A Churchless Christianity – Separating Christ and Salvation from His Church

Today, a TV preacher of a leading mega church in town was inviting everyone to the upcoming community Easter service.  They rent the sports arena at the local university and invite big name performers/musicians to entertain the thousands who flock to the entertainment.  He said the service is a community service and “it’s not about a particular church.”  His own church portrays itself as un or non-denominational.

As I reflected on this announcement that salvation is not about a particular church, and this whole concept of entertainment as worship and the glorification of celebrities as a pretext for celebrating Easter as a side-bar, I recalled looking at the website of this particular mega church some time ago.  On the website they spoke of baptism saying it is just a public testimony and has nothing to do with our salvation.

The Prevailing Heresies of our Day

This mega church and its teachings reflect the great and prevailing heresies of our day that has created something called “Christianity” but bears little resemblance to the historic Christian Faith of the Bible, the Apostles and the Saints, Fathers and Confessors of ages past.

What is Non-denominational?

First, there is the idea of a non-denominational church.  There is no such thing.  Every group has its body of tradition from which it interprets the Bible and every group has it doctrinal statements.  Or do they mean to suggest that they hold no particular doctrines as true or false – that they have no particular beliefs?  This is close to the truth since in actuality they don’t believe there is one true body of Christian truth.  They believe in relativism - that all or no one holds the full and absolute truth.  But when all is said and done, all such churches are either Baptist or Charismatic or a combination of both.  The claim of non or interdenominational is a deceitful claim but the unthinking masses fall for it.  It is akin to the cover up used by Mormons that cloak their real teachings for the purpose of disarming and drawing people in.

The Meaning of Baptism

To teach that baptism has nothing to do with our salvation except as a public act of obedience and witness, as it says on their website, is a clear and blatant denial of the teachings of Holy Scripture which they claim to honor and exult.  One has only to look up the word baptism in a good Bible Concordance and read all the references and it becomes very clear that baptism is not at all what contemporary Christianity is teaching.  Their vision is blurred by their human traditions, as was that of the Pharisees.

To stress there is no particular church is to replace the Church by something called Christianity.  It is the leading and prevailing heresy of our day, which separates Christ and Salvation from His Church and portrays the Church as invisible and indefinable and the local church as a man-made organization.  It is a denial of the doctrine of the Church that the Church has held from the beginning and is confessed and taught by the apostles, apostolic fathers and all the ancient creeds of the Church.  I know that some groups still recite some of the creeds (most often they make up new ones to their liking) but even those who recite the ancient creeds attach a different meaning to the words Catholic and Church than that which was held by the composers of the creeds.

The New Testament never refers to anything called Christianity but refers to the Church over 100 times.  Christ’s mission was to build His Church, against which the gates of hell could not prevail.  The Church is His Body on earth.  The Church is His Bride and He will return for His Church.  And no, His Bride is not invisible or undefined or composed of numerous and conflicting brides.  And no, the Church is not composed of all those who “believe in Jesus”.   Jesus Himself said that not everyone who calls Him Lord will enter heaven but only those who do the will of the Father.  The will of the Father is revealed in the Church that Christ founded, which is His Body on earth.  There is one Church, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism and one Spirit, according to the teachings of Holy Scripture. 

The Old Testament Church

In the Old Testament there was no churchless Israel or chosen people of God.  Their faith was clearly defined and the teachings and perimeters of that faith were clearly known.  To be a part of God’s chosen people you had to enter his “Church” and embrace that body of truth and that way of worship and that communion of obedience and way of life that God had revealed.  Such were called proselytes. There could be no little groups on the side ignoring the one true Church of Israel and still claiming to love and know God.  The Samaritans tried it with a reformed religion very similar and close to Judaism.  But what did the Saviour say to Photini at the well?   Did He say it is not about a particular church, or we all believe in the same God and same salvation? No! He said,  “You know not what you worship for salvation is from the Jews”.   There was no churchless Judaism or a hybrid brand separated from the one true Church of God.

The New Testament Church

The same is true in the New Testament.  There is no churchless Christian Faith and there is no separation of Christ or Salvation from the Church.  Anyone who believed in Christ came to the Church that was under apostolic authority, was baptized into that Church as the Body of Christ and partook of salvation within that community.  Each community had one apostolic Church outside of which it was understood there is no Church and no salvation.  In the creed of St. Athanasius that reflects the clear and universal teachings of the Church up to that time in the third century he stated:

Whoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic [meaning fullness of the faith held from the beginning] Faith.  Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.”

The idea that people can find Christ and find Salvation apart from His Church and then create their own churches according to their whims is totally foreign to all that the Bible teaches and all that the Universal Christian Faith has always taught.

First Sunday of Great Lent

Sunday of Orthodoxy

TRAGEDY UPON TRAGEDY

Today on the news I watched the culmination of a great and heart wrenching tragedy.  It was the end of a trial of a young woman in Nashville.  She got pregnant and in shame hid it from her Christian parents.  Then, at home, she secretly gave birth to twin boys, smothered them and threw them away.  

Today the verdict was handed down - guilty on two counts of premeditated murder and child abuse in the first degree.  She received a mandatory sentence of two life terms.  Watching her family in pain and tears was heart wrenching.  She, however, remained composed, clutching a Bible to her heart and mouthing to her family, "I'm ok", and pointing towards heaven with her index finger. 

I couldn't help but wonder where the father is and why he doesn't have any culpability in this tragedy.

Then I was filled with a feeling of anger and disgust towards this great God-fearing nation with liberty and justice for all.  As great as this tragedy was/is there is another tragedy even greater.  A few weeks before she killed her babies, a doctor could have done it legally, been paid handsomely for it and praised and glorified by the great liberal and compassionate intelligentsia and ignorant and blind masses of society.  And all those politicians and the liberal public, some of whom dare to blaspheme God by calling themselves Christians,  fight to defend the doctors right to kill babies and promote it as a great American liberty and justice for all while sending this poor dear woman to life in prison.

I find it next to impossible to love or respect such an America and have no desire to salute her flag.  

A Treatise on cats, dogs and other pets. 

Pets are a part of God’s creation and expression of his love. Any hostility they display towards one another or humans is the result of the disorder and enmity resulting from the fall of creation and the effects of sin.

 Pets have a soul, but not an immortal soul. Their soul is on a lower level than that of humans. They were not made in the likeness and image of God. The soul of animals was created. The soul of man is the breathe of God breathed into man. Animals are not reasoning or rational souls but operate by instinct. When they die, their soul ceases to exist. They are not immortal in the likeness of God. They have no need of salvation, as does man, since they have no free will or rational soul. 

 It is wrong and evil to mistreat pets. They are wonderful companions, guardians, guides, etc. But it is also wrong to think of them on the same level as human beings. In our society today there is a tendency to overindulge animals and attach human qualities to them. In many instances suffering pets get more consideration and compassion than suffering human beings and for some there is greater concern for the protection of pets than for unborn children. We must be careful that we keep a proper perspective of God’s creation and the place and role of all according to God’s design.

Lutherans Write the Patriarch: How the “German Orthodox Church” Almost Happened

Sdn Vincent Martini —  March 3, 2013 —Copied from "On Behalf Of All" blog

A century after the fall of the Roman empire to the Ottomans, a Greek deacon named Demetrius came in contact with Philipp Melanchthon, one of Luther’s closest collaborators and systematic theologians of the early Protestant Reformation (ca. AD 1558).

Like Luther, Melanchthon believed that their “reformed” faith — as a “peeling away” of the numerous developments and supposed abuses of the Latin Church over the centuries — would be virtually one and the same as the faith of the “Greeks” in the east. To that end, the leading “Lutheran” theologians of the day had their Augsburg Confession translated into Greek, and sent with their new-found friend in Demetrius back to the Patriarchate of Constantinople (ca. AD 1559). Melanchthon died the next year, and so his successors in the reformation movement were able to continue in the effort.

When the Patriarch (Joasaph II) received the letter, the doctrines within were seen as “embarrassing” and “heretical” by Orthodox standards (Ernst Benz, Wittenberg and Byzanz, pp. 73ff), and so no reply was given. It was believed at this time in history that it is better to “be friendly” by giving no reply (pretending that it was never received) than to reply with condemnation and no-doubt spoil any potential friendship with the Germans. Demetrius himself, having no reply to bring back to the Lutherans, journeyed to Transylvania where he eventually reposed. The first effort at both friendly contact and ecclesiastical fellowship between the Lutherans and the Orthodox came to an abrupt end.

In 1570, a German ambassador named David von Ungnad arrived at Constantinople, accompanied by a Lutheran theologian named Stephen Gerlach, and he became friends with the chief secretary of the new Patriarch, Jeremias II. Incidentally, Jeremias II is considered to be one of the greatest Patriarchs and theologians of the Patriarchate during the Ottoman captivity, and so the Lutherans were rather fortunate to have made contact with him. A Greek-speaking German named Martin Kraus (a.k.a. Crusius) from Tübingen was appointed by Gerlach to carry on a theological “dialogue” with Jeremias II.

A fresh Greek translation of the Augsburg Confession was made and sent to the Patriarch. A copy was also sent to the leader of the Georgian Orthodox Church, but it is not clear whether or not they ever received it (no reply was ever given). Along with the confession, the Lutherans included a personal statement to Jeremias II. They were confident that their beliefs were practically synonymous with those of the Greeks:

… Because of the distance between their countries there was some difference in their ceremonies, [but] the Patriarch would acknowledge that they had introduced no innovation into the principal things necessary for salvation; and that they embraced and preserved, as far as their understanding went, the faith that had been taught to them by the Apostles, the Prophets and the Holy Fathers, and was inspired by the Holy Spirit, the Seven Councils and the Holy Scriptures.
Stephen Runciman, The Great Church in Captivity

The immediate reaction of Jeremias II to the confession was not entirely unlike that of his predecessor Joasaph II, although this time it could not be ignored, with the Germans in Constantinople eagerly awaiting. In cooperation with the Synod of Constantinople (all bishops of the Patriarchate), the Patriarch sent a response on May 15, 1576, responding to each and every one of the 21 articles of the confession in great detail. As Runciman notes: “Jeremias replied to each in turn, stating wherein he agreed or disagreed with the doctrines contained in them. His comments are valuable, as they add up to a compendium of Orthodox theology at this date” (Ibid.).

In the first article, he agrees with the Lutherans on their reception of the (Nicene) Creed, but notes that the “double procession” of the Holy Spirit (the Filioque) is an unacceptable addition of the Latins. He “amplifies” the Lutheran interpretation of the Creed with twelve points related to the Trinity, the Incarnation, etc., and also appends a list of eight “cardinal virtues” alongside the “seven mortal sins.”

In the article on “Justification by Faith,” the Patriarch quotes from Saint Basil at length, emphasizing that “faith without works is dead,” that one should not “presume upon grace,” while also denying that some people are predestined to an unconditional election.

He spoke highly of the Lutheran understanding of the sacraments, but was careful to point out that there are “at least seven” sacraments alongside both baptism and the holy Eucharist. Jeremias largely agreed with the eighth and ninth articles, which spoke to “validity of sacraments” when administered by “evil priests” and the commendation of infant baptism.

In the tenth article, perhaps the most substantial area of disagreement was seen. Jeremias condemned the “Latin” tradition of using unleavened bread for the Eucharist, objected to the Lutheran removal of the epiclesis or “calling down” of the Holy Spirit in the Liturgy, and emphasized the “change” of the bread and the wine into the very body and blood of Christ (following the scriptures and Jesus’ own words), but not according to “matter,” as the Latins claimed (i.e. rejecting transubstantiation).

The Patriarch was in general agreement with articles eleven through fourteen, making statements of gentle correction and admonition throughout (objecting, for example, to a view of confession as a “judicial” tool, but rather for spiritual “healing”).

In the fifteenth article, another area of stark difference was found. The Lutheran ambivalence to the celebration of various feasts and commemorations was offensive to the Patriarch, and he quoted from the fathers and scriptures at length, showing these to be not only necessary but also of great spiritual value, calling them “lasting reminders of the life of Christ on earth and of the witness of the saints” (Ibid.).

Articles sixteen and seventeen drew little controversy, but the Patriarch noted in article eighteen (on “Free Will”) that the Lutheran understanding was incorrect, and that — following John Chrysostom, accompanied by a number of his own words — only those who are willing to “be saved” can do so. Salvation is not a “one off” event in time, but is acontinuing relationship with Jesus Christ that lasts forever.

Jeremias agrees with the confession in article nineteen that God is not the cause of evil in the world, but on the twentieth article (dealing again with “faith and works”), Runciman notes:

The Patriarch agrees about the dual need for faith and works; but why, he asks, if the Lutherans really value good works, do they censure feasts and fasts, brotherhoods and monasteries? Are these not good deeds done in honor of God and in obedience to His commands? Is a fast not an act of self-discipline? Is not a monastic fraternity an expression of fellowship? Above all, is not the taking of monastic vows an attempt to carry out Christ’s demand that we should rid ourselves of our worldly entanglements?

The final article, on the invocation of saints, was also condemned by Jeremias, noting from scripture the propriety of doing so.

He concluded his reply to the Lutherans with a summary of five main “points”: the use of leavened bread in the Eucharist, the validity of both married and celibate clergy, the importance of the Liturgy, the necessity of the sacrament of repentance/confession for salvation, and a defense of the institution of monasteries and the ascetic ideal. He also included a few words of fatherly encouragement:

And so, most learned Germans, most beloved sons in Christ of Our Mediocrity, as you desire with wisdom and after great counsel and with your whole minds to join yourselves with us to what is the most holy Church of Christ, we, speaking like parents who love their children, gladly receive your charity and humanity into the bosom of our Mediocrity, if you are willing to follow with us the apostolic and synodical traditions and to subject yourselves to them. Then at last truly and sincerely one house will be built with us … and so out of two Churches God’s benevolence will make as it were one, and together we shall live until we are transferred to the heavenly fatherland.

His reply reached the theologians of Germany in 1576, and they worked diligently to reply to the Patriarch’s objections, making several clarifications on their viewpoints (especially as related to “Justification by Faith”), while standing firm on their beliefs regarding the existence of only two sacraments and the incorrectness of praying to reposed saints. Their response reached Jeremias in 1578, and the presence of Gerlach in Constantinople necessitated that he send another reply (which was done in May of 1579).

In this follow-up, Jeremias was less cordial than before, making it clear that unless the Lutherans peel away their innovations and fully accept the Orthodox-Catholic faith, they could not continue in dialogue or hope for ecclesiastical relations. A council of Lutheran scholars drafted a reply to Jeremias in the summer of 1580.

After Jeremias returned to office (for the second term), he eventually sent yet another letter to Tübingen in 1581. Resolute, he simply replied ”Go your own way, and do not send us further letters on doctrine but only letters written for the sake of friendship.”

The Lutherans stubbornly sent more clarifications and arguments to the Patriarch, but he never responded. The dialogue had come to an end.