My response to Laurence Vance's "Should a Christian support criminalizing prostitution"

[Natural Citizen]

If new wine = unfermented, then how do you explain this verse?

You're missing the whole point of sharing those two scriptures in post #261 the way that I did. I'm not really making an argument about the wineskins. Although it could likely be done. I'm not, though. I shared that scripture in relation to the latter scripture to demonstrate the difference.

[William Tell]

John the Baptist took a Nazirite vow and abstained from alcohol. But Christ did not. He explicitly says that he came “eating and drinking.” Because of this, others accused him of being a drunkard.

Here's the passage about Nazirites:

Numbers 6King James Version (KJV)

6 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
² Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When either man or woman shall separate themselves to vow a vow of a Nazarite, to separate themselves unto the Lord:
³ He shall separate himself from wine and strong drink, and shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat moist grapes, or dried.
⁴ All the days of his separation shall he eat nothing that is made of the vine tree, from the kernels even to the husk.

Nazirites couldn't even eat moist grapes or raisins, or Welch's grape juice.

[Natural Citizen]

Exactly. Thank you.

No it's not. Theres no "exactly" nothin. He's speaking completely arbitrarily. He's presenting what he thinks as opposed to the Lords direct Word.

Fruit on the vine was specifically called new wine. God said that. Doesn't matter what Hells_Unicorn has to say about it. He's not bigger than God.

If God calls unfermented grapes wine, then, By God, it's wine.

[hells_unicorn]

One time in the NT the Greek word is used to signify both, Hells_Unicorn. Once.

Wrong, it's used once in the New Testament interchangeably with Shekar, aka the liquor made from dates and barley. All of the other references save maybe the ones quoting/paraphrasing the Haggai passage (or another OT passage using Tirosh) can refer to either grape juice or fermented wine. Fermented wine and liquor are not the same thing, it takes a lot more of the former to become drunk, and the latter is more regularly associated with intentional drunkenness.

No it's not. He's speaking completely arbitrarily. He's presenting wha the thinks as opposed to the Lords direct Word.

Nope, this is about 1,800 years of established church history, not counting the Old Testament. Prior to the 19th century, nobody within Christendom interpreted scripture the way the Temperance Movement did, hence why there was no Temperance Movement prior to the 19th century. People who speak arbitrarily are people who read scripture by themselves or in small groups with no consideration of church history, that's not my bag.

[William Tell]

You're missing the whole point of sharing those two scriptures in post #261 the way that I did. I'm not really making an argument about the wineskins. Although it could likely be done. I'm not, though. I shared that scripture in relation to the latter scripture to demonstrate the difference.

Well, my point is that I don't see any evidence that suggests any of the wine mentioned is non alcoholic. New wine could clearly be alcoholic based on the passage I shared, old wine is by definition alcoholic.

[Suzanimal]

No it's not. Theres no "exactly" nothin. He's speaking completely arbitrarily. He's presenting what he thinks as opposed to the Lords direct Word.

Fruit on the vine was specifically called new wine. God said that. Doesn't matter what Hells_Unicorn has to say about it. He's not bigger than God.

If God calls unfermented grapes wine, then, By God, it's wine.

I disagree. I'm gonna have to go with HU on this one.

[Natural Citizen]

Ah, whatever. Y'all are killing me here. I don't want to make an enemy of you all. Believe what you want. I'm just saying that I disagree with that thing about every time wine is mentioned, it has to be mentioned in context with the fermented variant.

There are clearly references to both varieties in the Bible.

[hells_unicorn]

No it's not. Theres no "exactly" nothin. He's speaking completely arbitrarily. He's presenting what he thinks as opposed to the Lords direct Word.

Fruit on the vine was specifically called new wine. God said that. Doesn't matter what Hells_Unicorn has to say about it. He's not bigger than God.

If God calls unfermented grapes wine, then, By God, it's wine.

I'm not going to make much more of an issue about this since you are calling this conversation quits, but I am not speaking of my own accord here, I have an official Biblical Hebrew to English guide in my personal library that I regularly peruse as my pastor holds weekly Hebrew classes that I occasionally attend (he's a bit of a trip away so I can't do it every week). What I am saying is that the people of ancient Israel who wrote the original Old Testament texts are far more trustworthy than 19th century American theology, so when I seek a guide in making sure that I'm understanding the Old Testament properly, I refer to the former and not the latter. Likewise, if I am unclear about a New Testament passage, there is Greek texts of the original written books of the New Testament that have been maintained by the historic church for me to cross reference. Add to this an unbroken chain of concurrent views with these original definitions throughout church history, and you have not one individual speaking of his own accord, but an official subordinate doctrine.

The King James Version is my go-to source for the infallible Word of God as I am an English speaker, but any translation comes with varying degrees of challenges since the confusion of tongues following the Tower of Babel has made perfect communication between the nations impossible save a miraculous outpouring of the Holy Spirit, which is not an ordinary occurrence. When in doubt, I consult the original languages, and if the matter is still not clear, I tend to err on the side of legitimate church authority. The only time I go against official church authority is when there is a clear divergence between what the church is stating and what scripture plainly reveals, and this is not one of those cases, at least not where the historic church and its modern adherents on this issue are concerned. I'm sure that the Baptists would beg to differ with me on this, but hey, that's why I'm not nor will I ever be a Baptist.

[RJB]

...

[RJB]

Seems like The Lord's Word is more appropriately represented in its literal context from Him rather than the arbitrary actions and whims of self-rightous men.

I forgot to touch on your logic there in terms of Cana, RJB. Seems like a lot of Christians try to use this (turning water into wine) to advocate for their liberty to drink wine,)

I notice you call us self-righteous and call traditions several millennia old whims. Then you ironically bring up the "liberty to drink wine" when the discussion was about it's use in the Sacraments and in Jewish Passover tradition. The discussion was also whether Jesus drank fermented wine or was a teetotaler. Yet you failed to respond to my answers to your points (I even posted a cool graph):
1. To your assertion that Israelites couldn't drink wine at Passover, I pointed out that they did and still do today.
2. They didn't have the technology to keep grape juice sterilized from late summer until Passover the following spring-- so any wine consumed at Passover was most definitely wine. If Jesus drank "wine" at Passover, it was fermented unless they were importing grapes from Argentina and Chile back then.
3. The one time he refused wine was on the cross was because the prophecy wasn't fulfilled yet.
4. It would be self-righteous for the modern Church to abandon wine used in sacraments when it was ordered by God himself in both the Old and New Testaments and followed (literally) religiously by both Jewish and Christian followers from antiquity until today.

[heavenlyboy34]

Sorry I didn't get video of the last round I had with the local Jehova's Witnesses, you would have found it quite amusing. The sad thing about said organization and other inventions of 19th century "Murican" theology is that they send these poor, under-informed saps out to try and rope in less informed saps to feed their donation coffers, while their elders/leaders usually go on speaking tours and mind the cash that comes rolling in. The only time they ever call in the big guns (the people who know the actual secrets of their organization) is when dealing with somebody that causes the door-to-door proselytizer to start asking the wrong questions.



What would actually be said would be something along the lines of "Why have you rejected the person and deity of Christ, the Holy Trinity, and insist on cleaving to the Roman/Pagan practice of worship on Sunday?". For the record, the Seven Day Adventists would be right on the first two points, and woefully wrong on the third.

Personally, I'd find it more interesting if the Seventh Day Adventist would get super hardcore on the Jehovah Witness and say something like "Why did you clowns decide to swallow all of this nonsense that a your founder Charles Russell and his underling Joseph Rutherford taught when they were just nobody bible students (Russell was a defrocked Baptist who was guilty of committing perjury in a civil libel case in Ontario against a Baptist who had written about his exploits by claiming he could translate Greek yet was unable to decipher a single word from a Greek New Testament passage provided to him while testifying), us Seventh Day Adventists had an actual prophetess who had visions!". Naturally the Jehovah's Witness could counter that these "visions" were a consequence of mental health issues and that many of Ellen G. White's "prophecies" were subject to revision, and then the Seventh Day Adventist could try and go in for the kill by referencing the litany of failed end of the world prophecies associated with the Watchtower Society.

If nothing else, it would be entertaining.



My condolences, there is a lot of them in my neck of the woods too, along with Mennonites. Thankfully the Mennonites tend to keep to themselves and are actually pretty good to work with when it comes to economic exchanges, but we get the occasional Baptist to our doorstep, largely to try and turn my family from our wicked ways of baptizing our children as it had been done for the entire history of the Christian Faith prior to the 16th century.



Okay, gotcha. I'm not paying attention to anything that he's saying for the foreseeable future, talking to a proverbial wall gets a bit tiresome after a while. But you are correct, I don't attend the worship services of other churches. The closest that I've gotten to doing that was visiting an Orthodox monastery in Kharkiv, Ukraine and agreeing to alter my attire before entering. I was there as an observer/tourist, not a part of the order, but my girlfriend did observe the worship practices and veneration that go along with being a communicate member. Her and I are still negotiating her transition into the Presbyterian faith, which will happen prior to any official engagement, but I am admittedly far more diplomatic with the Lutherans and Eastern Orthodox than most other groups, largely due to the smaller degree of separation involved relative to other groups.

One thing I will grant Drake, despite my massive problems with his church, is that they haven't completely thrown out the gospel, though it has been distorted and loaded up with so much legalistic rubbish that it's all but impossible to find.

When did this happen? Despite being Filioquists, The Roman Catholics accept the divinity of Jesus last I checked. Papa Frank has said some very VERY silly things, but he's just a bishop and doesn't have the authority to change Church dogma alone, AFAIK. Lirturgy/Mass on Sunday is traditional and SOP in the East as well. Orthodox monastaries celebrate liturgy daily.

[TER]

Nobody has asserted that James Dodson is any more authoritative than any past defender of the faith, be they ancient or more recent in time period. However, I know what I know about early church history because of his classes on the subject, and I live in an area where theologians and pastoral authorities are not sufficiently orthodox to accurately teach the faith. Furthermore, if you're going to pull apostolic succession on me, James Dodson is a fully orthodox and now legitimately elected successor of the line of Scottish preachers going back to John Knox. The Church of Scotland and England legitimately elected Knox to the office of priest, and both England and Scotland were Christianized and granted Ecclesiastical bodies prior to the Great Schism.

I don't mean to be openly combative here, but unless you are going to argue that when Rome broke union with Constantinople that every single congregation in Western Europe simultaneously lost all of their ecclesiastical rights (including ones that subsequently broke communion with Rome on comparable grounds to Constantinople), I'm going to have to ask you to abide by your own standards and not interfere in the internal affairs of my nation's church (autocephaly). When the time comes, our leaders will confer on these issues, until then I would argue that your time would be better spent dealing with the issues pertaining to Eastern Christendom, namely its ongoing issues with Islam and remnants of communism, and likewise leave me to deal with the rabid secular humanism and rationalism that is eating Western Christendom alive.

Thank you for your consideration.

The apostolic line you are referring to broke much earlier than John Knox, HU. The denial of the Seventh Ecumencial Council, which was indeed a Holy Ecumencial Council and occurred almost 800 years before John Knox, alone demonstrates that. We will have to agree to disagree with regards to your community's claim of apostolicity, both in terms of succession and doctrinal teachings. And this is not merely me saying it, but any Orthodox Christian would say the same thing, whether now or 600 years ago.

I don't wish to be contentious with you, but I will not hide the facts when called out. You didn't say that James Dobson is more authorative to the great cloud of witnesses who came before him, but you certainly imply it when you take his teachings in the subject over great Saints from the past. Have you considered that perhaps the courses you have taken under him are in fact not 'fully orthodox', especially when they go against orthodox teachings of the earlier Church? In addition, if he is criticizing Eastern Orthodoxy (which you brought up in the first place), then he is not minding his own internal affairs and is inviting criticism on his own personal teachings which go against the earlier Church.

As for your claim of autocephaly, where was that pronounced, by whom, and when? I admit I don't know much of the history of your community, and am willing to be educated. If you are going to make the claim that because England and Scotland were once under the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that defacto they can claim apostolic authority, then why can't the same be said of any division of Presbyterian, or Episcopalian, or Nestorian or Arian? Apostolicity is more than succession through ordination. It is also just as importantly through sacramental communion and adhering to the faith as handed down not by John Knox or James Dobson, but of the unified Body of Christ through all centuries.

[Christian Liberty]

I didn't say that the WCF was an ecumenical council, it's a General Assembly, though it technically was an international one rather than a national one since it encompassed 3 kingdoms instead of just 1. You cannot overrule a legitimately executed national or international general assembly with a synod, it's a fundamental distortion of the Presbyterian mode of church governance. But even if a full national assembly of American Presbyterian churches from every colony agreed to the 1788 revisions, knowing what I know today, I would have joined any dissenting party on the matter and have gone into schism with the broader American Presbytery. The utter theological carnage that has taken place in the PCUSA is undeniable, and even the more conservative dissenting parties that didn't follow it down the proverbial rabbit-hole in the early 20th century are also degenerating, albeit at a slower rate. Binding your church's doctrines to a renegade magistrate that pioneered the idea of not confessing a national faith is a road to disaster, and it's not unique to America if you take a look at how the government of The Netherlands has impacted the majority of Reformed congregations there.

I don't blame you though its not all PCUSA. The OPC I attended while at school was far from ideal, but it was certainly much closer to where you're at than where the PCUSA is at. Even still, the OPC is not nearly as strong as it could be, and I don't doubt that things like this are related.

I'd argue the exact opposite, now more so than the immediate aftermath of World War II, the Papacy has had its hands in just about every political institution in western Christendom, its tactics have simply become much more subtle. When I see so-called conservatives in the GOP putting a Jesuit in the office of Congressional Chaplin and when I see so-called evangelical apologists like William Lane Craig reviving Molinism to a generation of theologically impoverished fundamentalists grasping for a champion, I see more red than a bull charging a Matador.

I guess my point is that I see the Papal See as more of a joke now than the most pressing of threats. It still has a lot of deceived people yes, but those people are mostly spineless, fluffy liberals, and the main way the papacy does ill by these people is by leaving them utterly undisciplined. The papacy isn't burning Bible believing Christians at the stake anymore.

That said, eschatology is a third tier issue in my mind, ESPECIALLY when it comes to other postmillennialists. While I'm big on not compromising on truth, I think there are some things its OK to disagree on, and I'd put most non-dispensational eschatological positions in that category (and ESPECIALLY other varieties of postmillennialism)

As to how the magistrate should handle schismatics, that is something that I'm not as clear cut on as my words on other topics may suggest, the Jansenist See of Utrecht was tolerated by the Dutch Reformed, and I don't see a problem with taking a relaxed approach to a church that has confessed an fully orthodox Augustinian understanding of soteriology even if they are still cleaving to Roman liturgical innovation and Prelate Ecclesiastical errors. Having a magistrate that takes a completely neutral stance on the matter of somebody like Servetus trying to destroy the Christian religion and overthrow any sense of cultural cohesion in a nation is something that's a bit more simple to address with a heavier hand.

Agreed, and I'm not even saying the magistrate should be neutral among Christian groups, but its a lot harder to deal with, and I'm not always as sure how to deal with it. Its easy (and just) to kill Servetus, its not as easy to decide how to deal with Calvinistic Baptists or Jansenists who are in severe error but yet are truly seeking to honor the same God we are.

I have admit that although James Dodson has been actively promoting the Steelite position for a couple decades, he's only been actively publishing sermons for a couple years, primarily because he was waiting for a valid Presbytery to form to bring ecclesiastical legitimacy to his calling. As such, he probably hasn't had ample time to delve into many of these specific issues in an official sermon capacity. He doesn't make a regular practice of singling out the Lutherans or the Eastern Orthodox unless it is on a specific issue in a Confession/Catechism study, and since there are fewer areas where this divergence occurs compared to Rome and the Baptists, it doesn't come up as often. However, there are a few specific studies on the WCF where this stuff came up, I just can't recall specifically which one since it was several years ago and they weren't being recorded for publication at the time. Each section is subject to a 90 minute seminar lecture with occasional Q&A.

I'm disappointed that it wasn't recorded, but oh well

I am going to concur with TER on a point that he made on another post with regard to the issue of communion elements. If there is a situation where leavened bread and wine are being purposefully denied to believers (which can happen in times of severe persecution), I wouldn't fully call using unleavened bread or some other bread product as a substitute, the same goes with the cup,

Currently where I'm at I'll take wine in an individual cup but I think the church is sinning by doing it that way. I think its wrong but because the elements itself are still intact, I don't think the individual who takes it is responsible. That said I did discuss this with Brian Schwertley on the phone once and he said he wouldn't partake without a common cup though he told me "he would have felt differently at my age" and he didn't really expand further since the issue I originally called him about was how to properly confront a PCA elder who was justifying fudging the elements due to alcoholics (something you rightly address later in your post).

I respect those who wont but currently I kind of feel like I have to pick my battles, and due to the reasons you discuss below, wine is a battle I'm going to fight. If you're using grape juice in an ordinary situation it means you don't really care about what Christ prescribed to begin with, and that's something I won't go along with.

although sharing a cup of grape juice would be problematic because of communicable diseases. What is sacrilegious about what Temperance Churches are doing is that they are openly calling God's will and judgment into question, along with Christ's words in the New Testament, by asserting that they know better than God as to what is moral or immoral, the same goes with Seventh Day Adventist dietary restrictions outside of worship, or the Roman Church forcing EOC churches in Sicily to use unleavened bread immediately following the Great Schism. William Sprague's sermon "The Danger Of Being Over Wise" was a very proper condemnation of such nonsense.

i'm not as dogmatic on the bread mostly because I've seen good arguments used for both, whereas with wine and grape juice there are only good arguments for wine, and those who use grape juice really are caring more about their emotions than the Word of God. I know this, and thus I can't partake of it. Lacking a common cup I think is wrong but seems much less purposeful (the over-wise issue doesn't really exist there as much) so I'm not AS bothered by it... I'd view that as a third tier issue right now but I could see myself viewing it as a second if most Presbyterian churches were actually practicing it.... currently I'm focusing on the battle for wine because I think its more important.

As a side question along these lines, what's your opinion on weekly administration of the sacrament? Most of the churches you'd respect EXCEPT for the other covenanter churches do weekly, and I've never heard of any patristics advocating otherwise (if you know of any I'd very much like to see it) but most covenanters today seem to not like weekly, though I know of a minority who do. What do you think?

There is something to be said for acknowledging degrees of divergence, so I wouldn't object to the heterodox label of Calvinistic Baptists, but I do see a greater disconnect between Reformed/Presbyterian doctrine and what they teach vs. the Lutherans.

I'd agree with this but I have a harder time saying that about the Eastern Orthodox. I mean, I agree that denial of baptism to infants is a great sin, but is it the greatest of all sins? Calvinist Baptists might have a picture of "Jesus" on the wall but they wouldnt bow to it, Orthodox will actually bow down to it and they have an "ecunemical council" saying that if you won't you're a heretic. as much as I think denial of paedobaptism is more serious than the OPC currently treats it as (let alone the PCA) I don't see how it could be more serious than that, and that's not even beginning to comment on the fact that the Orthodox still don't really have a clear statement on faith alone one way or another. I'm more inclined to agree with you on the Lutherans and Reformed [reformed leaning] Anglicans than I am on the Orthodox, though admittedly my knowledge of the Orthodox is MOSTLY limited to EOs on this forum.

Furthermore, there are some exceptions within the general Roman congregation where Augustinian soteriology still exists in a sufficiently orthodox form to say that there are those within Rome that may be saved, but they don't really count for much when dealing with the ecclesiastical body of Rome as they are either marginalized or, in many cases, even is schism with Rome.

I'd agree, the difference is that because of congregationalism each baptist church really has to be dealt with separately (though they share some common errors) while Rome is a singular unit and the church as a whole is apostate even if particular subgroups within it aren't. So I guess the way I'd look at it is that Calvinistic Baptists are part of the visible church (despite serious error that I think is sufficient to warrant some type of discipline) while Arminian Baptists are not part of the visible church, though some may be part of the invisible church. By contrast with Rome I kind of have to see them all as technically outside the visible church as long as they're a part of that institution, though among them an Augustinian is very likely to be part of the invisible church while a Jesuit is much less likely to be so (if there's indeed any possibility at all.)

What do you think, am I off here? I welcome correction on any of these points.

Nobody has asserted that James Dodson is any more authoritative than any past defender of the faith, be they ancient or more recent in time period. However, I know what I know about early church history because of his classes on the subject, and I live in an area where theologians and pastoral authorities are not sufficiently orthodox to accurately teach the faith. Furthermore, if you're going to pull apostolic succession on me, James Dodson is a fully orthodox and now legitimately elected successor of the line of Scottish preachers going back to John Knox. The Church of Scotland and England legitimately elected Knox to the office of priest, and both England and Scotland were Christianized and granted Ecclesiastical bodies prior to the Great Schism.

I don't mean to be openly combative here, but unless you are going to argue that when Rome broke union with Constantinople that every single congregation in Western Europe simultaneously lost all of their ecclesiastical rights (including ones that subsequently broke communion with Rome on comparable grounds to Constantinople), I'm going to have to ask you to abide by your own standards and not interfere in the internal affairs of my nation's church (autocephaly). When the time comes, our leaders will confer on these issues, until then I would argue that your time would be better spent dealing with the issues pertaining to Eastern Christendom, namely its ongoing issues with Islam and remnants of communism, and likewise leave me to deal with the rabid secular humanism and rationalism that is eating Western Christendom alive.

Thank you for your consideration.

I Have little logical to say about this except to laugh at the fact that TER said Dobson, a man who is clearly a baffoon Dobson's a general evangelical TER, I doubt he'd understand "history' if you took a book and smacked him in the head with it

[TER]

Wrong, CL. Again, you fail to see the nuance. The Seventh Ecumencial Council did not label those who do not venerate images of Christ as being heretics. What they call out to be heretics are those within the Church who are iconoclastic and make the same false accusations you are making against the baptized believers as being idolaters and worshiping images, when in fact the faithful do not worship images. I am not sure how many times it must be repeated to you before you stop making such accusations. There is a difference between venerating something considered holy, and worshipping it. Unfortunatley, the Islamic influences upon parts of the Church bordering the Islamic lands created this iconoclasm when for centuries dating back to the early Church it was never a problem, likely because the believers back then were more spiritually mature to understand the difference and were not corrupted by Islamic iconoclasm creeping into the faith.

As for Dobson, I know very little about him or what he teaches, but if it is true what your are saying, then I can't understand why anyone would chose him to be a teacher of the faith.

[Natural Citizen]

Dobson's a general evangelical TER, I doubt he'd understand "history' if you took a book and smacked him in the head with it

Well, that wasn't a very polite thing to say.

[Occam's Banana]

I doubt he'd understand "history' if you took a book and smacked him in the head with it

o_O Who would understand "history" if you took a book and smacked him in the head with it?

[hells_unicorn]

As for Dobson, I know very little about him or what he teaches, but if it is true what your are saying, then I can't understand why anyone would chose him to be a teacher of the faith.

Not to split hairs here, but I just want to make clear that when I mention the name James Dodson, I am not talking about the founder of Focus on the Family, whose name is James Dobson (there's a "b" in the latter's name). These are 2 different people, James Dodson (with a second "d"), whom I generally refer to as Jim since his eldest son's name is also James, is a local Presbyterian elder in my locale, he doesn't have nearly the level of money or influence as James Dobson the Mainline Evangelical Conservative. I'll put this into a simple format as to avoid further confusion:

James Dobson - American Evangelical, founder of Focus on the Family
James/Jim Dodson - Presbyterian minister, affiliate of Still Waters Revival Books Publishing House, Steelite dissenter

[TER]

Not to split hairs here, but I just want to make clear that when I mention the name James Dodson, I am not talking about the founder of Focus on the Family, whose name is James Dobson (there's a "b" in the latter's name). These are 2 different people, James Dodson (with a second "d"), whom I generally refer to as Jim since his eldest son's name is also James, is a local Presbyterian elder in my locale, he doesn't have nearly the level of money or influence as James Dobson the Mainline Evangelical Conservative. I'll put this into a simple format as to avoid further confusion:

James Dobson - American Evangelical, founder of Focus on the Family
James/Jim Dodson - Presbyterian minister, affiliate of Still Waters Revival Books Publishing House, Steelite dissenter

Thank you for the clarification. I have never heard of either of them before. My point above applies to both of them. Do either have more authority than a Ecumencial Council?

[hells_unicorn]

When did this happen? Despite being Filioquists, The Roman Catholics accept the divinity of Jesus last I checked. Papa Frank has said some very VERY silly things, but he's just a bishop and doesn't have the authority to change Church dogma alone, AFAIK. Lirturgy/Mass on Sunday is traditional and SOP in the East as well. Orthodox monastaries celebrate liturgy daily.

The Roman Catholic Church has never officially denied The Holy Trinity or the Person and Deity of Christ, the hypothetical conversation between the 7th Day Adventist and the Jehovah's Witness has the Adventist accusing the Jehovah Witness of denying these two things (they do, if you ever discuss these subjects with a Jehovah's Witness, they will tell you that Rome developed the Holy Trinity as a counterfeit version of Christianity during the reign of Constantine), whereas the Jehovah's Witnesses still worship on Sunday, something that Adventists believe was invented by Rome during the reign of Constantine.

One bizarre aspect of both these sectarian groups, which have their roots in Independent Baptist and Revivalist Churches, is that they both come to these opinions based on conspiracy theories about the early church councils. Both churches have essentially revived ancient heresies, the Jehovah's Witnesses reviving Arianism, whereas the Adventists are essentially proponents of classical Chiliasm with a side order of Judaizing legalism. You can defeat almost every argument that an Adventist makes for their innovative practices simply by opening up Galatians, the Jehovah's Witnesses are somewhat harder to convince with scripture since they have their own official translation which purposefully rewords much of the Gospel of John and a few other key NT passages to erase any trace of Trinitarian language.

[hells_unicorn]

Thank you for the clarification. I have never heard of either of them before. My point above applies to both of them. Do either have more authority than a Ecumencial Council?

James Dobson (Focus on the Family) is not really on my radar because he's wrong on way too many things, but to answer your question, he doesn't have any standing in Presbyterian circles, or in any other Magistrate Reformed body, so he wouldn't be in a position to challenge any official church decisions, he doesn't really believe in binding authority outside of individual congregations as far as I know. Any commonality that he has with the Ecumenical Councils is probably accidental.

James Dodson (Still Waters/Steelite) is not speaking on his own accord, he's speaking in accordance with the doctrines of the entire Reformed Faith in its 1st and 2nd Reformation forms, so we're talking an international dissenting party at the very least with some legitimate standing even prior to the official reformed period. There is only one Ecumenical Council that is under contention with the Presbyterian Church contra the EOC, and that is 2nd Nicaea. all of the other ones are considered both valid and binding. However, I would argue that there is a legitimate issue to be raised between whether 2nd Nicaea is valid since it was not confirmed by a subsequent council, and also that even if it can be legitimately argued that the EOC veneration of icons doesn't meet the threshold of 2nd degree idolatry (I'm open to the possibility), there is still the matter of it bearing a heavy similarity to abrogated Temple Worship practices in the Old Testament. I think it is entirely accurate that the EOC practice regarding images was present as early as the 2nd century and likely came about based on Old Testament practices, just as Pascha and other holy days comparable to the Old Testament holy days were from a similar influence. The question is whether these practices were universal prior to 2nd Nicaea, whether it was right for the church government to bind every congregation to the practice, and if they are in harmony with the Gospel and the Pauline Epistles regarding the transition from the Old Testament administration to the New.

What we have here in the case of James Dodson (Still Waters/Steelite) is a dissenting party on a matter concerning the universal church, and I do believe he and they are/were on the right side of this issue, though I am not going to speculate as to what this means for the salvation of Christians in either church body. However, existing schisms has made calling another Ecumenical council virtually impossible, and I do believe that this eventuality was pre-ordained by God and hinted at in Revelation. I'm not an Islamic iconoclast following the fallen star from heaven who was given the key to the bottomless pit (Sergius/Bahira, Mohammed's mentor), I'm not one to call for military action to force compliance from other churches (especially outside of my nation'), but I have heavy reservations about condoning or submitting myself to a questionable doctrine, which is where I stand on the issue of icons and veneration.

[TER]

James Dobson (Focus on the Family) is not really on my radar because he's wrong on way too many things, but to answer your question, he doesn't have any standing in Presbyterian circles, or in any other Magistrate Reformed body, so he wouldn't be in a position to challenge any official church decisions, he doesn't really believe in binding authority outside of individual congregations as far as I know. Any commonality that he has with the Ecumenical Councils is probably accidental.

James Dodson (Still Waters/Steelite) is not speaking on his own accord, he's speaking in accordance with the doctrines of the entire Reformed Faith in its 1st and 2nd Reformation forms, so we're talking an international dissenting party at the very least with some legitimate standing even prior to the official reformed period. There is only one Ecumenical Council that is under contention with the Presbyterian Church contra the EOC, and that is 2nd Nicaea. all of the other ones are considered both valid and binding. However, I would argue that there is a legitimate issue to be raised between whether 2nd Nicaea is valid since it was not confirmed by a subsequent council, and also that even if it can be legitimately argued that the EOC veneration of icons doesn't meet the threshold of 2nd degree idolatry (I'm open to the possibility), there is still the matter of it bearing a heavy similarity to abrogated Temple Worship practices in the Old Testament. I think it is entirely accurate that the EOC practice regarding images was present as early as the 2nd century and likely came about based on Old Testament practices, just as Pascha and other holy days comparable to the Old Testament holy days were from a similar influence. The question is whether these practices were universal prior to 2nd Nicaea, whether it was right for the church government to bind every congregation to the practice, and if they are in harmony with the Gospel and the Pauline Epistles regarding the transition from the Old Testament administration to the New.

What we have here in the case of James Dodson (Still Waters/Steelite) is a dissenting party on a matter concerning the universal church, and I do believe he and they are/were on the right side of this issue, though I am not going to speculate as to what this means for the salvation of Christians in either church body. However, existing schisms has made calling another Ecumenical council virtually impossible, and I do believe that this eventuality was pre-ordained by God and hinted at in Revelation. I'm not an Islamic iconoclast following the fallen star from heaven who was given the key to the bottomless pit (Sergius/Bahira, Mohammed's mentor), I'm not one to call for military action to force compliance from other churches (especially outside of my nation'), but I have heavy reservations about condoning or submitting myself to a questionable doctrine, which is where I stand on the issue of icons and veneration.

Where again has autocephaly been granted to your community? You made such a claim before but I cannot find it online.

Also, if your community accepts the first Six Ecumencial Councils, are they taken wholesome or piecemeal?

The Second Council of Nicea was ordained by God 800 years prior to the Reformation and was universally accepted in all places, including the Orthodox Churches that were in Scotland and England at that time. Do you believe that the entire Church fell into heresy simply because you think icons and veneration are questionable? You admit that the use of images come from as early as the second century (and every archeological find which is discovered keep proving this fact). So if the practice comes from so early a time period, the tradition was universally held long before the Reformation, it has been theologically justified and vetted by great and holy saints of the Church since the early Church, and finally a Holy Ecumencial Council was convened to proclaim the orthodox faith out of necessity (on account of the creeping heretical iconoclasm brought in by Islamic influences), what more does a faithful Christian need? Since when do our modern sensibilities and personal feelings trump the ancient and enduring witness of the Church? That sounds like a typical Protestant approach to Church history, foreign to the obedience and faith taught by the Fathers of the Holy Ecumencial Councils. When your girlfriend venerates an icon, is she worshiping the icon? Have you asked her? When the rabbis prior to Christ and since His advent kiss and venerate the scrolls of the Torah, are they worshiping the scroll? Have you asked them? If they say no and you accept it, why is it so difficult to accept what the Orthodox Christian is doing and with what intent?

As for the few connections between 'Old Testament Temple worship' which you have stated in the past and seem to use as a sticking point, you must remember that Christianity and Christian worship practices did not sprung up from thin air. Rather, it was the natural liturgical flowering whose foundations came from the Old Covenant and by which the Apostles and their successors transfigured and 'baptized' for the spiritual benefit of the members in Christ. Some things were indeed cast aside as having no further use or even being a cause for stumbling. Some things were kept as being beneficial and worthy towards the glorification and worship of God. Every Holy Father of every Holy Ecumenical Council which you claim to uphold worshiped as the Orthodox Church worships today, using the same liturgical structure and traditions and adhering to the faith handed down. Iconoclasm is not a tradition of the Church but rather the heretical innovation which the Church had to defeat and did long before the Reformers arrived on the scene to legitimately go against Papal abuses, of which the use of images had nothing to do with.

[Suzanimal]

Ah, whatever. Y'all are killing me here. I don't want to make an enemy of you all. Believe what you want. I'm just saying that I disagree with that thing about every time wine is mentioned, it has to be mentioned in context with the fermented variant.

There are clearly references to both varieties in the Bible.

Just because I disagree with you on this doesn't mean I consider you an enemy, lol. I typically stay out of PTR but when I saw wine being questioned, I had to chime in.

[tod evans]

I will not take communion with grape juice.

Furthermore I'm one of those people who drinks from the communal chalice and not from the plastic BS that's all the rage...

[Suzanimal]

I will not take communion with grape juice.

Furthermore I'm one of those people who drinks from the communal chalice and not from the plastic BS that's all the rage...

I'm Catholic and went to a Baptist church once when I dated a preachers son and they passed around shots of grape juice and plates of Hosts. O_o I drink out of the communal chalice (the only way it's offered) but I have the priest put the host in my hand - it feels awkward having a priest stick the host in my mouth.

The only time I passed on the wine was when I was pregnant and that was only because it made me feel sick. My mom trained us to get used to the taste of wine before our first communion so we wouldn't throw up the body and blood of Christ (it happens) - she made such a big deal out of it, I was always afraid. She also told us not to chew up Jesus so I suck on it until it dissolves - honestly, I'm not sure which is worse.

[TER]

I will not take communion with grape juice.

Furthermore I'm one of those people who drinks from the communal chalice and not from the plastic BS that's all the rage...

Once I read how a Roman Catholic parish was transitioning to gluten free wafers because of concerns of allergies. Now, if we truly believe that the elements become the Body and Blood of Christ, why in the world would we be concerned about gluten allergies? Or communicable diseases for that matter? There is not one single case of people getting sick or contracting an illness from sharing of the communal cup. In fact, the priest must consume all of the Holy Eucharist after all the other faithful have communed. Priests are not getting illnesses at a higher rate than the average person. In fact, during the Divine Liturgy on the Holy Thursday service which occurs once a year, a chalice of the Holy Eucharist is kept as an emergency reserve in cases of life threatening illness. This is used for the year ahead until the following Holy Thursday. The priest must consume whatever is left over during the service of the following year's Holy Thursday's service. After being kept open on the altar and servicing it to the parishes most ill members of the year, the Eucharist is as fresh as new, as if the first day it was consecrated, and no priest has ever gotten sick from partaking it. These are just a snapshot of the workings of God within the sacraments of the Church.

[Suzanimal]

Once I read how a Roman Catholic parish was transitioning to gluten free wafers because of concerns of allergies. Now, if we truly believe that the elements become the Body and Blood of Christ, why in the world would we be concerned about gluten allergies? Or communicable diseases for that matter? There is not one single case of people getting sick or contracting an illness from sharing of the communal cup. In fact, the priest must consume all of the Holy Eucharist after all the other faithful have communed. Priests are not getting illnesses at a higher rate than the average person The Holy Eucharist which comes from the Holy Thursday service and is the emergency sacrament in cases of life threatening illness for the following year stays fresh like it was produced that day. The priest must consume whatever is left over during the service of the following year's Holy Thursday's service. After being kept open on the altar and servicing it to the parishes most ill members of the year, the Eucharist is as fresh as new and no priest has ever gotten sick from partaking it. These are just a snapshot of the workings of God within the sacraments of the Church.

That's true. Good point.

I never understood how some Protestant faiths talk about taking the Bible literally but they don't celebrate the Eucharist with wine - or even regularly. I just don't get it.

[Natural Citizen]

Just because I disagree with you on this doesn't mean I consider you an enemy, lol. I typically stay out of PTR but when I saw wine being questioned, I had to chime in.

Yeah, I know, Suz. You know how I do, though. I pop my mouth off everywhere around here. Mainly that obtuse spew about those horrible, irritating Baptists is what plucked me.

But...just for giggles, and in pure context alone, if He said that He was bringing a drought to the corn and the "new wine"....which some friends say, oh, well, that just means there's a manufacturing process that must be considered, so that's surely what He meant, then, why didn't He say that He was bringing drought to the bread instead of corn in the same sentence with new wine? Hm? There's a manufacturing process for corn, too. But yet he said corn. Non processed corn. On the stalk. So, then, why does new wine have to take on a worldly meaning and not corn?

[heavenlyboy34]

That's true. Good point.

I never understood how some Protestant faiths talk about taking the Bible literally but they don't celebrate the Eucharist with wine - or even regularly. I just don't get it.

In my experience, they don't believe in transubstantiation and the bread and wine(grape juice for most of them :P ) are just symbolic. (even though the gospel account of the Last Supper plainly and directly contradict this :P ) This is the biggest reason (AFAIK) why Protestants have open communion while Orthodox/Catholic communion is closed.

[Natural Citizen]

I will not take communion with grape juice.

Furthermore I'm one of those people who drinks from the communal chalice and not from the plastic BS that's all the rage...

Ha. Hey, tod. Fancy meeting you here, brother.

When I went to Catholic School, we used to go to Mass on Wed around 3rd period. They gave communion with wine in a chalice.

[jmdrake]

It would depend. Like what would a Seventh Day Adventist say to a Jehovah's Witness who comes to their door?

Me? I'm typically not in the mood to engage in a religious debate with someone who came knocking on my door interrupting me from something I probably would rather be doing. But I try to follow "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." So I politely take the track and after I go inside chuck it. Sometimes out of boredom I've read it. (It's not like I think I will spontaneously combust from reading something I disagree with.) I usually find something I agree with mixed in with something I disagree with. For example, one tract was "How was Jesus a prophet like Moses." Well sure, Jesus prophesied, but He was more than a prophet. He was and is prophecy itself. There was a Jehovah's Witness family down the street from me when I grew up. We played together a lot and got into mischief together. Once the three of us (my older brother) tried to make moonshine together. (Like I said. We got into mischief together). Thankfully we forgot where we buried the stuff or it likely would have killed us all. And we never spent time debating religion. We were just kids having fun. I'm not sure where I'm going with this. Just remembering. I think if there was a Catholic kid or Orthodox kid or fill-in-the-blank kid it would have been the same. Just hanging out, building go carts and racing them, having snow ball fights, talking about girls, riding bikes, exploring patches of woods inside the city (Nashville is like that) and just being kids. Hmmmmm....I remember something Jesus said about "except as ye become as little children ye will in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven." I wonder if seeing people as people is part of that?