Two Questions

[aletheo]

Hello all.
1) Has anyone here studied the Eastern Orthodox Church?
2) Were there any Calvinists before Calvin?
David

[Steven]

I think your question is a trick Question,wich should not be asked wether there were any calvinists before calvin,because that would be impossible. Now as to were there those that believed in salvation being by the election of grace; Abraham have I chosen alone. This and many other scriptures is where calvins theology came from,so evidentally there were people that believed in the election of grace penning the words God told them to. So it would seem God himself would be a Calvinist.


Steven

[Brandan Kraft]

1. Yes, I'm familiar with the Eastern Orthodox Church.. We've had a few people on here who were eastern orthodox.

2. Calvinists before Calvin? Yes. Although they weren't known as Calvinists..

I believe the apostles were the original Calvinists. Also, much of Calvin's work was based on Augustine's writings (345-430).

http://www.ccel.org/a/augustine/

Zwingli and Luther also would have probably agreed with most of Calvin's writings.

What's also interesting is shortly after Calvin's death, Calvinism became a dividing issue in the Catholic church. It was known as Jansenism. It was the theological view of the Dutch Roman Catholic Cornelis Jansen. His great work was known as Augustinus.

The main object of his writings was to prove that the teachings of St. Augustine against the Pelagians on grace, free will, and predestination were directly opposed to the doctrines of the modern catholic schools. They denied the Catholic doctrine of freedom of the will; maintained that grace was irresistable; and denied that Christ died for all mankind, holding that He died only for those predestined to salvation.

Jansen's work, Augustinus, was so controversial that it was prohibited by a decree of the Inquisition, and was condemned by the Pope.

What's amazing is these doctrines closely resembled Calvinism, but the Jansenists always vehemently proclaimed their attachment to Catholicism.

[aletheo]

Yes Steven, it was a rhetorical question, but to say "God Himself would be a Calvinist" is going way beyond bounds. God is above all our finite distinctions of Calvinism vs. Arminiansim. He thinks on His own terms, not on ours.

kermie says "I believe the Apostles were the original Calvinists."

That is an incredible statement and very artificial. It is a circular reasoning to say that the Apostles taught Calvinism and Calvin taught what the Apostles believed. We cannot read back into the Apostolic message and transpose Calvinist doctrine into the New Testament or the Church. Also, Augustine is hardly representative of the Church or the Faith. He is one Bishop from the fourth-fifth century and does not alone represent the mind of the Church or the Faith of Christ.

As for the Jansenists, I had only heard the name before; thanks for the information.

Respectfully,

[Brandan Kraft]

And are you going to tell me the "orthodox" church set into motion by the evil regime of Contantine is "representative" of the church today?

Let me tell you about a rarely exposed error, which I believe is the foundational doctrine of the orthodox and catholic churches today: APOSTOLIC SUCESSION. It's the primary tool used by both sides to justify their "representation" and "interpretation" of Christianity on this planet. I really don't care what the "official" church has to say about these matters of doctrine. You can believe them if you want to entrust your theology to the hands of men, but I will hold to what I believe is Biblical.

(p.s. if you notice, I make no aim to make Calvin my pope. As far as I'm concerned, he was as apostate as was the majority of the "orthodox" and "catholic" church.)

[aletheo]

Kermie, you did not answer my post, you just tried to slam the Orthodox. If you believe it was "set into motion" by Constantine, you are mistaken. And to what hands do you entrust your thology to when you are holding the Bible finding what you believe is Biblical if not the "hands of men"? And if you believe Calvin, the Orthodox, and the Catholic are all apostate, then what is the Faith? Has someone discovered what it REALLY is? YOU perhaps?
Well, at least you held back by saying "the majority" instead of sweeping them all from the table.

I first encountered the doctrines of election from a dear friend in college. It brought me to tears as I thought of my brothers who seemed to be away from God. Would they make it? Were they elect? Of course, I never questioned myself. I knew I was a believer. So I began to study in more detail. That was maybe twelve years ago.

If we are saved or damned by God's election (or non-election, if you prefer) then why are we struggling? Why read the Bible? Why pray? Why do good works (as mentioned in the book of Titus, for starters)? Why love God or our neighbor? God already has it all sorted out.

If we are elect then our vice or virtue has no bearing on our salvation or our damnation. People are not sent to hell because they have done evil but because they have been decreed it - before they were born - when they had done neither good or evil God decided He loved one and hated the other - before they were even born into fallen humanity - when they were as yet unfallen - uncreated - guiltless - judged for something they would be because God would fashion them that way on purpose.

So God creates out of love and creates out of hatred - because He is sovereign.

[Brandan Kraft]

I first encountered the doctrines of election from a dear friend in college. It brought me to tears as I thought of my brothers who seemed to be away from God. Would they make it? Were they elect?

We don't know who all the elect are.

If we are saved or damned by God's election (or non-election, if you prefer) then why are we struggling? Why read the Bible? Why pray? Why do good works (as mentioned in the book of Titus, for starters)? Why love God or our neighbor? God already has it all sorted out.

We love God, pray, and read our Bible, and care for our neighbors because He has given us that desire. We do so not because of external mandate, but because we are internally motivated, born again of the Spirit of God.

If we are elect then our vice or virtue has no bearing on our salvation or our damnation.

We have NO virtue in and of ourselves. The only good we do is because God causes it to happen.

People are not sent to hell because they have done evil

Yes they are. They were born as sinners. All deserve to be sent to hell.

but because they have been decreed it - before they were born - when they had done neither good or evil God decided He loved one and hated the other - before they were even born into fallen humanity - when they were as yet unfallen - uncreated - guiltless - judged for something they would be because God would fashion them that way on purpose.

So God creates out of love and creates out of hatred - because He is sovereign.

God decreed some to be saved, and others to die in their sins.

Romans 9:11-13, (NASB), for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, "The older will serve the younger." Just as it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

You're going to have to argue from something other than emotion... try Scripture.

[aletheo]

Brandan, I appreciate that you responded to my post as it was written. Thank you.
It is not useful for me to give Scripture and wrangle it between us. You will give Scripture and your interpretation. That is your site. Forgive me for disrupting.
David

[Brandan Kraft]

aletheo, you didn't disrupt anything. It's a pleasure having you here even though we disagree.

[Cephas]

Hello Kermie,

Originally quoted by Kermie

Let me tell you about a rarely exposed error, which I believe is the foundational doctrine of the orthodox and catholic churches today: APOSTOLIC SUCESSION. It's the primary tool used by both sides to justify their "representation" and "interpretation" of Christianity on this planet. I really don't care what the "official" church has to say about these matters of doctrine. You can believe them if you want to entrust your theology to the hands of men, but I will hold to what I believe is Biblical.

I have not heard of Apostolic Succession being exposed as an error. It couldn't be an error or the Church would not have been able to act infallibly when Scripture was canonized. But, in all fairness, I wouldn't expect a Protestant to hold to the view of Apostolic succession and still be Protestant. The question that has to be asked here is: How could we know that Scripture is inspired without the Church and without Apostolic Succession?

[Brandan Kraft]

My position, is that the books currently found in the Bible today (minus the apocrypha) exhibit certain characteristics that make them Scripture.

Even the early councils operated on that premise when they canonized.

Some of the characteristics are:

Apostolic authorship/sponsorship - to make the list, the early churches considered texts that were written by apostles (Matthew, John, Paul, James, Jude, Peter) or sponsored (under the authority of) by the apostles (Luke, Mark, Acts). Other documents that may have had an apostles name attributed (Thomas, Gospel of Peter, Gospel of James) may have been considered, but usually it was understood that these documents were pseudopigraphal in origin.

Written Early - The books of the NT that were considered authoritative were all written during the lives of the Apostles, the latest being Revelation.

Universal Acceptance - The books that were considered authoritative were broadly accepted across early Christendom. While some churches may have accepted other works as authoritiative, the canonical texts were universally accepted with very little variance.

Spritually Consistent - The canonical books all were spiritually alike, and preached the same message. Some books may have emphasized certain portions of the message, but across the board they were externally consistent with each other. For books written by the same author (Paul's epistles, John's five books, and Peter's two) they showed interal consistency as well, agreeing from the point of view of the author.

The books that are considered non-canonical today (as when the council first recognized them) don't attibute all of those characteristics, and sometimes NONE of those characteristics.

[aletheo]

Cephas makes a VERY good point! Far from being exposed as an error, after the death of the Apostles, a true succession from them was perhaps the primary argument "against heresies"!
(Irenaeus )


The canonizing of Scripture was a very long process, and not a very exact science. There were many councils and many differences of usage and opinion. The test of catholicity was a very strong one - the books that were generally being accepted and read in the churches were canonized officially as worthy to be received and read in the churches, while the other New Testament era writings were like "also ran"s. For example, the book "The Protevangelium of James." This book was accepted by the Church as authentic, written by James the brother of our Lord, but it is incomplete and so was not included. The Church has always recognized the book and its teachings, yet it is not Scripture.

Part of the problem is evident when a person says "my position."
The only authoritative position on the Faith is from the Councils of the One, Holy, Catholic (meaning 'universal,' not Roman), and Apostolic Church. No Pope, Vatican, Reformer, Orthodox, or other individual or group can change that.

[gsr]

Were there not three streams of religion by 345 AD? The three streams were the Orthodox, the anabaptists and independents, and the newly formed Catholics? The anabaptists and other independents never endeavored to fit the liturgical/ecclesiastical methods of the other two, the Orthodox[East and West]developed liturgical/ecclesiastical methods and held to the same basic tenents of the independents having many popes. The Schism broke East from West and many Popes to One Pope each having absorbed some aspects of the religions surrounding surrounding them into their liturgy. The Reformation was a break from the Western, single pope driven system, not the Eastern, many pope driven system. Meanwhile, the anabaptists and independents continued to exists separate from the other two. Sometimes even persecuted by both.

[countrymouse]

Originally posted by aletheuo

Part of the problem is evident when a person says "my position."
The only authoritative position on the Faith is from the Councils of the One, Holy, Catholic (meaning 'universal,' not Roman), and Apostolic Church. No Pope, Vatican, Reformer, Orthodox, or other individual or group can change that.

aletheuo,

Which church or churches would you say constitute or represent the universal church you are talking about? Does it or do they have an unmarred history of unity regarding the doctrines of the Christian faith? I'm not asking whether there were ever detractors who left or were disfellowshipped, I'm asking whether this church's official doctrines have remained unchanged since the first century.

[Brandan Kraft]

Originally posted by gsr
Were there not three streams of religion by 345 AD? The three streams were the Orthodox, the anabaptists and independents, and the newly formed Catholics? The anabaptists and other independents never endeavored to fit the liturgical/ecclesiastical methods of the other two, the Orthodox[East and West]developed liturgical/ecclesiastical methods and held to the same basic tenents of the independents having many popes. The Schism broke East from West and many Popes to One Pope each having absorbed some aspects of the religions surrounding surrounding them into their liturgy. The Reformation was a break from the Western, single pope driven system, not the Eastern, many pope driven system. Meanwhile, the anabaptists and independents continued to exists separate from the other two. Sometimes even persecuted by both.

Actually at 345 AD, there was only one "official" church. There were always groups that broke off from the official Roman church, but they were heavily persecuted (eg. Donatists).

The Anabaptists didn't come around until the Reformation in the 1520's. You're right that the Anabaptists were persecuted by both the reformers and catholics.

[GreekPrincess]

As a Christian who has been in the Orthodox church all her life, I thought I'd post a reply to this thread. Interestingly enough, it wasn't until about 4 years ago that I delved into what the "official" beliefs are of the Orthodox faith.

I thought I'd post about some of the things I have seen in the Greek Orthodox church in the US in my years as a Christian.

There are two seperate parts to the GO church today in the US.

One is community based. It is the center point for the Greek community. It became a center point for those who were new to the US or a particular area. If you wanted to meet or find Greeks, go to Church and you'll see the personality of the Greeks in the area. Find the Church you liked, and most likely, you'll find Greek people you liked. Dances, parties, youth groups and other affairs are centered around the church. This doesn't mean that because you were Greek, you went to church regularly. It just means the building was where you initially went to find Greeks and Greek events. I believe that you will find this in the Russian, Serbian and other Orthodox churches.


The second part of the GO church is the spiritual side (for lack of a better way to describe it.) Again, you'll find two different types of people. The GO Church is so intermixed with Greek traditions that it is sometimes difficult to determine what is Greek tradition and what is doctrine. Some things that are practiced are Greek tradition and not official doctrine by the church. For example, when someone dies, it is customary to have a memorial in the church 9, 30 & 40 days after the death. There is no doctrine that says this or why we do it. We just do it for us. This is just tradition. Then there are traditions such as the celebration of Pascha(Easter) which is so intense and moving with worship of the Lord.

Then you'll find the other aspect of the Orthodox Church which is its love for the Lord. The worship services are filled with NT and OT readings and teachings. I heard someone say it fills all the senses with worshiping our Lord and Savior. From the chanting, to the censors, to the sight of images of Christ.

One more point I wanted to make (and I am sure I am leaving a TON out lol), is that each GO church is different. Many are solely a social gathering where you can walk into a church and barely hear the priest read the Gospel. Others are so old fashioned that not only is there no english spoken, but there are only the old grandmas in the front pews. And still others that are more Christ centered with Him at the forefront and use Scripture as their guide. You wont find these differences if you search for the official doctrine of the Orthodox Church.

I'm sure there are Orthodox Christians that will disagree with what I have shared. And that is ok with me. And I'll bet if you ask me "What the Orthodox Church believes about..." something, I'll say, I dunno and have to go look it up. But I am not your typical Orthodox Christian. I'm a Bible Believing, could be calvinist, born again Christian who is Greek and keeps GREEK traditions and who worships in a GO Church. LOL

Now that I have rambled on about this and probably made no sense at all, I'll end this. lol

[countrymouse]

Welcome to the forums, Greek Princess!

Your post made perfectly beautiful sense, and I appreciate your honesty about the Orthodox church. I look forward to your input here!

cm

[Christ_†_Alone]

Dont let her fool you, she's really Italian and worships at a Baptist church.




{{{{{{{{{{ GP }}}}}}}}}}}}} bout time you showed up over here, sheeeeesh.

[countrymouse]

Thanks for the tip, CA!

We'll help you keep her straight! lol!

Blessings,
cm

[disciple]

have you all read leonard verduin's "reformers and their stepchildren"? it's a great read and quite interesting. i think it's a must read for anyone wanting to understand the contemporary situation of Christendom. here is the intro of the book:
http://members.tripod.com/~alawson/stepchildren.htm