Eastern Orthodoxy

Eastern-Orthodoxy at Berean Beacon.

“

In recent years interest in the Eastern Orthodox Church among Christians has grown steadily and there have been a number of converts to this religious body. A prime reason for this interest has been the growing fascination with mysticism and ancient tradition which has permeated Western societies. Increasing numbers of Christians are coming into contact with Eastern Orthodox mysticism via the Emergent Church and the writings of the Orthodox “Church Fathers”. There are many strands to Eastern Orthodox mysticism; this paper briefly examines a few significant areas such as Theosis, Hesychasm, the “Jesus Prayer”, Spiritual Fathers and Light Mysticism. Yours in the grace of the precious Savior, Richard Bennett

1. The Seven Pillars of Orthodoxy 2. Orthodox Bishops High Priests 3. Just Say No 4. Icons Visions of a Spiritual World 5. Evangelical Issues for the Eastern Orthodox 6. Eastern Orthodoxy The Mystical Trap

“

<!–Through Western Eyes by Robert Letham at Exiled Preacher. Not a very discerning, but an informative, post: it seems to prevent a soft spin on EO, however, in light of EO doctrines and practices.–>

Vine’s Expository Dictionary of the New Testament

Browsing through this little number, I keep hitting problems.

Perhaps it is the expository part. Perhaps it’s the weak theology of the author’s brethren (open) background; but I’m starting to think the “Expository” part of Vine’s is not one of its best features, as it seems he eisegetes¹ his own meanings into some of the text too very often, and that it is more an enthusiastic approach to definitions than scholarly rigor.

Thus I would only approach using this resource very, very critically, using his definitions critically. (Repetition intended.) One example is the use of “predestined”, where the author reads Arminianism into the term, saying that God sees beforehand whether a believer will or will not believe, and yet I distinctly remember some very honest, rigorous, Arminian scholars saying (or perhaps I mis-remember and it was just non-Calvinist ones; I realize I need to re-dig-up those sources), as do Calvinists, that this is NOT the way the word is ever used in Greek (and other scholars concur). There are also passages that explicitly discount this theory, despite its popularity and currency among Arminians and philosophizing [neo]evangelicals.

I am, in fact, wholly removing the link to the resource and just leaving-up this warning page, not because I don’t appreciate the work, not because of any Arminian tendencies, but because it seems each time I page through I find inaccuracies, I don’t know how truly helpful it is to someone if they’re not either studying Greek, or very familiar (read, practiced) with critical use of lexicons, concordances, commentaries, etc.; normally caveatted works are said to be “for scholars then”, yet Scholars, believing scholars, don’t really seem to give this work much stock, so far as I know.

I’m the second variety of person, but have read a ton of scholars’ and pastors’ writing–and I constantly mull over such things (though I’ll admit to my shame not always so closely as to be of very real use not just to me, but also brethren), and I am currently taking-up Greek at my Church’s “Bible Institute” (a rather intense little seminary-style training program with multiple classes, though because of university studies I’m “auditing” some of them, and taking others).

On that note, I’ve never heard of or seen other examples of a seminar-trained pastor putting the men of his Church (who volunteer) through rigorous training like this: he said he’s not going to turn us into scholars–we’ll have to go ahead and “take that” if we want, and it’s there for the taking, but he’s definitely working to equip his Church way beyond what seems to be typical these days. I don’t say this for my benefit, but just in commendation of the fellow: it’s great. Oh yeah, and we have one teen gal too. He’s fine with that–just told us, however, that since his intent is to train ministers and men for ministry, (whether to the Church, or in order that they may properly and well pastor their own families, which is their responsibility) that any gals (just one young one) are to be “silent as the angels” (and he’s not being some overbearing or sexist jerk, I ought add).

¹ To “eisegete” a text or word is to impute (read) meaning into it that’s not original to it.

"Baptist"

[The following is subject to much amendment and refining.]

The sad part of the term “baptist”, is that it is associated with so much, and used so ambiguously. When used people think of “the baptists”, but “the baptists” is a name applied to a broad and diverse range of people with varying beliefs. All evangelicals that do not baptize infants (kids fine, but not infants) are “baptists”, using the proper definition of what the term designates!

There are “baptists” who are as different from one another as Roman Catholics from Conservative, Confessional Presbyterians. In fact, Reformed Baptists (“RB’s”) typically differ from Presbyterians only in that RB’s reject (1) paedobaptism and the teachings associated with it, such as assumed/presumed regeneration of believers’ children as unbiblical, anti-evangelical, and contrary to Christ, and also, (2) the failure of to recognize that the New Covenant has a discontinuity from the old, the law written on the heart of believers, and that community being composed only of such inscribed individuals (which is biblical), (3) the dominionist-like “magisterial” elements of the Westminster Confession. RB’s also reject the remnants of Roman Catholicism found in Presbyterianism through the “continuity” sought with the Anglican’s Church’s 39 articles, which themselves sought to preserve a “Continuity” with the Church’s thoroughly Roman past. (4) RB’s also reject the remnants of Roman Catholicism in Reformed camps in the form of remaining Sacramentalism, especially in the form of “administering” the fuzzily-defined “means of grace”: RB’s, unlike Presbys-through-Rome, are perfectly willing to just sit-down and break bread in remembrance of the Lord (though still taking it seriously, of course), without the presence of the supposedly needed “properly ordained minister” to “administer” [God's] grace. In government, however, RB’s are usually (for all practical purposes) Presbyterian without the addition of a bunch of supraecclesial levels beyond the individuals congregations, that is, they associate, not denominate (ARBCA is the exception–its Constitution describes a denomination, not an association), but they don’t necessarily allow congregationalism’s disorderliness. (That said, there should be elements in any and every Church’s organization and relationships that would probably be deemed “Congregational” by most.)

There are also Arminian baptists, not a few stemming from anabaptist roots. There is the factious and proud arminian “Landmarkism” (a schismatic sect), such that there are groups called “Landmark Baptists” (another name is “Missionary Baptists”). There are “Southern Baptists”, but this group is a great admixture of opposing views, goods, heresies…its historical teaching roots are in the Reformed Camp, as documentation shows, but with the waning of those doctrinal roots it has become not only the largest, one of the most mocked groups ever to call itself Christian: thankfully there are faithful ministers therein, however, striving in the good fight for the faith to overturn its departures. (Such as those who write for Founders.org and Founders blog.)

I write this because the term “baptist” is now associated with much disorderliness, nonsense, and what is outlandish. Unthinking, anti-intellectual, ascerbic-preaching, etc.. But it would be like accusing, throwing-together, all “paedobaptists” and giving them ridicule because the pope of Rome bedecked with glass lady-slippers, elaborate dress, (anyone want a jewel-studded chaucible, i.e. poncho, anyone?), and a gold and jeweled emperor’s scepter makes for one of the most entertaining displays worthy of mockery ever to “grace” the human experience; a man claiming to be Christ’s substitute and representative on earth, the Man who “had no comeliness”, supposedly represented by that lavish and pompous head of that notorious and odious-to-the-sheep institution. Why would those who proclaim that there is no other name by which we must be saved than Jesus’s be associated with those who teach that for salvation all who have the opportunity to know about the Pope must submit and be subject to the Pope? Why would those who preach the truth, that Christ is the head of the Church, not only in Heaven, but on Earth, be associated with he who declares himself the Church’s earthly head?

So why, then, do people group “the baptists”, when similar chasms of difference exist between certain groups? Why would the RB’s who love and yet have mutual support with their Presbyterian brethren (though often RB’s are also despised in one way or another by Presbyterians, example here) be grouped with the factious and ridiculous offshoots of Landmarkism? Why would the ambiguous heterodoctrinal Southern Baptist Convention be altogether associated with either of those?

A Site Removed for Doctrinal Devestation

I removed the link under “For the Ladies” to an article about “Keepers at Home”, hosted on the Vision Forum, because a workman of a self-proclaimed [false] apostle named Jim McCotter, who’s leadership, organizational, doctrinal, and strategic-evangelism “heavenly vision” teachings continue wreaking devastation in the lives of many who think they’re being fed, but who are being poisoned, has arrived at that forum, and just like McCotter seems to do wherever he goes, charismatically gained much influence. Read through this thread’s pages for more information. It is typically wise to avoid Jim’s friendly associates; this man’s name is Geoffrey Botkin. With his appearing at the Vision Forum he has presented himself, and all who read it, as “a wealth of wisdom”, as one person put it, and he has thoroughly steeped that forum and its connections into Dominionism.

I am personally and intimately acquainted with the organization created by McCotter, and which employed the associate of his, Great Commission [Fill-in-the-blank] (hereafter “GC*”) from having been within it (and questioning much of that time) and haveth come out. It was a blessing for being beaten into discernment, examination, reading better teachers, etc., but nothing to do with GC*’s teachers or teachings, and I am one of many very concerned for those within that are actually sheep and siblings in our Lord, who are being fully led to the slaughter by the wolves who are placed over them.

On an interesting note, that blog I just mentioned, Cambria’s (see two posts back), mentions she is “not a fan” of Mark Driscoll. I have more to write on Driscoll myself, but shouldn’t just yet, minus this: his organization is in some ways mixed-up with GC*’s called “Great Commission Ministries” (GCM), both his Church and his other one, Acts29, which had a member come and take-over Great Commission Ministries. He showed-up at that forum, he was challenged on various things, we asked a lot of questions, and then he receded into the darkness whence he came. Personally I asked why it was that he hadn’t disfellowshipped those employed as “missionaries” of GCM who are followers of the emergent/ing [false] “church”, followers of Brian McLaren, McManus, Cambolo, Rob Bell, Dallas Willard (a mystic Quaker), etc. (read through this four page thread). These people have a lot of people who are preachers of another gospel, and they need to be cut off from all fellowship. I also note that it’s no coincidence that bringers of other gospels happen to be those who are all about being “missional”.

It’s not just the participation with GC*, however, that brings me to “dislike” Driscoll, which is for another post. I have to thank Cambria for inspiration, her use of “not a fan” gave me an idea for using “dislike” of Mark Driscoll, which is gentler than I other words, though honestly by the time I blog the guy, I’ll probably state rather “am opposed to”.