Is believing/faith a work ?

[beloved57]

You're attempting to make The Bible into a lie. Scripture says that NO ONE has entered into Heaven on works. I believe Scripture. Yes, we have faith in God. Yes, believing is a work. That work being done in us by God is His Grace. We don't have the faith to believe. We don't have the courage to stand up and say, "I want to be saved." God does it for us, in us and through us. He is Sovereign. We can do NOTHING good, except God do it through us. That's a fact. There is NONE good. None seeks after God. Fact.

More false accusations.

 

[beloved57]

Salvation is not a work of the flesh as you may have pointed out.

Salvation is a completed work of God in Christ which we receive by doing Romans 10:9.

Does it take effort on our part to meet the prerequisites of Romans 10:9? Yes.

But did we earn our salvation?

No it is a gift bought and paid for by God in Christ.

Thus it is free to us if we are willing to hold out our mouth and heart to receive it.

Salvation is a gift which costs us nothing

You are way off base, I dont see the relevance of all this as it pertains to the OP

 

[MennoSota]

Salvation is a completed work of God in Christ which we receive by doing Romans 10:9.

"we receive by doing"
That is legalism. You get if you do. Here's the manual.

In Romans 10:9, the confession of the mouth cannot happen until God makes the person alive with Christ (see Ephesians 2:1-10).
It is extremely important to refrain from creating a doctrine from one verse composed of one or two sentences. All of Romans 1-9 lead into Romans 10. The whole of scripture interprets Romans 10:9.
It is a dangerous doctrine that declares a person is saved if they invoke the incantation known as "the sinners prayer."
We confess our salvation precisely because God already made us alive with Christ and gave us the gift of faith so that we would believe and fulfill the good works God has ordained for us to do.
Your claim that "we receive by doing" removes grace from the equation. God repeatedly tells us we are saved by grace through faith, which is not of ourselves.
We receive because God chose to give. We respond by confessing in faith.
We do not receive by doing. Our efforts are filthy and wretched. There is nothing we do that will persuade God that we are worthy of his salvation.

 

[George Affleck]

This is all regarding the general topic of Greek anarthrous nouns; a grammatical construct that is absolutely missing from English and most other languages. I’m convinced it’s one of the premiere reasons God inspired the use of Greek for the New Testament through its human authorship.

In English, nouns are referred to by either the definite article (the, this, that) or indefinite article (a, an). These are very simple distinctions for basic specificity of items. The definite article particularizes in a way that highlights a specific object over many/all such objects.

Greek nouns are all innately anarthrous, which most overarchingly means “unsegmented”; and the anarthrous form of the noun refers to the qualities, characteristics, and functional activities of the noun. This generally designates the state of being for the noun, referring to all its many aspects and facets.

An example would be “table”. In Greek, the default noun construct refers to “table-ness”, and broadly always refers to every possible attribute that could be ascribed to any table of any kind for any use.

Tables are generally utilized to hold certain things up. A dining table, for instance, is utilized to support various place settings of dishes and utensils and beverage containers, along with any number of prepared food dishes. A dining table would then be performing certain passive forms of action, but a table is never referred to as “tabling” when holding up things it was designed to support for usage.

This is a table’s functional activity, which is an aspect or facet of its “table-ness”. The table isn’t actively “doing” anything. It’s static, not dynamic. There is no economy of action being overtly accomplished by a table when it is exhibiting its functional activity as a table. There is no verb here. Only the noun and all its qualitative considerations.

The same is true for faith. It’s an anarthrous noun like all other Greek nouns. It’s the thing that comes out of the message/report in Romans 10:17 that is also a noun (but is almost universally misunderstood as a verb by English speakers).

“So then, faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” Hearing is a NOUN in both instances in this verse. It is NOT a verb indicating actING or resulting actION/S. It’s rendered as “report” (in the KJV and others) in the previous verse, but “hearing” in v17. More explicitly it is “the thing heard”, just as faith is “the thing believed”.

Faith is the confident assurance and persuasion that comes out of the thing heard as the thing believed. And faith is the anarthrous noun that has all internal functional activity for believING. Faith is the thing given by God so that when we “have” it we can then believe because faith has the functional activity we need to accomplish the act of believING.

We cannot believe without the faith itself. Faith has all believING within it, for belief (faith) is that which comes out of the thing heard as the thing believed. By man “having” faith, he then can function according to the funcional activity of the thing he has.

An example would be a person and a cell phone. A person cannot make a call on a cellular network without “having” a cell phone. The cell phone has all the internal functional hardware and software to make calls, so if someone “has” a cell phone they can make a call. But without the thing that does the calling, man cannot make any cell phone calls. It’s impossible.

The same is true of an axe and a tree. Man cannot chop down a tree unless he has an axe (or other implement). So it IS man chopping down a tree, but it’s the axe that is the thing man has to chop down the tree. There must be an axe or man cannot accomplish the action.

Without faith as the confident assurance and persuasion as the thing believed, man cannot believe. So the internal functional activity of faith is that which does the believING, but it is man who HAS the faith that believes. So man indeed believes, but only because he has faith.

Make no mistake, faith has all the latent internal functional activity for believING, and man does not. Man must be given faith by God for man to believe. Man only believes because he has faith. And faith in all these instances is articular. It is THE faith, not just “a” faith.

Anyone who has been confidently assured and persuaded by a message/report that came by any word/s has “a” faith. But THE faith is the thing that comes out of THE message/report which came by means of THE very Rhema of God.

The quality of the rhema is the means of the message/report as the thing heard. And out of that will come a commensurate quality of faith that will either be THE faith (by God’s Rhema) or “another” faith (by whatever other rhema).

Of course man believes. But man only believes because THE faith has the internal functional activity of believING within it, and that man can then thus believe.

I see from this that we are saying the same thing, albeit that you are able to dissect it for us intelligently. Thanks for taking the time.

In the case of the cell phone, you are not suggesting that the cell phone makes the call on its own without the knowledge, intent or involvement of the owner. God's purpose is to give His creatures the ability, which sin has taken away, to reconnect with Him; and the gift of faith is the central apparatus of that new birth. It is that which is implanted by God, responding to Himself by involving us in the process.

I also see that, within this explanation is the idea that, it is impossible for one who has been spoken to by the true Rheema of God not to respond to it and utilize the new gifts to act according to the 'new man'. In this sense it is understood that it is all the work of God by the process of involving dead men in the process of their own salvation/redemption. Even the involvement has order; God first, creature second.

I have struggled trying to find the right words to explain the purpose of prayer according to this concept. It is God's delight to invite dead men, in history, to participate in His purposes for good towards all. Even petition, when viewed this way is involvement by means of invitation.

 

[Nang]

Receiving the faith “of Christ” from God, is more relevant and akin to the doctrine of Imputed Righteousness than it has to do with good works of obedience.

 

[oatmeal]

"we receive by doing"
That is legalism. You get if you do. Here's the manual.

In Romans 10:9, the confession of the mouth cannot happen until God makes the person alive with Christ (see Ephesians 2:1-10).
It is extremely important to refrain from creating a doctrine from one verse composed of one or two sentences. All of Romans 1-9 lead into Romans 10. The whole of scripture interprets Romans 10:9.
It is a dangerous doctrine that declares a person is saved if they invoke the incantation known as "the sinners prayer."
We confess our salvation precisely because God already made us alive with Christ and gave us the gift of faith so that we would believe and fulfill the good works God has ordained for us to do.
Your claim that "we receive by doing" removes grace from the equation. God repeatedly tells us we are saved by grace through faith, which is not of ourselves.
We receive because God chose to give. We respond by confessing in faith.
We do not receive by doing. Our efforts are filthy and wretched. There is nothing we do that will persuade God that we are worthy of his salvation.

For anyone to confess anything you must knowledge of it.

Romans 10 9 is not the sinners prayer.

God does not require us to confess that we are sinners in order to receive salvation but the savior from sin.

You receiving a gift with earning a wage.

Salvation is a gift not a wage.

If someone offers you a gift. A priceless gift you must receive the gift in order to receive the gift.

Receiving a gift requires a little bit of effort. We might have to hold out our hand and grasp the gift. But it is still a gift. Receiving a gift does not turn it into wages

Sadly you have conflated earning wages with receiving a gift

 

[MennoSota]

For anyone to confess anything you must knowledge of it.

Romans 10 9 is not the sinners prayer.

God does not require us to confess that we are sinners in order to receive salvation but the savior from sin.

You receiving a gift with earning a wage.

Receiving a wage is not receiving a gift. You sell your time and resources via contract and the buyer pays you for your effort. No gift involved.

Salvation is a gift not a wage.

Of course it is. It's an act of grace. God giving to you what you don't deserve.

If someone offers you a gift. A priceless gift you must receive the gift in order to receive the gift.

Wrong. Whether you respond in acceptance or rejection is irrelevant. It's a gift regardless if what you do with it.

Receiving a gift requires a little bit of effort. We might have to hold out our hand and grasp the gift. But it is still a gift. Receiving a gift does not turn it into wages

Nope. God's gracious gift is given. God gifts us faith so that we can actually believe the gift is ours. God chooses who He will give His gift. Not one rebel will accept God's gift as an offer. God must overrun us, completely defeat us and shove the gift down our throats like medicine that a child fights to exhaustion.

Sadly you have conflated earning wages with receiving a gift

Nope, I haven't.

 

[Right Divider]

If someone offers you a gift. A priceless gift you must receive the gift in order to receive the gift.

:rotfl:

You're quite the genius.

 

[George Affleck]

Receiving a gift requires a little bit of effort. We might have to hold out our hand and grasp the gift. But it is still a gift. Receiving a gift does not turn it into wages

You received the gift of life.

What effort did you put into it?

 

[Idolater]

OK.
Can you clarify then how it would be possible to detect an oral tradition through the examination of written historical records?
What do you mean by, "an oddly vascillating period of time," and by, "characteristic of the Filioque?"
Then I find that odd. Your position on the office of Bishop is the same as all Protestants then, that all bishops are all together corrupt and that the office is irreparably invalid. Note that my hypothetical /conditional includes the possibility of all the bishops coming around in some way to each others's way of thinking, and not exclusively the possibility that simply the eastern bishops 'et al.' would 'return' to Catholicism and to the subordination to the papacy (wrt the papacy being 'first among equals' only), nor just the possibility that 'Rome' recants. It could be some arrangement or agreement that none of us has ever even imagined, let alone heard of before. So I find your position odd. Why wouldn't you instead long for the Church's valid bishops all reuniting together again as it was for so many centuries, starting right from Jerusalem in AD 33 on Pentecost? To me, that's the legendary 'New Testament Church' that so many Bible thumping Protestants try to duplicate in their own lives and practices (a very good goal in concept imo, if not in aim); all the bishops together with each other, in communion, teaching uniformly, just as the Apostles designed.
I never used that word, and that's not what I'm talking about. True and valid unity must be founded upon authentic Christian /Apostolic teaching, not through compromise or 'dumbing down' this or that teaching, just that everybody can agree to something.
'Rome' cannot reunite all the bishops unilaterally, and I never suggested that 'Rome' could. This will require free cooperation on the part of all the valid bishops.
Islam denies both Christ's Resurrection and that He is God /the Trinity. At least all the bishops agree on these two things, along with many other things, but to compare this with Islam pushes that envelope too far imo.
You're clearly convinced in your own mind.
Me too.
But the bishops are in that same text.
Beyond the scope of this thread, but the only way I see anything like "One-World everything" happening is for the US to resume annexations (which is something I support). And the First Amendment does and will continue to prevent government /police from ever establishing any religion.
The office of bishop was never specified as having any expertise in any other practice beyond the valid celebration of the sacraments, and of teaching the entire Christian faith in all matters of faith and morals. So that would exclude banking, government, etc.
The papacy is Apostolic, Peter's Roman pastorate is Apostolic. He held that office, and the office itself didn't die with him. You can disagree that the office is valid at the moment, but you can't reasonably disagree that it is Peter's own Roman pastorate that he vacated when he died, that the Pope today holds, and that in this sense the office is Apostolic. At least, not imo.
:idunno:
You say this, and yet you make no plans to be received into their communion. Just for comparison, I work with a Catholic priest who is in communion with his bishop (my bishop), and I am on the way to full communion.
OK, but you also don't yield to any bishops. You make yourself into a bishop instead, and you teach and yield to yourself. That idea is not scriptural.

Bump for [MENTION=14978]PneumaPsucheSoma[/MENTION]

 

[Aimiel]

More false accusations.

What, specifically do you find fault with. I don't see fault there.

 

[beloved57]

What, specifically do you find fault with. I don't see fault there.

That what you accused me of.

 

[Aimiel]

Whatever.

 

[oatmeal]

Receiving a wage is not receiving a gift. You sell your time and resources via contract and the buyer pays you for your effort. No gift involved.

Of course it is. It's an act of grace. God giving to you what you don't deserve.

Wrong. Whether you respond in acceptance or rejection is irrelevant. It's a gift regardless if what you do with it.


Nope. God's gracious gift is given. God gifts us faith so that we can actually believe the gift is ours. God chooses who He will give His gift. Not one rebel will accept God's gift as an offer. God must overrun us, completely defeat us and shove the gift down our throats like medicine that a child fights to exhaustion.

Nope, I haven't.

Did you read what you wrote?

You cannot have it both ways

Either you receive it or refuse it.

If you refuse it you do not have it

If you do what it takes to receive it then you do have it.

Salvation is a gift that takes effort, though very little effort in comparison to the price of the gift, to receive.

 

[MennoSota]

Did you read what you wrote?

You cannot have it both ways

Either you receive it or refuse it.

If you refuse it you do not have it

If you do what it takes to receive it then you do have it.

Salvation is a gift that takes effort, though very little effort in comparison to the price of the gift, to receive.

God's gift is like medicine. He chooses to give it to whom he wills. He forces it down the throat of the person who fights him tooth and nail. When it goes down, the person repents of his/her fighting and praises God for the healing gift he has given.
You cannot reject God's gift when he chooses to give it to you. Please stop thinking you have any power to defeat the will of God or to thwart it. You don't. You can't. You will not.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

So you believe God doesnt Love everyone without exception nor Christ didnt die for everyone without exception ? Correct ?

Christ died for sin (singular anarthrous hamartia - every quality of the sin state of being), not some OR all men.

2Corinthians 5:21
“For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.”

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Bump for [MENTION=14978]PneumaPsucheSoma[/MENTION]

OK.
Can you clarify then how it would be possible to detect an oral tradition through the examination of written historical records?

I don’t make that false dichotomy. And you have no means of providing the veracity of most alleged oral tradition without written documentation. Even the oral tradition has been written down, BTW. There remains no oral tradition that has not been recorded.

What do you mean by, "an oddly vascillating period of time,"

The early period leading into and beyond Nicaea and then beyond Constantinople has many oddities of consistency relative to the changing landscape of the Roman Empire and its Emperors’ support for certain things and the Christian faith itself.

and by, "characteristic of the Filioque?"

I was likely referring to the western non-Cappadocian usage of terms, and the subsequent assemblage of terminology that is less accurate than the Eastern implementation.

The West “must” have the Filioque. The East doesn’t need it. The East understands the hypostasis underlies the ousia (thus “having” the ousia), whereas the West inverts that and posits the ousia as “having” the hypostasis. This necessitates the West having to designate the Filioque, whereas the East already disparaged Tritheism without it.

The East is correct. The West is in error.

Then I find that odd. Your position on the office of Bishop is the same as all Protestants then, that all bishops are all together corrupt and that the office is irreparably invalid.

No. Just that Apostolic Succession is not what Rome insists.

Note that my hypothetical /conditional includes the possibility of all the bishops coming around in some way to each others's way of thinking, and not exclusively the possibility that simply the eastern bishops 'et al.' would 'return' to Catholicism and to the subordination to the papacy (wrt the papacy being 'first among equals' only),

Ridiculous. Can’t, won’t, and shouldn’t happen. The inverse would be okay, but also impossible. The Pope (the office/vocation) is antichrist.

nor just the possibility that 'Rome' recants. It could be some arrangement or agreement that none of us has ever even imagined, let alone heard of before.

Nope.

So I find your position odd. Why wouldn't you instead long for the Church's valid bishops all reuniting together again as it was for so many centuries, starting right from Jerusalem in AD 33 on Pentecost?

Because the unification isn’t tangible, it’s Christ Himself. No consensus dialectic of man is necessary.

To me, that's the legendary 'New Testament Church' that so many Bible thumping Protestants try to duplicate in their own lives and practices (a very good goal in concept imo, if not in aim); all the bishops together with each other, in communion, teaching uniformly, just as the Apostles designed.

They already are, just not yet. Prolepsis. No need to make time preeminent to God and to Christ.

I never used that word, and that's not what I'm talking about. True and valid unity must be founded upon authentic Christian /Apostolic teaching, not through compromise or 'dumbing down' this or that teaching, just that everybody can agree to something.

Unity is an attribute of God. That’s why there is ONLY unity in Christ. There is no final and complete unity in this realm of physical existence. It requires judgment to purge off the dross. The Roman Church is NOT that.

'Rome' cannot reunite all the bishops unilaterally, and I never suggested that 'Rome' could. This will require free cooperation on the part of all the valid bishops.

Irrelevant. There is no Christ Vicar. Christ Himself is the unity. He is the Husband, not the Betrothed. You make the Betrothed (the Church) into the Husband. They are one in all but flesh, but certainly not in the flesh.

Islam denies both Christ's Resurrection and that He is God /the Trinity. At least all the bishops agree on these two things,

Not really. The Trinity is more explicit than you understand. The Filioque should be ample proof of that.

along with many other things, but to compare this with Islam pushes that envelope too far imo.
You're clearly convinced in your own mind.

I’m convinced of the truth, and of the clear distinction between flesh and spirit, and of tangible and intangible (and that the Pope office - particularly this despicable Francis Pope as darkness personified - being antichrist).

Me too.
But the bishops are in that same text.
Beyond the scope of this thread, but the only way I see anything like "One-World everything" happening is for the US to resume annexations (which is something I support). And the First Amendment does and will continue to prevent government /police from ever establishing any religion.

And here, more than in any other area, is where you have quite literally NO knowledge or understanding. The US is a series of bankrupted corporations built upon a false premise of the USA ever being out from under the Crown or the Emancipation Proclamation being anything but the enslavement of ALL “citizens” of the entity that is NOT what you think it is. There has never been a Constitutional Republic in the form you presume according to the historical revisionism of mainstream narratives. And the Constitution is abrogated (a long delineation would be necessary for explication here), so there is no applicable 1st Amendment for those who are not party to it (which is the overwhelming majority of dualized US/USA citizens).

You. Have. No. Idea. And the Vatican is one of 3 City-States that are in antichrist power (London and the District of Columbia are the other 2).

The office of bishop was never specified as having any expertise in any other practice beyond the valid celebration of the sacraments, and of teaching the entire Christian faith in all matters of faith and morals. So that would exclude banking, government, etc.

And you know nothing of the others, which is a huge part of the problem of your naivete’.

The papacy is Apostolic, Peter's Roman pastorate is Apostolic.

NOPE. You’ll make NO headway here with that. The Pope is antichrist. PERIOD.

He held that office, and the office itself didn't die with him. You can disagree that the office is valid at the moment, but you can't reasonably disagree that it is Peter's own Roman pastorate that he vacated when he died, that the Pope today holds, and that in this sense the office is Apostolic. At least, not imo.

IYO. Exactly. Preeminent in honor among equals. Just as the East concedes, and nothing more or else.

You say this, and yet you make no plans to be received into their communion.

How do you know this? And how do you or I know what the finished work of God in Christ through the Holy Spirit will do in my heart in this regard in the coming days? Perhaps God has something for me where I am for now (He does).

Just for comparison, I work with a Catholic priest who is in communion with his bishop (my bishop), and I am on the way to full communion.

Ok. A mistake, ultimately.

OK, but you also don't yield to any bishops. You make yourself into a bishop instead, and you teach and yield to yourself. That idea is not scriptural.

I yield to the Eastern Bishops in all these things. And I likely will be in communion with the East in the future. Little different than you, so why the 40 lashes?

 

[George Affleck]

Did you read what you wrote?


You cannot have it both ways

Either you receive it or refuse it.

If you refuse it you do not have it

If you do what it takes to receive it then you do have it.

Salvation is a gift that takes effort, though very little effort in comparison to the price of the gift, to receive.

I will ask again:

You received the gift of life.

What effort did you put into it?

 

[Idolater]

I don’t make that false dichotomy.

That's fine, I was just asking you to clarify your logic in saying the following:

For me the argument is around Apostolicity. I have no way of confirming or denying that an alleged Apostolic oral teaching is authentically Apostolic or not (if it's not also in the Scripture), so I have to refer to a source outside of myself.

And a simple overview of history indicates it’s quite impossible. I’ve read EVERY Patristic writing extant available in English to the general public. The Filioque was a late innovation.

Why would you expect to find any written evidence (which is virtually equivalent to "history" in this context) of an oral tradition?

And you have no means of providing the veracity of most alleged oral tradition without written documentation.

Of course not, since it is oral tradition, which means it is not written until it is written, if it is written. This is why I'm asking for clarification, because we seem to be talking past each other. I'm saying that "oral tradition" means the same thing as unwritten. And so therefore, since "history" in this context is largely if not completely equivalent to "written history," I don't see any reason why anybody would think that the absence of written evidence for oral tradition indicates that it wasn't so. To me, by definition, it's invisible to history until it's written down. Only the bishops can witness to its either existence or non existence, and as I already explained, I put the Petrine and Pauline oral tradition, both of which were passed on in Rome, as the controlling version of Apostolic Sacred Tradition, whenever bishops 'compare notes' and find any disparity between what they've each received.

Even the oral tradition has been written down, BTW. There remains no oral tradition that has not been recorded.

I tend to agree with you, although nowhere do the authentic pastors of the Church specifically say that there is no more oral Sacred Tradition that has not already been written down, and until they ever do make such a declaration, I'll not be completely convinced.

The early period leading into and beyond Nicaea and then beyond Constantinople has many oddities of consistency relative to the changing landscape of the Roman Empire and its Emperors’ support for certain things and the Christian faith itself.

Granted, and thank you for clarifying. I do not see how this agreed upon fact however, necessarily proves the 'filioque' is an innovation of man, and not the truth of God.

I was likely referring to the western non-Cappadocian usage of terms, and the subsequent assemblage of terminology that is less accurate than the Eastern implementation.

Thank you again for clarifying. And when you say "less accurate," which standard of comparison are you using, in your determination of accuracy?

The West “must” have the Filioque.

Perhaps, but it's not the point. The point is whether or not the 'filioque' is authentically Apostolic or not. If it is not Apostolic but is man made, then what you say is reasonable on its face, and if it is authentically Apostolic, then of course 'Rome' is correct, trivially.

Could you and can you provide evidence that you have found in your research where the alleged Apostolicity of 'filioque' is positively denied, before it appeared in history? What I mean is, is there something authoritative that you have found that definitely prevents 'filioque' from being God's truth?

The East doesn’t need it. The East understands the hypostasis underlies the ousia (thus “having” the ousia), whereas the West inverts that and posits the ousia as “having” the hypostasis. This necessitates the West having to designate the Filioque, whereas the East already disparaged Tritheism without it.

Again, this depends upon 'filioque' being man made. And I just want to point out that this is your own characterization of things, using your own words, and Catholicism does not use these words to teach the Trinity.

The East is correct. The West is in error.

Your view. We disagree, and we disagree because we disagree about the Apostolicity of 'filioque.' I've set out my reasons; we disagree, and that's OK.

No. Just that Apostolic Succession is not what Rome insists.

You recognize that according to what 'Rome' insists on this matter, that all validly ordained Orthodox bishops (and therefore also priests /presbyters) are valid Church bishops, and that Orthodox sacraments are all validly celebrated by the Orthodox? The only thing separating Catholic and Orthodox bishops is communion with 'Rome.' The Eucharist and all other sacraments are as validly celebrated by the Orthodox as they are by Catholics, according to Catholicism.

Ridiculous. Can’t, won’t, and shouldn’t happen.

It's one way to skin this cat, is all I'm saying. I've mentioned before that the hoped for reunification of all the Church's valid bishops, is up to all the Church's valid bishops ultimately, and that excludes me. You recoil at the suggestion that the Orthodox might come to acknowledge that they are in error, but it nonetheless remains within the realm of logical possibility.

The inverse would be okay, but also impossible.

I am open to however they all together decide to reunite, so long as they do it. I'm rooting for them to do it within my lifetime, if God wills. I'd like to live in that time, selfishly, although I don't think unrighteously selfishly.

The Pope (the office/vocation) is antichrist.

Over 300 Catholics were just murdered in Sri Lanka by Kamikazes over the weekend. Those murderous suicides, I'm willing to call 666 or antichrist, and by comparison, I can't even see how you'd claim that Pope Francis or the papacy is like those people were. There isn't any comparison from where I'm setting. You leave me scratching my head.

Nope.

:idunno: 'Still could be.

Because the unification isn’t tangible, it’s Christ Himself. No consensus dialectic of man is necessary.

It Is tangible, because it is "one bread" and "one body" (1Co10:17KJV); i.e., the one Eucharist.

They already are, just not yet. Prolepsis. No need to make time preeminent to God and to Christ.

I don't think I'm making "time preeminent to God and to Christ." I yearn for reunification of the one Body of Christ, is all, here on earth, which cannot be unreasonable since all I'm talking about is how it was, largely, before Nicaea /the end of Diocletian's wasting of the Church /churches. It's not as if it's never been done /seen before, is all.

Unity is an attribute of God. That’s why there is ONLY unity in Christ.

Agreed, and all I'm talking about for starters is the common union in the one Eucharist /one bread. That means a pretty much wholesale abandonment of the 'protest' against valid Church bishops; i.e., a pretty much wholesale flocking to Catholic, Orthodox, and other ancient communions (Eastern Oriental Orthodox, etc., e.g.).

There is no final and complete unity in this realm of physical existence.

I can agree with you here, while at once still holding to the goal of earthly reunification of the whole Church.

It requires judgment to purge off the dross. The Roman Church is NOT that.



Irrelevant.

Not hardly, not wrt what I'm suggesting /championing. It's fully relevant that it will take free and voluntary cooperation on the part of all the Church's valid bishops to achieve reunification among them all again, as it was in the Church's first three centuries.

There is no Christ Vicar. Christ Himself is the unity. He is the Husband, not the Betrothed. You make the Betrothed (the Church) into the Husband. They are one in all but flesh, but certainly not in the flesh.

The dispute concerning the authentic authority /primacy of the papacy aside, the communion of the Church wrt the Eucharist is possible right now. We all just need to rid ourselves of Protestantism, which is found nowhere in Scripture, and as you well know, the spirit of Protestantism was alive even in the first centuries of the Church, though those first Protestants couldn't even be accused of actually believing in Christ, with their grave errors, that they held outside of any bishops' oversight. And this is essentially what Protestantism is protesting against---bishops /oversight. Protestantism according to this definition is not biblical, and its diametric opposite is biblical.

Not really. The Trinity is more explicit than you understand. The Filioque should be ample proof of that.

Again, this is your characterization. Catholicism's own authorized words are not the same as your words you use in your characterization of things. I see conformity between Catholicism and Orthodoxy in all things Trinity, except for the 'filioque.' I know you do not, we just disagree on it.

I’m convinced of the truth, and of the clear distinction between flesh and spirit, and of tangible and intangible

Me too.

(and that the Pope office - particularly this despicable Francis Pope as darkness personified - being antichrist).

See above, re: Sri Lanka. Those Kamikazes might have been "darkness personified," but they do not compare in any reasonable way to Pope Francis.

And here, more than in any other area, is where you have quite literally NO knowledge or understanding. The US is a series of bankrupted corporations built upon a false premise of the USA ever being out from under the Crown or the Emancipation Proclamation being anything but the enslavement of ALL “citizens” of the entity that is NOT what you think it is. There has never been a Constitutional Republic in the form you presume according to the historical revisionism of mainstream narratives. And the Constitution is abrogated (a long delineation would be necessary for explication here), so there is no applicable 1st Amendment for those who are not party to it (which is the overwhelming majority of dualized US/USA citizens).

You. Have. No. Idea. And the Vatican is one of 3 City-States that are in antichrist power (London and the District of Columbia are the other 2).

If I believed what you profess here, I would be even more hellbent on defending the right to bear arms than I already am. So, question for you: Given that you believe all this, do you believe as I do, that the right to bear arms is inalienable, and that the Second Amendment is completely correct, and that All Gun Control laws are Unconstitutional on their face? Stripping away potential distractions, I read the Second saying that "The Right Shall not Be Infringed," is that how you also read it?

I ask because if what you believe is the case, I can think of absolutely no more important right to recognize, affirm, and protect, than the inalienable right to bear military grade (i.e. standard issue) arms. You? 'Thinking being, that so long as we are armed, and unmolested /not harassed by the government /police wrt bearing arms, then that is the only hope we have of protecting ourselves against this very scary prospect, if your belief here is right.

And you know nothing of the others, which is a huge part of the problem of your naivete’.

I'm always curious to reveal any naivete on my part, so please, can you shed some light on "the others" here, so that I might improve my understanding? I don't like the idea of being naive, especially when I can avoid it.

NOPE. You’ll make NO headway here with that. The Pope is antichrist. PERIOD.

I believe that you're extrapolating from what I said. All I'm saying is that Peter held a real pastorate, and I don't see where that pastorate has evaporated from existence. Pope Francis holds the same office Peter held, in the same way that President Trump holds the office that George Washington did. The office has changed in some if not many ways, but it remains the same office in both regards, in at least one critical way.

IYO. Exactly.

That's what I said.

Preeminent in honor among equals. Just as the East concedes, and nothing more or else.

Again, I feel that you're reading more into what I wrote than what I either wrote or implied. Of course there is fracture and disagreement about the significance of Peter's office, but that Peter held an office, and that that office still exists today (even if not validly held) is to me without any reasonable doubt. And if so, then the office itself is Apostolic in origin.

How do you know this?

You've never indicated otherwise. A guess, iow. Am I correct?

And how do you or I know what the finished work of God in Christ through the Holy Spirit will do in my heart in this regard in the coming days?

I don't. 'Never claimed to.

Perhaps God has something for me where I am for now (He does).

Of course, I never suggested otherwise. What I do suggest is that you 'put your money with your mouth is,' and convert to Orthodoxy, if you are as convinced as you claim regarding Orthodox teaching in all matters of the faith. You seem to be, and claim to be, quite convinced, and if I'm correct that you're currently statically "confessional Lutheran," and not seeking communion with one of the Orthodox churches, then I think I'm justified in wondering why, and given your aggression in your posts, I further feel justified in challenging you on it.

And to add a bit of fuel to the fire, can you show where any Orthodox teaching authenticates anybody but Orthodox Christians as authentic Christians? I ask because Catholicism positively authenticates both Orthodox and Protestants as Christians, dependent only upon genuine belief "in Christ" (the definition of which Catholicism, through omission, leaves to the Orthodox and to Protestants to make themselves). Does Orthodoxy ever make such a declaration?

Ok. A mistake, ultimately.

Disagreed, but OK.

I yield to the Eastern Bishops in all these things. And I likely will be in communion with the East in the future.

This sounds passive and fatalistic. I think this life change requires your activity, and not passivity. You need to decide, and you need to make the decision real, by talking with the pastor of the Orthodox parish you'd like to join.

Little different than you, so why the 40 lashes?

I actively pursued full communion with the Catholic Church. I didn't leave it to chance, or providence, as if I am only a passive participant in my life, or in life in general. The difference between us mentally /intellectually /theologically is slight, but bodily, I think the gulf between us is wide.

'Mind, I'm not opposed to Christian fatalism when pursued fully and with full conviction (which is my same attitude towards all forms of Protestantism---iow I support everybody's human right to 'pursue happiness' in the way we each think is best, I just strongly encourage everyone to pursue it with all vigor). It just appears that, based on your own words, that you're already at or beyond the point where you have fully informed yourself and have become convinced as to what you ought to be working towards, wrt communion, wrt partaking of the true Eucharist, as validly celebrated by the Orthodox.

I love theology, and whenever we individually in our theological journey, arrive at either Catholicism or at Orthodoxy (or another ancient Christian tradition), then theology necessitates action, and that action in such cases is absolutely the pursuit of communion with one of these churches.

imo.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Before I begin responding point by point, let me first take this opportunity to address one of the later things you mentioned above/below.

My apologies if my posts seem aggressive; it’s my intensity and the result of the written format without personal inflections. I am not being overtly assertive in a condescending manner, but demonstrating a resolve of conviction/s.

And as to my affiliation, the general perception of Lutheranism is that it is Protestant and Reformed, which it is not. Lutheranism is the Reformed Catholic Church; and is only external because the Papacy refused internal correction. Luther never intended to be ultimately left in a position outside of Catholicism, which would have typically been a formal exile with anathematization (and that never happened, it was merely a calculated withdrawal of Rome from him and those associated with him).

So I don’t see the need to necessarily be pro-active in pursuing what may be an eventual joining with the Eastern Orthodox. Lutheranism is more authentically orthodox than Roman Catholicism, so I’m fine in communion where I am. The core of being “orthodox” is in authentic Sacramentalism. I’m fine with the Lutheran distinction between the Sacraments and that which is sacramentAL (marriage, etc. is not a Sacrament in Lutheranism, though such things are considered sacramentAL as means of God administering His grace).

In some sense, all Protestants are “Semi”-Sacramentalists, for all believe the Word adminsters grace. So that’s a matter of careful discussion that needs to be had on whatever level/s.

I have no compunction to pursue the East for communion, for I partake of the Holy Eucharist where I am. And I would never pursue communion with Rome unless and until She repents of her schism with the one Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church... The East. (Same for the OOC, etc.)

So I am best off where I am now, but am open to being led of the Spirit to the East.

That's fine, I was just asking you to clarify your logic in saying the following:

​

​

Why would you expect to find any written evidence (which is virtually equivalent to "history" in this context) of an oral tradition?

Because there would be few (if any) exceptions of oral tradition NOT being written down at some (relatively) early point in time.

Of course not, since it is oral tradition, which means it is not written until it is written, if it is written.

Right, which was my point. We have the oral traditions in written form. Whatever might be extant would still be able to be written, and it has (as far as anyone can or does know). If there is “secret oral tradition”, then I would generally dismiss it as Gnostic (and/or smacking of the many secret societies that have produced much of what I refer to in my mentions of the world elite, etc.).

This is why I'm asking for clarification, because we seem to be talking past each other.

Yes, that is easy for us to do. We are personifications of the East-West disparities. I know too much of the West’s corruption to address things any differently, and you are a late-comer to Rome with no real knowledge of all her corruptions relative to the hierarchy.

And I can affirm the many “oral” traditions that are written down without having to affirm the antichrist Pope as the perversion and usurpation of Peter’s original office. Peter himself would never have promoted his position in such a manner.

I'm saying that "oral tradition" means the same thing as unwritten. And so therefore, since "history" in this context is largely if not completely equivalent to "written history," I don't see any reason why anybody would think that the absence of written evidence for oral tradition indicates that it wasn't so. To me, by definition, it's invisible to history until it's written down.

Agreed. And they have done so. There isn’t a whole majority of all kinds of things as oral tradition that have not been both implemented and written down, whether from the East OR the West.

Only the bishops can witness to its either existence or non existence, and as I already explained, I put the Petrine and Pauline oral tradition, both of which were passed on in Rome, as the controlling version of Apostolic Sacred Tradition, whenever bishops 'compare notes' and find any disparity between what they've each received.

And I agree with it as far as it agrees with the East. That leaves precious little, but the innovations are in the West. History bears this out. I have seen nothing else to the contrary.

I tend to agree with you, although nowhere do the authentic pastors of the Church specifically say that there is no more oral Sacred Tradition that has not already been written down, and until they ever do make such a declaration, I'll not be completely convinced.

Fair enough. Silence here means much.

Granted, and thank you for clarifying. I do not see how this agreed upon fact however, necessarily proves the 'filioque' is an innovation of man, and not the truth of God.

It would after a lengthy study of Cappadocian doctrine based upon grammar and semantics. Remember, the Cappadocians were Eastern, as were all of the “best” Early Fathers.

Thank you again for clarifying. And when you say "less accurate," which standard of comparison are you using, in your determination of accuracy?

That which is directly Cappadocian. I am utterly Cappadocian (and Chalcedonian). Basil. Gregory. Gregory.

Perhaps, but it's not the point. The point is whether or not the 'filioque' is authentically Apostolic or not.

It was added, and it was added individually and in a power play against all the other Bishops. And it’s lexically unnecessary if Cappadocian terms and grammar are understood. A “Christ Vicar” would not have had to innovate and not have understood.

If it is not Apostolic but is man made, then what you say is reasonable on its face, and if it is authentically Apostolic, then of course 'Rome' is correct, trivially.

It isn’t Apostolic. It conflicts with the Apostolic. On this stands the schism. Not directly because of the Filioque, but indirectly and because of the heinous power-mongering of the Roman Bishop to be more than he was/is.

I will not ever endorse or condone the Papacy; and the Papacy impugns the position of Bishop itself, which is unconscionable. It is tantamount to the sin of Adam in Eden. Usurpation of holy vocation by the wiles of the flesh. I despise it as the unholy thing it is.

Could you and can you provide evidence that you have found in your research where the alleged Apostolicity of 'filioque' is positively denied, before it appeared in history? What I mean is, is there something authoritative that you have found that definitely prevents 'filioque' from being God's truth?

Every Eastern address of the topic, in one manner or another.

Again, this depends upon 'filioque' being man made. And I just want to point out that this is your own characterization of things, using your own words, and Catholicism does not use these words to teach the Trinity.

My characterization is because of how I had to come to it from being a “cradle Evangelical”. I can’t change that trajectory in my life.

Your view. We disagree, and we disagree because we disagree about the Apostolicity of 'filioque.' I've set out my reasons; we disagree, and that's OK.

It’s okay, but it’s a definite point of difference that is confessional. The Filioque permits innovation that is Tritheistic. Even my Lutheran Pastor (himself an accomplished linguist and exegete) has acknowledged this after our many hours of discussion on the topic.

You DO realize Lutherans confess the Filioque, right? This is further core evidence of my contention that Lutheranism is Reformed Catholic.

You recognize that according to what 'Rome' insists on this matter, that all validly ordained Orthodox bishops (and therefore also priests /presbyters) are valid Church bishops, and that Orthodox sacraments are all validly celebrated by the Orthodox?

Yes, I realize this and don’t disagree. This isn’t about the whole of the Roman Church being corrupt and antichrist. It’s about the Pope being antichrist.

The only thing separating Catholic and Orthodox bishops is communion with 'Rome.'

No small thing. And the East doesn’t covet Rome’s communion. But Rome definitely covets the East’s communion.

I wouldn’t want the East to abandon their authentic communion for the divergent communion of Rome with her errors.

The Eucharist and all other sacraments are as validly celebrated by the Orthodox as they are by Catholics, according to Catholicism.

Right. But neither East NOR West will admit the other to their communion. And rightly so.

It's one way to skin this cat, is all I'm saying. I've mentioned before that the hoped for reunification of all the Church's valid bishops, is up to all the Church's valid bishops ultimately, and that excludes me. You recoil at the suggestion that the Orthodox might come to acknowledge that they are in error, but it nonetheless remains within the realm of logical possibility.

Since they’re not the ones in error, of course I recoil at that suggestion. As I said, you and other Romans would never see the need for their own repentance; and because of that, there should be no unity.

If the Pope repents (which he can’t for a litany of paradoxical reasons that would nullify the entire Catholic Confession), I’ll believe that there can be the “unity” you refer to on this earth in this age before judgment. That won’t happen. The Pope is antichrist.

I am open to however they all together decide to reunite, so long as they do it.

I would reject the East if they did so after their history of standing for truth.

I'm rooting for them to do it within my lifetime, if God wills. I'd like to live in that time, selfishly, although I don't think unrighteously selfishly.

An admirable, if futile and foundationally flawed, position.

Over 300 Catholics were just murdered in Sri Lanka by Kamikazes over the weekend. Those murderous suicides, I'm willing to call 666 or antichrist, and by comparison, I can't even see how you'd claim that Pope Francis or the papacy is like those people were. There isn't any comparison from where I'm setting. You leave me scratching my head.

That which is not of faith is sin (the state of being as source OF action). There is no greater atrocity than the guise of righteousness being a corrupt source of all action.

Antichrist is antichrist, and there are many. The Pope AND all Muslim terrorists are antichrist. Different reasons and different internal corruptions, but the same spirit. This will be appalling to you, but it is what it is.

Those who do things that are not of faith are arguably worse than those who overtly, rather than covertly, do things that are of sin.

:idunno: 'Still could be.

Disagreed.

It Is tangible, because it is "one bread" and "one body" (1Co10:17KJV); i.e., the one Eucharist.

The Eucharist is NOT merely tangible, though it is. That’s the whole point of the Eucharist. And the Eucharist IS the unity, for it IS Christ. We don’t need an outward concession of dialectic as unity when the Eucharist IS the unity.

I don't think I'm making "time preeminent to God and to Christ."

I know you don’t, yet you are on some level.

I yearn for reunification of the one Body of Christ, is all, here on earth,

It already is. In Christ. And once and for all after final judgment in the new heavens and the new earth. No earthly tangible kingdom is needed. Dominionism is not required.

which cannot be unreasonable since all I'm talking about is how it was, largely, before Nicaea /the end of Diocletian's wasting of the Church /churches.

Arguable and, I would profer, tangential.

It's not as if it's never been done /seen before, is all.

This isn’t an equitable comparison. The dilution and diversion has been beyond exponential. This verges on the one-world new order idea of antichrist.

Agreed, and all I'm talking about for starters is the common union in the one Eucharist /one bread.

Then Rome should repent and be admitted to the East’s Sacrament. Simple. (As if that’s ever going to happen.)

That means a pretty much wholesale abandonment of the 'protest' against valid Church bishops; i.e., a pretty much wholesale flocking to Catholic, Orthodox, and other ancient communions (Eastern Oriental Orthodox, etc., e.g.).

But only if Rome repents first and is reconciled to the East. Unless and until that happens, there is no unity (in your context). And you are prime evidence that it will not happen.

I can agree with you here, while at once still holding to the goal of earthly reunification of the whole Church.

But it’s happening in a Communitarian manner through the New Apostolic Reformation groups and the Purpose-Driven movement along with the Emergent Church movement. It’s all antichrist. And they’re all seeking unificiaton with Rome. Warning sirens should be going off.

Not hardly, not wrt what I'm suggesting /championing. It's fully relevant that it will take free and voluntary cooperation on the part of all the Church's valid bishops to achieve reunification among them all again, as it was in the Church's first three centuries.

No. It will take Rome’s repentance of her idolatry and the disolution of the perverted role of the Pope and a renouncement of all usurped power.

The dispute concerning the authentic authority /primacy of the papacy aside, the communion of the Church wrt the Eucharist is possible right now.

But this is a moot point without the disolution of the Papacy and the repentance of Rome.

We all just need to rid ourselves of Protestantism, which is found nowhere in Scripture, and as you well know, the spirit of Protestantism was alive even in the first centuries of the Church, though those first Protestants couldn't even be accused of actually believing in Christ, with their grave errors, that they held outside of any bishops' oversight. And this is essentially what Protestantism is protesting against---bishops /oversight. Protestantism according to this definition is not biblical, and its diametric opposite is biblical.

And Protestantism is the progeny of Roman rebellion and power-mongering. So it must begin there. The parent is culpable for the child. Rome must lead the way. But you are not at all considering Rome should repent.

Again, this is your characterization. Catholicism's own authorized words are not the same as your words you use in your characterization of things. I see conformity between Catholicism and Orthodoxy in all things Trinity, except for the 'filioque.' I know you do not, we just disagree on it.

The Filioque is a representation of the issue, not the issue. So yes, we will disagree.

Me too.

Well...

See above, re: Sri Lanka. Those Kamikazes might have been "darkness personified," but they do not compare in any reasonable way to Pope Francis.

Yes, exactly. I’ll take that which I can clearly identify as darkness as preferable to that which is masquerading as light. So I at least know the terrorists are antichrist because they observably oppose Christ and His Bride. The Pope pretends to be something he is not in the most heinous way. He has been complicit in the most horrific things in history, as have his predecessors. You just know nothing of it and would deny it. The Vatican is one of the worldwide epicenters of child trafficking and much more.

If I believed what you profess here, I would be even more hellbent on defending the right to bear arms than I already am.

Now we’re talkin’!!

So, question for you: Given that you believe all this, do you believe as I do, that the right to bear arms is inalienable, and that the Second Amendment is completely correct, and that All Gun Control laws are Unconstitutional on their face? Stripping away potential distractions, I read the Second saying that "The Right Shall not Be Infringed," is that how you also read it?

Of course. Absolutely.

I ask because if what you believe is the case, I can think of absolutely no more important right to recognize, affirm, and protect, than the inalienable right to bear military grade (i.e. standard issue) arms. You?

Yep. Tanks. Jets. Anything and everything. Shall not be infringed.

'Thinking being, that so long as we are armed, and unmolested /not harassed by the government /police wrt bearing arms, then that is the only hope we have of protecting ourselves against this very scary prospect, if your belief here is right.

A bit simplistic, but yes. Vehemently agreed.

I'm always curious to reveal any naivete on my part, so please, can you shed some light on "the others" here, so that I might improve my understanding? I don't like the idea of being naive, especially when I can avoid it.

Literally nothing is as it appears with regard to world power structures and functionality. It all begins with the world banking cabal. Follow the money. The multiple fractional reserve monetary systems are one of the keys to understanding it all, including our Federal Reserve as a private corporation.

The IMF. The UN. There is a lifetime of information to disseminate, especially if someone is currently imbibing all the historical revisionist narratives and is ignorant of the Vatican’s role in it all.

I believe that you're extrapolating from what I said. All I'm saying is that Peter held a real pastorate, and I don't see where that pastorate has evaporated from existence.

No, but it’s been corrupted and co-opted to usurp all church authority and abrogate the Bishopric thereby. It’s not beyond recovery and restoration if there is repentance; but there won’t be.

Pope Francis holds the same office Peter held, in the same way that President Trump holds the office that George Washington did.

And even the US Presidency is not what it once was (and what it once was is not something you are aware of since you don’t know the landscape of the structural truth of this alleged Republic).

The office has changed in some if not many ways, but it remains the same office in both regards, in at least one critical way.

Treason is something any such office cannot sustain and remain “what it was”. As I said, if the Pope repents than it’s a different story. But the Pope is one of the few key roles in the antichrist elite world power-mongers.

That's what I said.

Yes, just reiterating it’s IYO.

Again, I feel that you're reading more into what I wrote than what I either wrote or implied. Of course there is fracture and disagreement about the significance of Peter's office, but that Peter held an office, and that that office still exists today (even if not validly held) is to me without any reasonable doubt. And if so, then the office itself is Apostolic in origin.

The East does not argue, and neither do I. It should be clear what I have said. Being a Bishop as first in honor among equals is NOT being a Bishop as first in POWER among non-equals.

You've never indicated otherwise. A guess, iow. Am I correct?

No. I am utterly Cappadocian. That is the core representation of all authority for orthodoxy and orthopraxy.

I don't. 'Never claimed to.

Just clarifying.

Of course, I never suggested otherwise. What I do suggest is that you 'put your money with your mouth is,' and convert to Orthodoxy, if you are as convinced as you claim regarding Orthodox teaching in all matters of the faith. You seem to be, and claim to be, quite convinced, and if I'm correct that you're currently statically "confessional Lutheran," and not seeking communion with one of the Orthodox churches, then I think I'm justified in wondering why, and given your aggression in your posts, I further feel justified in challenging you on it.

There’s no need to pursue communion with another Sacramental Body. They are mystically joined to the extent they represent truth. Lutheranism is closer to the East than Rome is. And it’s disturbing that you still think Rome is preeminent to the valid reformation of her in Lutheranism.

And to add a bit of fuel to the fire, can you show where any Orthodox teaching authenticates anybody but Orthodox Christians as authentic Christians?

Only in general statements to the effect that, “We know where the Orthodox Church IS, but we do not know where She is NOT.” This acknowledges all who are heterodox and not in communion, but who are not beyond the grace of our Lord.

I ask because Catholicism positively authenticates both Orthodox and Protestants as Christians, dependent only upon genuine belief "in Christ" (the definition of which Catholicism, through omission, leaves to the Orthodox and to Protestants to make themselves).

Yeah, and that’s a hole that an entire fleet of buses can be driven through. Not a fan.

Does Orthodoxy ever make such a declaration?

Not in any such terms, but as I have mentioned above.

Disagreed, but OK.

But you don’t know anything about the Vatican’s role in the antichrist world agenda unfolding all around you without even your basic awareness and recognition. Doesn’t the world seem “off” to you?

This sounds passive and fatalistic. I think this life change requires your activity, and not passivity. You need to decide, and you need to make the decision real, by talking with the pastor of the Orthodox parish you'd like to join.

I did. I’m in the Reformed Catholic Church. You know it as Lutheranism.

I actively pursued full communion with the Catholic Church. I didn't leave it to chance, or providence, as if I am only a passive participant in my life, or in life in general. The difference between us mentally /intellectually /theologically is slight, but bodily, I think the gulf between us is wide.

For sure. You naively think the world narrative you’ve imbibed is truth. I know the difference and have extracted myself from it both spiritually and physically.

I’m not a Debtor, I’m a Creditor. A Secured Party Creditor. I have rescinded my strawman and have established Status, Standing, and Agency. I’ve established the distinction between “public” and “private” for all my affairs and economies of action relative to all other entities of any status.

You don’t even know what those are, so yes there is a huge difference in us “bodily”. I am a “real” person, you are (legally) a minor. I’m also a “real” hypsotasis in Christ, as are you. So yes, the difference is in body. I’m the vicarious incarnation of Christ as we are intended to be AND according to the statuses of this world.

'Mind, I'm not opposed to Christian fatalism when pursued fully and with full conviction (which is my same attitude towards all forms of Protestantism---iow I support everybody's human right to 'pursue happiness' in the way we each think is best, I just strongly encourage everyone to pursue it with all vigor). It just appears that, based on your own words, that you're already at or beyond the point where you have fully informed yourself and have become convinced as to what you ought to be working towards, wrt communion, wrt partaking of the true Eucharist, as validly celebrated by the Orthodox.

I spent quite a period of time already doing this. I regularly attended the local Antiochian Orthodox Church and spent much time in conversation with the Priest and others in the fellowship. It wasn’t something that I was ultimately compelled to do. There is something else for me to be and do now, and that is what ultimately led me to Lutheranism. I simply don’t assume that being finality on the matter. I still love the East.

I love theology, and whenever we individually in our theological journey, arrive at either Catholicism or at Orthodoxy (or another ancient Christian tradition), then theology necessitates action, and that action in such cases is absolutely the pursuit of communion with one of these churches.

I took that action nearly 3 years ago. I am in communion with the Reformed Catholic (Lutheran) Church.

imo.

And I value your opinion. I just know there is a whole category of things you have absolutely no awareness of in regards to the kingdoms of this world and the Kingdom of God. The left hand is not the right hand. I know the difference. You do not fully know the difference. Few do.