] And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, Some to everlasting life, Some to shame and everlasting contempt.



1 Corinthians 15:51-53 NKJV

Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed- [52] in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. [53] For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.





Luke 17:34-36 NKJV

I tell you, in that night there will be two men in one bed: the one will be taken and the other will be left. [35] Two women will be grinding together: the one will be taken and the other left. [36] Two men will be in the field: the one will be taken and the other left."



Where I rapture mentioned in the Bible? Right here.

The Greek word from this term “rapture” is harpazo which means to snatch or take away.

The Latin translation is rapturo it means caught up.



1 Thessalonians 4:17 NKJV

Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.

The witness of the scriptures and the church agree, there is a second coming. However the doctrine of the rapture was not taught until the 1800's. I believe it started with John Darby, a man who believed and taught a rapture and also dispensationalism. I am going from memory, but I also believe he was into predicting dates and believed the entire church had fallen into apostasy. There are several red flags in his life. His teachings were not found in the history of the church, if my memory is correct, he was doing exactly what scripture says not to do, that is predicting dates of the Second Coming. His teachings were then recorded in the notes for the Scofield Reference Bible which was widely distributed and thus gained popularity.

With the possible exception of the Luke passage above, the scriptures are a witness to the Second Coming of Christ, a teaching of the scriptures that encompasses all of the scriptures above, including the Thessalonians passage. Luke is simply talking about the day you die. To interpret Thessalonians in the light of the Gospels and the rest of the scriptures, that is exegesis.

To take one verse, containing one word and build a rapture doctrine from it, then use verses about the Second Coming to support the rapture doctrine is eisegesis.

The question facing the Thessalonians was, Christ said He would return soon, but believers were dying. What would happen to those who died? Paul was answering their concerns.

Its a classic case of eisegesis. Look at your scripture references above. The rapture doctrine starts in 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17. It HINGES on one passage. The word harpazo occurs ONCE in the entire NT in that passage. Yet an entire doctrine is born.

Thre is no indication of the passage of time in 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17. It seems to me to be consistent with Acts 1:9-11

Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight.
10 And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel,
11 who also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven.”


The New King James Version, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982), Ac 1:9–11.

Wesley makes no mention of it.

16. With a shout—Properly a proclamation made to a great multitude: above this is the voice of an archangel; above both, the trumpet of God! The voice of God, somewhat analogous to the sound of a trumpet.
17. Together—In the same moment, in the air—The wicked will remain beneath, while the righteous, being absolved, shall be assessors with their Lord in the judgment, with the Lord—In heaven.


John Wesley, Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament, Fourth American Edition., (New York: J. Soule and T. Mason, 1818), 547.

Nonetheless, St. Paul reaffirms here that at the Second Coming the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a signal-order, with a voice of an archangel and with a trumpet of God. These cosmic phenomena will serve to herald the resurrection of our loved ones and will serve for us as the unmistakable sign of their final salvation. It is only then, after they are safe and saved, that we ourselves will be caught up and carried off from the vanities of this world, and will be resurrected in the twinkling of an eye (1 Cor. 15:51–52) to be together with them in the clouds, welcoming as a military escort the returning King and Conqueror.
Reference here to the clouds and the air serves to emphasize the transcendence and glory of our final salvation. It is no earthbound resurrection, no restoration to life as we once knew it. It is our rising to a new and heavenly glory, above anything in this world. The air is presently the abode of the enemy (Eph. 2:2). At the Lord’s Coming, all enemy power will be put down, and we will stand as victorious conquerors with Christ on territory formerly usurped by the foe. Our victory will be complete, our reunion in Christ fulfilled. Then we shall all together be always with the Lord. The death of the Thessalonians’ loved ones would not eternally separate them from Christ or from themselves. They could therefore comfort one another with the apostle’s words.


Lawrence R. Farley, Words of Fire: The Early Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians and the Galatians, The Orthodox Bible Study Companion, (Chesterton, IN: Ancient Faith Publishing, 2010), 45–46.

 

[DadSmith]

Before going any further I am not saying any of these theological positions are judgements on the salvation of anyone as that is not my place.

However, wrong teachings can and do lead us astray no matter how benign they may appear. The division of the church is a sin against the body of Christ and these new doctrines should be known by their fruit and the fragmentation they have brought upon the body of Christ in the United States and judged accordingly.

If they aren't salvific they should not be worth splitting a church. Christians need to quit treating theologoumenon as dogma.


I believe that prophecy is being fulfilled. The number 144,000 is meant to mean a great multitude that no one could number. For an Orthodox Christian, reading this passage immediately calls to mind the mystery of chrismation where one is anointed with oil upon the forehead in the sign of the Cross. Just as in Ezekiel 9:1-8 where tradition has it that the mark placed upon the forehead was the Hebrew letter tau, a cross.

I believe the number is symbolic as I said before 12 a number of completeness multiplied by 1000, the largest unit of counting in Biblical Hebrew just as we are not to forgive 70x7 but an innumerable amount. Or that God only owns the cattle on a 1000 hills and not all of them. Or that a 1000 years are but as a day in His sight. There were 12 tribes, there were 12 disciples, when the tribe of Levi, was removed, the tribe of Joseph was split. When Judas betrayed Christ, a 12th apostle was needed. These numbers are taken for symbolic value throughout the Bible so there is no necessity to take them literally here.

To anyone who insists on the literal interpretation, I invite the treatment of John 6 in the same manner.

Another reason to believe it is symbolic is that the list of the tribes here does not line up with the OT lists. It is missing Dan, a tribe which is believed to have fallen into idolatry and the source of the antichrist so this list has Joseph added back to the list even though Manasseh and Benjamin are still on the list which were the and the tribe of Levi is added.

I believe the chosen people of God are Christians.

But what do others say? I believe they say enough that one should not be dogmatic in the belief that the number 144,000 is a literal number, the 12 tribes are the actual 12 tribes of Israel, that the tribes are represented by the modern state of Israel.

I believe they say enough that the literal interpretation is not the teaching believed everywhere in every time.

From the Wesleyan Bible Commentary vol 6.



From: Revelation: A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition





Adam C Clarke Commentary



From another Wesleyan Commentator






I think that there are two ways to interpret scripture. Exegesis and eisegesis. The correct way is exegesis. Eisegesis is how many people support the doctrine of a rapture.



There is only one dogma/doctrine/Church that is a correct statement. God does not speak with a forked tongue. To say that in no way implies a judgement on the salvation of any person.





The witness of the scriptures and the church agree, there is a second coming. However the doctrine of the rapture was not taught until the 1800's. I believe it started with John Darby, a man who believed and taught a rapture and also dispensationalism. I am going from memory, but I also believe he was into predicting dates and believed the entire church had fallen into apostasy. There are several red flags in his life. His teachings were not found in the history of the church, if my memory is correct, he was doing exactly what scripture says not to do, that is predicting dates of the Second Coming. His teachings were then recorded in the notes for the Scofield Reference Bible which was widely distributed and thus gained popularity.

With the possible exception of the Luke passage above, the scriptures are a witness to the Second Coming of Christ, a teaching of the scriptures that encompasses all of the scriptures above, including the Thessalonians passage. Luke is simply talking about the day you die. To interpret Thessalonians in the light of the Gospels and the rest of the scriptures, that is exegesis.

To take one verse, containing one word and build a rapture doctrine from it, then use verses about the Second Coming to support the rapture doctrine is eisegesis.

The question facing the Thessalonians was, Christ said He would return soon, but believers were dying. What would happen to those who died? Paul was answering their concerns.

Its a classic case of eisegesis. Look at your scripture references above. The rapture doctrine starts in 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17. It HINGES on one passage. The word harpazo occurs ONCE in the entire NT in that passage. Yet an entire doctrine is born.

Thre is no indication of the passage of time in 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17. It seems to me to be consistent with Acts 1:9-11



Wesley makes no mention of it.

I just studied more on this verse and tried to find the greek words, and the meaning of them especially the taken out of the way part. Thessalonians 2:7 NKJV
For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way.

This is what my understanding is now that I researched it more.

The Greek meaning of that section isn't that the Holy Spirit is removed. It is more like he steps aside.
For example.
In order for Kamala to become president while Biden is alive while he is in term. Biden must step aside to allow Kamala to become president.
So the Greek words here are saying the Holy Spirit steps aside to allow the anti-Christ to be revealed. He allows him to be revealed, and or to come to power.

I'm not an expert by any means. So if I got this correct that means the church will be here to see who the anti-Christ is.

 

[foszoe]

I just studied more on this verse and tried to find the greek words, and the meaning of them especially the taken out of the way part. Thessalonians 2:7 NKJV
For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way.

This is what my understanding is now that I researched it more.

The Greek meaning of that section isn't that the Holy Spirit is removed. It is more like he steps aside.
For example.
In order for Kamala to become president while Biden is alive while he is in term. Biden must step aside to allow Kamala to become president.
So the Greek words here are saying the Holy Spirit steps aside to allow the anti-Christ to be revealed. He allows him to be revealed, and or to come to power.

I'm not an expert by any means. So if I got this correct that means the church will be here to see who the anti-Christ is.

More than you will probably want to know. This is every time the word is used in the Septuagint, the New Testament and in early Christian writings. Bolded the portion specific to your verse.

κατέχω impf. κατεῖχον;
fut. καθέξω LXX, 3 pl. κατασχήσουσι (JosAs 16 [p. 64, 18 Bat. and cod. A]);
• 2 aor. κατέσχον. Pass.:
• fut. 2 pl. κατασχεθήσεσθε Ruth 1:13;
• aor. 3 sg. κατεσχέθη LXX (s. ἔχω; Hom.+).
• Trans. in all mngs.
• below, except 7.
① to prevent the doing of someth. or cause to be ineffective, prevent, hinder, restrain
ⓐ to hold someone back from going away hold back, hinder, prevent from going away (Hom. et al.; BGU 1205, 27 [28 B.C.]; 37, 6 [50 A.D.]; PFay 109, 11; Gen 24:56; cp. Jos., Ant. 7, 76; Just., A I, 45, 1) Hs 9, 11, 6.
• ὃν ἐβουλόμην πρὸς ἐμαυτὸν κ. whom I wished to keep with me Phlm 13.
• Foll. by gen. of the inf. w. article (B-D-F §400, 4) οἱ ὄχλοι κατεῖχον αὐτὸν τοῦ μὴ πορεύεσθαι ἀπʼ αὐτῶν Lk 4:42.
ⓑ hold down, suppress τὶ someth. (γέλωτα X., Cyr. 2, 2, 1; Chariton 3, 7, 4 τ. λύπην; WCrum, Coptic Ostraca p. 4, 522=Dssm., LO 260 [LAE 306]=PGM II 233, no. O 1, 1–3 Κρόνος, ὁ κατέχων τὸν θυμὸν ὅλων τ. ἀνθρώπων, κάτεχε τ. θυμὸν Ὡρι; cp. II, 7, 935f, p 41; Jos., Vi. 233 τ. ὀργήν) τ. ἀλήθειαν ἐν ἀδικίᾳ stifle the truth by unrighteousness/ wickedness Ro 1:18 (cp. JFitzmyer, Ro [AB], ’93, 278; but s. 6 below).
ⓒ to prevent someone from exercising power, restrain, check (Thu. 6, 29, 3; Appian, Bell. Civ. 2, 149 §622 τοῦ δαίμονος κατέχοντος τὸ πέλαγος=divine power held the sea back until Alexander reached the other shore; PGiss 70, 3 [II A.D.] ἡ ἀναγραφὴ κατέσχεν ἡμᾶς μέχρι ὥρας ἕκτης) ἵνα μὴ κατέξω τ̣ὰ [προσ‌]|τεταγμένα καὶ ἐπεικίμ̣[εν]α so that I might not delay (carrying out) the instructions and orders AcPl Ha 7, 14f.
• τὸ κατέχον (Themistocl., Ep. 13, 4) 2 Th 2:6 and ὁ κατέχων vs. 7 mean that which restrains and one who restrains, i.e. what prevents God’s adversary fr. coming out in open opposition to God, for the time being.
• In an effort to define κ. more specifically here, many interpreters have followed the exegesis of the ancient church (Tertullian) and taken τὸ κ. to be the Roman Empire and ὁ κ. the Emperor (OBetz, NTS 9, ’63, 276–91).
• An alternative view, as old as Theodore of Mops., but without sustained acceptance, would make τὸ κ. the preaching of Christian missionaries and ὁ κ. the apostle Paul (so OCullmann, Dodd Festschr. ’56, 409–21).
• These and other attempts to limit more precisely the mng. of these terms in 2 Th invite skepticism because of insufficient textual data (vs. 5 appears to imply in-house information).
• The concept of the temporary restraining of the forces of hell (cp. Rtzst., Poim. 27 late Egyptian prayer 6, 4 Horus as κατέχων δράκοντα=PGM 4, 994f; cp. 2770 Μιχαὴλ … κατέχων, ὃν καλέουσι δράκοντα μέγαν) does not appear to play any role here.
• —WBousset, D. Antichrist 1895;
• NFreese, StKr 93, 1921, 73–77;
• VHartl, ZKT 45, 1921, 455–75;
• WSchröder, D. 2.
• Thess. 1929, 8–15;
• DBuzy, RSR 24, ’34, 402–31;
• OCullmann, RThAM 1, ’38, 26–61;
• JSchmid, TQ 129, ’49, 323–43;
• OBetz, NTS 9, ’63, 276–91.
• Difft. CGiblin, Threat to Faith ’67, 167–242, a hostile power.
• S. also JTownsend, SBLSP 19, ’80, 233–46;
• RAus, JBL 96, ’77, 537–53;
• New Docs 3, 28.
ⓓ to hold back with design hold back τὶ someth. κ. ἐν μυστηρίῳ τὴν σοφὴν αὐτοῦ βουλήν hold back his wise plan as a secret Dg 8:10.
② to adhere firmly to traditions, convictions, or beliefs, hold to, hold fast (cp. the lit. sense λαμπάδας ἐν ταῖς χερσίν ParJer 3:2)
ⓐ keep in one’s memory (Theophr., Char. 26, 2, a word of Homer) εἰ κατέχετε if you hold it fast 1 Cor 15:2.
ⓑ hold fast, retain faithfully (X., Symp. 8, 26 τ. φιλίαν; TestJud 26:1 τ. ὁδούς) τὸν λόγον Lk 8:15.
• τὰς παραδόσεις guard the traditions 1 Cor 11:2.
• τὸ καλόν hold fast what is good 1 Th 5:21; Agr 11.
• τὴν παρρησίαν βεβαίαν κ. keep the confidence firm Hb 3:6;
• cp. vs. 14.
• κ. τὴν ὁμολογίαν ἀκλινῆ 10:23.
③ to keep in one’s possession, possess (Ps.-Aristot., Mirabilia 159; 160; Polyb. 1, 2, 3; IMagnMai 105, 51 [II B.C.] ἵνα ἔχωσιν κατέχωσίν τε καρπίζωνταί τε; Ezk 33:24; Da 7:18, 22; Ath. 8:3) τὶ someth. Mt 21:38 v.l.;
• ὡς μηδὲν ἔχοντες καὶ πάντα κατέχοντες 2 Cor 6:10 (DMealand [ZNW 67, ’76, 277–79] cites Ps.-Crates Ep. 7 Hercher=p. 58 no. 7, 8 Malherbe: ἔχοντες μηδὲν πάντʼ ἔχομεν, ὑμεῖς δὲ πάντʼ ἔχοντες οὐδὲν ἔχετε).
• Abs. 1 Cor 7:30.
④ to keep within limits in a confining manner, confine
ⓐ in prison keep, confine (PFlor 61, 60; BGU 372 I, 16; Gen 39:20; Philo, Leg. All. 3, 21) pass. Χριστιανοὶ κατέχονται ὡς ἐν φρουρᾷ τῷ κόσμῳ they are confined in the world as in a prison Dg 6:7.
ⓑ by law:
• ἀποθανόντες ἐν ᾧ κατειχόμεθα having died to that by which we were bound Ro 7:6 (cp. PAmh 97, 17 οὐ κατασχεθήσομαι τῇ ὑποσχέσει; PRyl 117, 13).
ⓒ by disease (Diod S 4, 14, 5; Philo, Op. M. 71, Congr. Erud. Grat. 138; PSI 299, 3 κατεσχέθην νόσῳ; act., Jer 13:21; Jos., Vi. 48) Lk 4:38 D; J 5:4 v.l.
⑤ to have a place as one’s own, take into one’s possession, occupy (Hdt. 5, 72 et al.; PAmh 30, 26 [II B.C.] τὴν οἰκίαν) τὸν ἔσχατον τόπον Lk 14:9 (cp. Philosoph. Max. 491, 69 τὸν κάλλιστον κατέχουσι τόπον; Jos., Ant. 8, 104).
• Cp. GPt 5:15.
• —AcPl Ha 5, 28 [κατ]ε̣ῖ̣χεν αὐτὰς ἔκστασις perh. means astonishment overcame them.
⑥ lay claim to, legal t.t. Ro 1:18 (the point is that a claim is made for truth, which is denied in practice, cp. vss. 22f; s. FDanker, in Gingrich Festschr. 93. For a difft. interpr. see 1b above).
⑦ hold course, nautical t.t., intr. (Hdt. 7, 188 κατέσχε ἐς τὸν αἰγιαλόν; Dicaearchus, Fgm. 85 W. εἰς Δῆλον κατέσχε; Polyb. 1, 25, 7; Philostrat., Vi. Apoll. 4, 13 p. 133, 5; 5, 18 p. 178, 13; cp. Jos., Ant. 1, 204) κατεῖχον εἰς τὸν αἰγιαλόν they headed for the beach Ac 27:40.
⑧ Perh. in the sense of determine (cp. προσέχω 2c) κατεχόντων εἰ ἄρα ἀληθῶς ἀπέθανεν AcPt Ox 849, 2f;
• s. ed.’s notes.
• —M-M. EDNT. TW. Spicq.


impf. impf. = imperfect
fut. fut. = future
LXX LXX = Septuaginta, ed. ARahlfs, unless otherwise specified—Lists 2, beg.
pl. pl. = plural
JosAs JosAs = Joseph and Aseneth—Lists 2, 5
Bat. Bat. = PBatiffol, s. JosAs—List 5
aor. aor. = aorist
fut. fut. = future
pl. pl. = plural
aor. aor. = aorist
sg. sg. = singular

LXX LXX = Septuaginta, ed. ARahlfs, unless otherwise specified—Lists 2, beg.
Hom Hom , VIII B.C.—List 5
someth. someth. = something
Hom Hom , VIII B.C.—List 5
et al. et al. = et alii (and others)
BGU BGU = Aegyptische Urkunden aus den Museen zu Berlin: Griechische Urkunden—List 4
PFay PFay = Fayûm Towns and Their Papyri—List 4
cp. cp. = compare, freq. in ref. to citation fr. ancient texts
Jos. Jos. = Josephus. This abbr. used when follow by title; I A.D.—Lists 5
Just. Just(in) , II A.D.—List 5
Hs Hs = Similitudes
gen. gen. = genitive
inf. inf. = infinitive
w. w. = with
B-D-F B-D-F = FBlass, ADebrunner, RFunk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature—List 6
someth. someth. = something
X. X. = Xenophon, V–IV B.C.—List 5
Chariton Chariton , scriptor eroticus (writer of romances) I–II A.D.—List 5
Dssm. Dssm. = ADeissmann, various works—List 6
LO LO = Licht vom Osten—s. Dssm., LO in List 6
LAE LAE , s. Dssm. LO—List 6
PGM PGM = Papyri Graecae Magicae—List 4
cp. cp. = compare, freq. in ref. to citation fr. ancient texts
Jos. Jos. = Josephus. This abbr. used when follow by title; I A.D.—Lists 5
cp. cp. = compare, freq. in ref. to citation fr. ancient texts
Thu Thu , V B.C.—List 5
Appian Appian , I–II A.D.—List 5
PGiss PGiss = Griechische Papyri . . . zu Giessen—List 4
AcPl Ha AcPl Ha = Acts of Paul, PHamb—List 1
Ep. Ep. = Epistola/Epistula, when applied to letters mostly pseudonymous; various dates—List 5
ep. = epistle
i.e. i.e. = id est (that is)
I.-E. Indo-European
fr. fr. = from
NTS NTS = New Testament Studies—List 6
Dodd Dodd = CD., The Bible and the Greeks—List 6
Festschr. Festschr. = Festschrift, in ref. to any honorary publication
mng. mng. = meaning(s)
cp. cp. = compare, freq. in ref. to citation fr. ancient texts
Rtzst., Poim. Rtzst., Poim. = Poimandres
PGM PGM = Papyri Graecae Magicae—List 4
cp. cp. = compare, freq. in ref. to citation fr. ancient texts
StKr StKr = Theologische Studien und Kritiken—List 6
ZKT ZKT = Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie—List 6
RSR RSR = Recherches de science religieuse—List 6
RThAM RThAM = Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiéviale—List 6
TQ TQ = Theologische Quartalschrift—List 6
NTS NTS = New Testament Studies—List 6
SBLSP SBLSP = Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers—List 6
JBL JBL = Journal of Biblical Literature—List 6
New Docs 3 New Docs = New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, ed. GHorsley, vols. 1–5 1980/81–89
someth. someth. = something
Dg Dg = Letter of Diognetus, attributed to an unidentifiable apologist; II A.D.—List 1
cp. cp. = compare, freq. in ref. to citation fr. ancient texts
lit. lit. = literal(ly); literature (refererences to [scholarly] literature)
ParJer ParJer = Paraleipomena Jeremiou, II? A.D.—List 2
Theophr Theophr , IV–III B.C.—List 5
X. X. = Xenophon, V–IV B.C.—List 5
TestJud TestJud = Testament of Judah, s. Test12Patr—List 2
Agr Agr = Agraphon (non-canonical sayings of Jesus)—List 1
cp. cp. = compare, freq. in ref. to citation fr. ancient texts
Ps.-Aristot Ps.-Aristot , s. Aristot.—List 5
Polyb Polyb , III–II B.C.—List 5
IMagnMai IMagnMai = Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Mäander—Lists 3
Ath. Ath. = Athenagoras, II A.D.—List 5
someth. someth. = something
v.l. v.l. = varia lectio (variant reading)
ZNW ZNW = Zeitschrift für die ntl. Wissenschaft—List 6
Ps.-Crates Ps.-Crates , letters attributed to the poet-philolopher C. (IV–III B.C.), date uncertain—List 5
Ep. Ep. = Epistola/Epistula, when applied to letters mostly pseudonymous; various dates—List 5
ep. = epistle
Malherbe Malherbe = AM., various works
PFlor PFlor = Papiri Fiorentini—List 4
BGU BGU = Aegyptische Urkunden aus den Museen zu Berlin: Griechische Urkunden—List 4
Philo Philo = P. of Alexandria, I B.C.–I A.D.—List 5
pass. pass. = passive (either of grammatical form or of passive experience); also used in reference to literary portion=passage
Dg Dg = Letter of Diognetus, attributed to an unidentifiable apologist; II A.D.—List 1
cp. cp. = compare, freq. in ref. to citation fr. ancient texts
PAmh PAmh = The Amherst Papyri I–II—List 4
PRyl PRyl = Catalogue of the Greek Papyri in the John Rylands Library—List 4
Diod S Diod S , I B.C.—List 5
Philo Philo = P. of Alexandria, I B.C.–I A.D.—List 5
PSI PSI = Papiri greci e latini: Pubblicazioni della Società Italiana—List 4
act. act. = active
Jos. Jos. = Josephus. This abbr. used when follow by title; I A.D.—Lists 5
D D = Didache, except that in a list of manuscripts or as textual variant D refers to Codex Bezae—List 1
v.l. v.l. = varia lectio (variant reading)
Hdt. Hdt. = Herodotus, V B.C.—List 5
et al. et al. = et alii (and others)
PAmh PAmh = The Amherst Papyri I–II—List 4
cp. cp. = compare, freq. in ref. to citation fr. ancient texts
Jos. Jos. = Josephus. This abbr. used when follow by title; I A.D.—Lists 5
GPt GPt = Gospel of Peter—List 1
AcPl Ha AcPl Ha = Acts of Paul, PHamb—List 1
perh. perh. = perhaps
t.t. t.t. = terminus technicus (termini technici), technical term(s)
cp. cp. = compare, freq. in ref. to citation fr. ancient texts
Gingrich Festschr. Gingrich Festschr. = Festschrift to Honor F. Wilbur Gingrich—List 6
difft. difft. = different(ly)
interpr. interpr. = interpreted, interpretation
t.t. t.t. = terminus technicus (termini technici), technical term(s)
intr. intr. = intransitive
Hdt. Hdt. = Herodotus, V B.C.—List 5
Dicaearchus Dicaearchus , IV B.C.—List 5
Fgm. Fgm. = fragment, fragmentary
Polyb Polyb , III–II B.C.—List 5
Philostrat Philostrat = Flavius Philostratus, the Sophist II–III A.D.—List 5
Vi. Vi. = Vita, Vitae
cp. cp. = compare, freq. in ref. to citation fr. ancient texts
Jos. Jos. = Josephus. This abbr. used when follow by title; I A.D.—Lists 5
cp. cp. = compare, freq. in ref. to citation fr. ancient texts
AcPt Ox 849 AcPt Ox 849 = Acts of Peter, POxy 849—List 1
ed. ed. = edited (by), edition
M-M M-M = JMoulton/GMilligan, Vocabulary of Greek Testament—Lists 4, 6
EDNT EDNT = Exegetical Dictionary of the NT—List 6
TW TW = Theologisches Wörterbuch zum NT; tr. GBromiley, Theological Dictionary of the NT—List 6
Spicq Spicq = CS., Lexique théologique du Nouveau Testament—Lists 6

William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 532–533.

 

[DadSmith]

There is only one dogma/doctrine/Church that is a correct statement. God does not speak with a forked tongue. To say that in no way implies a judgement on the salvation of any person.

So you think that the Roman catholic church has the one true doctrine? Or whatever catholic church you are referring to there.

Any other doctrine besides the catholic doctrine is false? Because that's how you make it sound to me.

 

[JettaKnight]

Anyone checked out the bible recap project?

You mean the Bible Recap Podcast with Tara-Leigh Cobble?

No. Never heard of it till now. Nor do I have any opinion of her.

 

[JettaKnight]

More than you will probably want to know. ...

Now that's the Foszoe I know and love!

 

[JettaKnight]

So you think that the Roman catholic church has the one true doctrine? Or whatever catholic church you are referring to there.

Any other doctrine besides the catholic doctrine is false? Because that's how you make it sound to me.

It's Roman Catholic vs. catholic. Capitalization matters.

Think of as brand name vs. generic. We are all part of the catholic Church.

 

[DadSmith]

It's Roman Catholic vs. catholic. Capitalization matters.

Think of as brand name vs. generic. We are all part of the catholic Church.

No we aren't. Many separated from the catholic church because of its false doctrine.

1 Timothy 2:5 NKJV
For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,


1 Peter 2:9 NKJV
But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;

Matthew 23:8-10 NKJV
But you, do not be called 'Rabbi'; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. [9] Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. [10] And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ.

Hebrews 9:27 NKJV
And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment,

Mark 7:6-13 NKJV
He answered and said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: 'This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. [7] And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.' [8] For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men -the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do." [9] He said to them, "All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. [10] For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.' [11] But you say, 'If a man says to his father or mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban"-' (that is, a gift to God), [12] then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, [13] making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do."

John 3:36 NKJV
He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."


1 John 2:1-2 NKJV
My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. [2] And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

 

[foszoe]

So you think that the Roman catholic church has the one true doctrine? Or whatever catholic church you are referring to there.

Any other doctrine besides the catholic doctrine is false? Because that's how you make it sound to me.

The Church I am referring to is the Eastern Orthodox Church and yes the Orthodox Church has the fullness of the truth.
The next part is where it gets hard for those from a Catholic/Protestant background because they practice cataphatic theology. Orthodoxy is different in that it is apophatic in its theology. The Nicene Creed without the filioque is the most cataphatic theology I can think of in Orthodoxy and that is because the story of the Nicene Creed plays into what I am saying.

There is a difference between doctrine and theologoumenon. And that is why my statement that Orthodoxy is apophatic is important. You as an individual Christian can hold several theologoumena so long as they don't contradict dogma.

What has happened throughout Protestantism which is one reason why there are so many different churches is that somewhere along the way a theologoumenon gets elevated to doctrine by a one group but is unaccepted by another resulting in schism.

In Orthodoxy, there is doctrine that is universally accepted and if a theologoumenon contradicts doctrine it is false.

That is why the Nicene Creed is cataphatic.


Think of it this way. The scriptures tell us Jesus was Born of Mary so we must believe that, but the scriptures are silent on much else concerning what this birth means.

You and I are in church. We go to the same church every weekend. The Church has no Nicene Creed. We listen to 3 songs, hear the bible read, pray, take communion, and go home. Me, you, everyone in the Church, we are all living in one accord. Every weekend. One day, while sitting at home, I decide that since Jesus is begotten, then there had to be a time when Jesus was not. I have now developed a theologoumenon. I keep it to myself for awhile, but then I decide to share it with others. I begin to use scriptures to back up my theologoumenon. There develop 2 camps in our parish. One is following me, and one is following the other and the strife is real, the tension is real, people are shouting at each other sometimes in bible study. What do we do? We take it to the priest and he agrees with me! Now there is really an uproar. News of our strife starts to reach other parishes in the city and county. News of this reaches the Bishop. My group starts our own parish and takes the priest with us. We are now in schism.

Non Christians who were thinking about becoming Christians see this strife. They too begin to wonder who is right?

The Bishop must take action, but he can not act alone so he contacts all the other Bishops of the entire Church and they convene a council. There are lots of meetings, there is prayerful consideration. There is reading of Scripture. There is consultation of revered Christians who are known to be devout. Finally, the council makes a cataphatic statement.

"And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages. Light of light; true God of true God; begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by Whom all things were made; "

That statement clearly refutes my theologoumenon. Up until this point, I could have remained an Orthodox Christian, I didn't because I went into schism, but if I would have continued going to church with you and never split the church I would have remained an Orthodox Christian. Now however, my theologoumenon is no longer addressing an issue where the church is silent. The church has made a cataphatic statement under the guidance of the Holy Spirit who was promised to the Church to keep her from error. I now have a choice. The root meaning of heresy is not bad or evil, it simply means choice. If I choose to denounce my theologoumenon, I remain an Orthodox Christian. If I choose to elevate my theologoumenon to doctrine, then I am a heretic.

In the first centuries of the Church, there were seven such councils. Seven Ecumenical Councils and they combatted just about every major heresy, if not all. I will say almost, but I believe most likely all modern heresies are some form of ancient heresies and have been addressed by the early church.

Why am I Orthodox?

I got tired of discussing is it predestination or free will? Is Baptism needed or not? Is it pre, mid, post trib? Is there a rapture? I believe there is one Truth and God is not speaking to us with a forked tongue. There are clearly some doctrines where both can't be true.
My early Christian life was spent trying to start at the present day and go back to find the root of a doctrine. For a Western Christian, that usually means you arrive at the Reformation sooner or later. There you make a big decision. Catholic or Protestant? I almost decided Catholic but I could not find scriptural basis for the Papacy, the Assumption of Mary, or the Immaculate Conception. So I gave up.

But there was another avenue. What if both the Catholics and the Protestants, who were mainly reacting against the Catholics were both wrong. So I started a 5 volume series about Christian Tradition by Jaroslav Pelikan, a Lutheran scholar. By reading the first 2 books of his series, I knew Orthodoxy was the true church. Years later, I learned that Pelikan too, had become Orthodox.

There is one God, one Truth, and one Church, visible for all to see.

But, once again, to claim that does not in anyway mean condemnation of any other Christian in the sense of eternal destiny. That is between that person and God alone. For Church is apophatic in such matters.

 

[DadSmith]

The Church I am referring to is the Eastern Orthodox Church and yes the Orthodox Church has the fullness of the truth.
The next part is where it gets hard for those from a Catholic/Protestant background because they practice cataphatic theology. Orthodoxy is different in that it is apophatic in its theology. The Nicene Creed without the filioque is the most cataphatic theology I can think of in Orthodoxy and that is because the story of the Nicene Creed plays into what I am saying.

There is a difference between doctrine and theologoumenon. And that is why my statement that Orthodoxy is apophatic is important. You as an individual Christian can hold several theologoumena so long as they don't contradict dogma.

What has happened throughout Protestantism which is one reason why there are so many different churches is that somewhere along the way a theologoumenon gets elevated to doctrine by a one group but is unaccepted by another resulting in schism.

In Orthodoxy, there is doctrine that is universally accepted and if a theologoumenon contradicts doctrine it is false.

That is why the Nicene Creed is cataphatic.


Think of it this way. The scriptures tell us Jesus was Born of Mary so we must believe that, but the scriptures are silent on much else concerning what this birth means.

You and I are in church. We go to the same church every weekend. The Church has no Nicene Creed. We listen to 3 songs, hear the bible read, pray, take communion, and go home. Me, you, everyone in the Church, we are all living in one accord. Every weekend. One day, while sitting at home, I decide that since Jesus is begotten, then there had to be a time when Jesus was not. I have now developed a theologoumenon. I keep it to myself for awhile, but then I decide to share it with others. I begin to use scriptures to back up my theologoumenon. There develop 2 camps in our parish. One is following me, and one is following the other and the strife is real, the tension is real, people are shouting at each other sometimes in bible study. What do we do? We take it to the priest and he agrees with me! Now there is really an uproar. News of our strife starts to reach other parishes in the city and county. News of this reaches the Bishop. My group starts our own parish and takes the priest with us. We are now in schism.

Non Christians who were thinking about becoming Christians see this strife. They too begin to wonder who is right?

The Bishop must take action, but he can not act alone so he contacts all the other Bishops of the entire Church and they convene a council. There are lots of meetings, there is prayerful consideration. There is reading of Scripture. There is consultation of revered Christians who are known to be devout. Finally, the council makes a cataphatic statement.

"And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages. Light of light; true God of true God; begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by Whom all things were made; "

That statement clearly refutes my theologoumenon. Up until this point, I could have remained an Orthodox Christian, I didn't because I went into schism, but if I would have continued going to church with you and never split the church I would have remained an Orthodox Christian. Now however, my theologoumenon is no longer addressing an issue where the church is silent. The church has made a cataphatic statement under the guidance of the Holy Spirit who was promised to the Church to keep her from error. I now have a choice. The root meaning of heresy is not bad or evil, it simply means choice. If I choose to denounce my theologoumenon, I remain an Orthodox Christian. If I choose to elevate my theologoumenon to doctrine, then I am a heretic.

In the first centuries of the Church, there were seven such councils. Seven Ecumenical Councils and they combatted just about every major heresy, if not all. I will say almost, but I believe most likely all modern heresies are some form of ancient heresies and have been addressed by the early church.

Why am I Orthodox?

I got tired of discussing is it predestination or free will? Is Baptism needed or not? Is it pre, mid, post trib? Is there a rapture? I believe there is one Truth and God is not speaking to us with a forked tongue. There are clearly some doctrines where both can't be true.
My early Christian life was spent trying to start at the present day and go back to find the root of a doctrine. For a Western Christian, that usually means you arrive at the Reformation sooner or later. There you make a big decision. Catholic or Protestant? I almost decided Catholic but I could not find scriptural basis for the Papacy, the Assumption of Mary, or the Immaculate Conception. So I gave up.

But there was another avenue. What if both the Catholics and the Protestants, who were mainly reacting against the Catholics were both wrong. So I started a 5 volume series about Christian Tradition by Jaroslav Pelikan, a Lutheran scholar. By reading the first 2 books of his series, I knew Orthodoxy was the true church. Years later, I learned that Pelikan too, had become Orthodox.

There is one God, one Truth, and one Church, visible for all to see.

But, once again, to claim that does not in anyway mean condemnation of any other Christian in the sense of eternal destiny. That is between that person and God alone. For Church is apophatic in such matters.

Salvation does not come through religious rituals, traditions, or the Law, but through faith in Jesus Christ.

Religion, and tradition will not save you nor will belonging to a church. It's faith in Jesus and his redemptive work.

Romans 3:21-26 NKJV
But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, [22] even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; [23] for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, [24] being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, [25] whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, [26] to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Romans 3:27-30 NKJV
Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. [28] Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. [29] Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, [30] since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.


Colossians 2:11-12 NKJV
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.

Galatians 3:5-7 NKJV
Therefore He who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you, does He do it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?- [6] just as Abraham "believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." [7] Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham.


Galatians 3:26-29 NKJV
For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. [27] For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. [28] There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. [29] And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

 

[45sRfun]

No we aren't. Many separated from the catholic church because of its false doctrine.

Small "c" catholic simply means the universal church, that is collectively all true Christians, no matter what denomination they are in. It is also called the invisible church, because only God can see into the hearts of man. So if you are a Christian you are part of the catholic church, but not necessarily belong to the Catholic church.

 

[foszoe]

Salvation does not come through religious rituals, traditions, or the Law, but through faith in Jesus Christ.

Religion, and tradition will not save you nor will belonging to a church. It's faith in Jesus and his redemptive work.

If you said a guarantee of salvation does not come through religious rituals, traditions, belonging to a church, or the Law, I would agree. None of those things guarantee you salvation.

Just like I can go to the range, having never shot a gun before, and perhaps hit the bullseye. Most likely that is not the outcome though. You will most likely miss the mark, αμαρτία.

You may be saved never reading your bible, never praying, never going to church. I have never met a pastor worth his salt who didn't believe you should keep those religious traditions or rituals. I believe it would be extremely difficult to be saved not doing those things but nothing is impossible with God.

What I do know is winning a race requires some self discipline, some conditioning, some desire to do so. Anything worthwhile is worth putting in some time on.

The more time out of your day you fill with Godly activities, the more likely, I believe you will be saved in the end you will win the race.

What you are referring to, I call trying to be saved by defining the bare minimums to do so. Its cataphatic. Its has its own religious ritual or tradition. IF I do this and this, then I am guaranteed to be saved.

I am not interested is bare minimum salvation. I want to be immersed and transformed by a life in Christ. If Christ says do something then I want to do all of it not just spend time figuring out what I must do to be saved. The guy that did that in scripture didn't go away happy.

I noticed all your quotes were from Paul, most from Romans. Why? Where are the quotes from the gospels?

What did Christ say would happen at the judgment? What separates the sheep from the goats? This is what I mean by interpreting Paul through the light of the Gospels. If Jesus says your deeds matter, Paul will not contradict that. Paul has to be understood through the light of the Gospel, not the other way around. If Christ says the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church, we should not use Paul to say the Church doesn't matter. If Christ says repent and be baptized, we shouldn't go to the epistles to prove baptism isn't necessary. We should do what Christ says to do and leave it up to Him to judge us. That is his role not ours. Our role is to do what we are told.

To put it in western terms, everything Christ says to do is necessary, everything scripture says to do is necessary, but none of it is sufficient.

 

[GTM]

Why am I Orthodox?

I got tired of discussing is it predestination or free will? Is Baptism needed or not? Is it pre, mid, post trib? Is there a rapture? I believe there is one Truth and God is not speaking to us with a forked tongue. There are clearly some doctrines where both can't be true.
My early Christian life was spent trying to start at the present day and go back to find the root of a doctrine. For a Western Christian, that usually means you arrive at the Reformation sooner or later. There you make a big decision. Catholic or Protestant? I almost decided Catholic but I could not find scriptural basis for the Papacy, the Assumption of Mary, or the Immaculate Conception. So I gave up.

But there was another avenue. What if both the Catholics and the Protestants, who were mainly reacting against the Catholics were both wrong. So I started a 5 volume series about Christian Tradition by Jaroslav Pelikan, a Lutheran scholar. By reading the first 2 books of his series, I knew Orthodoxy was the true church. Years later, I learned that Pelikan too, had become Orthodox.

There is one God, one Truth, and one Church, visible for all to see.

But, once again, to claim that does not in anyway mean condemnation of any other Christian in the sense of eternal destiny. That is between that person and God alone. For Church is apophatic in such matters.

I'm journeying down this path at the moment. I've been doing some considerable reading on Orthodoxy and listening to various Orthodox podcasts and it's been very eye opening. Things that don't make sense as a Protestant, make much more sense within an Orthodox understanding. There seems to be an internal consistency within Orthodoxy that Protestantism is lacking.

Currently reading "The Faith" and "Everywhere Present" from Ancient Faith Ministries.

As a Protestant, I know I've had caricatures of what I thought Orthodox did/believed, but now reading Orthodox beliefs from Orthodox authors (versus Protestant authors explaining what they think Orthodox believe) makes much more sense.

In THIS particular conversation (about the rapture/End Times, etc) I can see how the conversation may not make progress because of the significant differences in understanding. We, as Protestants, think that what we believe has been what has been believed since the early church, when, in actuality, much of what we believe is post-Enlightenment, post-Reformation. Specifically, Rapture theology (e.g. Left Behind), is a recent errant belief that no one prior to the 1800's believed.

 

[DadSmith]

Small "c" catholic simply means the universal church, that is collectively all true Christians, no matter what denomination they are in. It is also called the invisible church, because only God can see into the hearts of man. So if you are a Christian you are part of the catholic church, but not necessarily belong to the Catholic church.

Catholic
CATHOLIC, adjective

1. Universal or general; as the catholic church. Originally this epithet was given to the Christian church in general, but is now appropriated to the Romish church, and in strictness there is no catholic church, or universal Christian communion. The epithet is sometimes set in opposition to heretic, sectary or schismatic.

CATHOLIC, noun A papist.

 

[DadSmith]

If you said a guarantee of salvation does not come through religious rituals, traditions, belonging to a church, or the Law, I would agree. None of those things guarantee you salvation.

Just like I can go to the range, having never shot a gun before, and perhaps hit the bullseye. Most likely that is not the outcome though. You will most likely miss the mark, αμαρτία.

You may be saved never reading your bible, never praying, never going to church. I have never met a pastor worth his salt who didn't believe you should keep those religious traditions or rituals. I believe it would be extremely difficult to be saved not doing those things but nothing is impossible with God.

What I do know is winning a race requires some self discipline, some conditioning, some desire to do so. Anything worthwhile is worth putting in some time on.

The more time out of your day you fill with Godly activities, the more likely, I believe you will be saved in the end you will win the race.

What you are referring to, I call trying to be saved by defining the bare minimums to do so. Its cataphatic. Its has its own religious ritual or tradition. IF I do this and this, then I am guaranteed to be saved.

I am not interested is bare minimum salvation. I want to be immersed and transformed by a life in Christ. If Christ says do something then I want to do all of it not just spend time figuring out what I must do to be saved. The guy that did that in scripture didn't go away happy.

I noticed all your quotes were from Paul, most from Romans. Why? Where are the quotes from the gospels?

What did Christ say would happen at the judgment? What separates the sheep from the goats? This is what I mean by interpreting Paul through the light of the Gospels. If Jesus says your deeds matter, Paul will not contradict that. Paul has to be understood through the light of the Gospel, not the other way around. If Christ says the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church, we should not use Paul to say the Church doesn't matter. If Christ says repent and be baptized, we shouldn't go to the epistles to prove baptism isn't necessary. We should do what Christ says to do and leave it up to Him to judge us. That is his role not ours. Our role is to do what we are told.

To put it in western terms, everything Christ says to do is necessary, everything scripture says to do is necessary, but none of it is sufficient.

Christ warned against traditions, rituals of man.

Mark 7:6-13 NKJV
He answered and said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: 'This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. [7] And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.' [8] For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men -the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do." [9] He said to them, "All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. [10] For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.' [11] But you say, 'If a man says to his father or mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban"-' (that is, a gift to God), [12] then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, [13] making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do."

 

[2A_Tom]

@foszoe tldr, as usual.

It seems you believe that salvation is through Your church and works.

Hebrews 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, 6:2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. 6:3 And this will we do, if God permit.

Shared via Bible KJV

I believe that Salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ and his propitiating sacrifice on the cross.

We are not the same.

 

[foszoe]

I'm journeying down this path at the moment. I've been doing some considerable reading on Orthodoxy and listening to various Orthodox podcasts and it's been very eye opening. Things that don't make sense as a Protestant, make much more sense within an Orthodox understanding. There seems to be an internal consistency within Orthodoxy that Protestantism is lacking.

Currently reading "The Faith" and "Everywhere Present" from Ancient Faith Ministries.

As a Protestant, I know I've had caricatures of what I thought Orthodox did/believed, but now reading Orthodox beliefs from Orthodox authors (versus Protestant authors explaining what they think Orthodox believe) makes much more sense.

In THIS particular conversation (about the rapture/End Times, etc) I can see how the conversation may not make progress because of the significant differences in understanding. We, as Protestants, think that what we believe has been what has been believed since the early church, when, in actuality, much of what we believe is post-Enlightenment, post-Reformation. Specifically, Rapture theology (e.g. Left Behind), is a recent errant belief that no one prior to the 1800's believed.

Ancient Faith Radio is a great resource.

I recommend the following podcasts.
For Scriptures:

Search the Scriptures | Ancient Faith Ministries

Interesting and accessible Bible study for busy people - Presvytera and Dr. Jeannie Constantinou guides us through Holy Scripture with the eyes of the Church Fathers.

www.ancientfaith.com

Search the Scriptures Live | Ancient Faith Ministries

Interesting and Accessible Bible Study for Busy People - In this live program, Presvytera and Dr. Jeannie Constantinou guides us through Holy Scripture with the eyes of the Church Fathers and answers listener questions.

www.ancientfaith.com

Transforming Our Lives in Christ | Ancient Faith Ministries

Meditations, Sermons, Classes, and Lectures from St. Spyridon Greek Orthodox Church in Loveland, Colorado -

www.ancientfaith.com

For Protestant Inquirers.

Orthodoxy Live | Ancient Faith Ministries

Answering Pointed Questions About Orthodox Faith, Tradition, and Practice - Orthodoxy Live with Fr. Evan Armatas offers listeners an opportunity to ask pointed questions about the Orthodox Church. Perfect for seekers, converts, and cradle Orthodox Christians alike, this program is your chance to...

www.ancientfaith.com

For understanding Orthodox Worship and Approach to Scriptures and the Christian Life

Speaking the Truth in Love | Ancient Faith Ministries

Compelling Commentary on Christian Belief and Behavior - Teaching and reflections by Fr. Thomas Hopko

www.ancientfaith.com

Worship in Spirit and Truth | Ancient Faith Ministries

A series of reflections by Fr. Thomas Hopko on the Divine Liturgy of the Orthodox Church.

www.ancientfaith.com

At the Intersection of East and West | Ancient Faith Ministries

Many people today are at a crossroads of faith. Longing for roots, some have encountered Orthodox Christianity. This podcast is taken from a class formerly taught by Dn. Michael Hyatt, former Chairman of Thomas Nelson Publishers and now a leading business consultant.

www.ancientfaith.com

For Protestant Inquirers, a bit polemical but:

Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy | Ancient Faith Ministries

Orthodox Christianity and Non-Orthodox Doctrine - Discover how Orthodox Christianity and non-Orthodox groups differ and why it matters to your spiritual journey.

www.ancientfaith.com

Finally, from this page you can see them all, I personally recommend anything from Hopko, Constantinou, Honeycutt, and Fr Evan Armatas. They are the best for Orthodox and Inquirers alike.

Others like Powell, comes from a protestant background, and he does some great stuff but he laughs too much for me

Hyatt is a good one, he is in the list up there. He actually was the CEO of Thomas Nelson Bible publishers for a long time and is on e reason we finally have an Orthodox Bible translated from the Septuagint with Orthodox notes.

 

[foszoe]

@foszoe tldr, as usual.

It seems you believe that salvation is through Your church and works.

I get a chuckle when people don't read yet draw an incorrect conclusion

 

[foszoe]

Christ warned against traditions, rituals of man.

Mark 7:6-13 NKJV
He answered and said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: 'This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. [7] And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.' [8] For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men -the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do." [9] He said to them, "All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. [10] For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.' [11] But you say, 'If a man says to his father or mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban"-' (that is, a gift to God), [12] then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, [13] making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do."

But He did not warn against all tradition. He argued against rejecting the commandment of God in order to keep tradition. If our tradition keeps us faithful to the commandments of God then there is no scriptural argument against tradition. In fact elsewhere in scripture we are told to hold fast to tradition.

Edit: Did Jesus keep any traditions?

 

[DadSmith]

But He did not warn against all tradition. He argued against rejecting the commandment of God in order to keep tradition. If our tradition keeps us faithful to the commandments of God then there is no scriptural argument against tradition. In fact elsewhere in scripture we are told to hold fast to tradition.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 NKJV
Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.

Therefore, brethren, stand fast -
Their obtaining eternal glory depended on their faithfulness to the grace of God; for this calling did not necessarily and irresistibly lead to faith; nor their faith to the sanctification of the spirit; nor their sanctification of the spirit to the glory of our Lord Jesus.
Had they not attended to the calling, they could not have believed; had they not believed, they could not have been sanctified; had they not been sanctified they could not have been glorified.
All these things depended on each other; they were stages of the great journey; and at any of these stages they might have halted, and never finished their Christian race.

Hold the traditions which ye have been taught - The word παραδοσις, which we render tradition, signifies any thing delivered in the way of teaching; and here most obviously means the doctrines delivered by the apostle to the Thessalonians; whether in his preaching, private conversation, or by these epistles; and particularly the first epistle, as the apostle here states.
Whatever these traditions were, as to their matter, they were a revelation from God; for they came by men who spake and acted under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit; and on this ground the passage here can never with any propriety be brought to support the unapostolical and anti-apostolical traditions of the Romish Church; those being matters which are, confessedly, not taken from either Testament, nor were spoken either by a prophet or an apostle.

So hold fast to the Doctrine Paul taught them.