Forums - Armenians For Christ

Revolt On The Right

our life!
Charlotte, NC - With every wedding comes a bridesmaid, or several. one shoulder bridesmaid dresses uk
Matthews resident Carla Norman Norman cheap jewelry Norman is with her two daughters at J Major's Bridal Boutique in Dilworth, ?Twenty years ago when I got married I don't remember the dresses
this pricey." bridesmaids dresses in uk
Norman's 15 year old Natalie is getting set for her cousins wedding, ?The dress, shoes, the jewelry, the the cheap evening dresses the hair, the nails." bridesmaid dresses in uk
Natalie says that doesn't include clothes for various showers, the rehearsal & the reception.
Plaza
resident Kat Bolin knows all about it. The Social Media & Outreach rep was in two weddings in less than a year.
In total total cheap cocktail dresses total Bolin says she's spent more than 2 grand on the affairs, ?I think because you're spending the money throughout a period of time you

whats going on

no_email@example.com (Axel)

no, new life burbank is associated with the Presbyterian church of America. It is a conservative reformed church.

-Axel

Sacrificing Christ?

no_email@example.com (onnig)

arad9 wrote:

Onnig
Augustine says:
Augustine

"Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, 'This is my body' [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).

"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord's Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

He says?? That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ."

Arad jan, do you know the difference between "real presence" and transubstantiation, which is what you hold to. Augustine's beliefs do not reflect yours. The citations you use when referencing the "body" of Christ does not reflect Augustine's opinion that it is the flesh of Christ. This "body" he references is of Christ divine presence and NOT of His flesh. This confusion is widespread on the part of those who are not willing to study Augustine but use a cut and paste apologetic. How do I know the "body" does not reference the "flesh" of Christ? This is why, from Augustine's own words:

In other words, in respect of His divine presence we always have Christ; in respect of His presence in the flesh it was rightly said to the disciples, 'Me ye will not have always.' In this respect the Church enjoyed His presence only for a few days: now it possesses Him by faith, without seeing Him with the eyes." (Lectures on the Gospel of John, 50:13)

I have already quoted this earlier and yet you are not listening. It seems you are only here to prove your own point and not to learn. Let Augustine speak for himself. Do not make him out to be Armenian Orthdox or Roman Catholic. Let him be a church father and leave it at that. Do not interpret your current understanding of the Eucharist to Augustine's readings. Take everything he has said as a whole to understand what he meant to say. You have to be consistent.

Quote:

None of your quotes shows a church father believed the body and blood was symbolic. All your quotes I have no problem with.
You can't show your doctrine from scripture. You can't even show one Church father that taught it was only symbolic.
I think the only reason you believe this heresy is because you have anger toward The Armenian Church.

That is yet again an opinionated statement without any reply as to HOW I haven't shown my doctrine from Scripture. If you have no problem with my quotes, tell me why, since they speak directly against your position. If you do not feel this way then tell me how they do not speak against your position. You are not proving anything here Arad jan. This is just emotional rhetoric. The only reason I believe this "heresy" is because I have anger against the Armenian Church? How does this aid or prove your position? It doesn't. It only shows how impoverished you are in defending it. I do hope you listen.

A response to Ara at ArmenianChurchLibrary.com

no_email@example.com (onnig)

And here is his response:

You asked, " Also, which apocryphal (deuterocanonical) NT books do we supposedly accept?"

The answer to this question is contained in the text from the website that you copied.

Martin Luther rejected James as part of the cannon because he felt that it violated his understanding of Solo Scriptura. He labeled this book as apocrypha. However, modern protestants generally accept James as part of the cannon, while they don't accept many of the other "apocryphal" books from the OT.

While in the early church there wasn't 100 percent agreement on all of the books of the OT, there was 100 percent (or nearly 100 percent) agreement on some of the OT books that modern protestants reject, such as Macabees, the Wisdom of Solomon, and Sirach. This is a tragedy.

Do you reject this books? If so, how do you justify this when nobody else did for 1500 years?

My responses are below:

You asked, " Also, which apocryphal (deuterocanonical) NT books do we supposedly accept?"

The answer to this question is contained in the text from the website that you copied.

Quote:

Martin Luther rejected James as part of the cannon because he felt that it violated his understanding of Solo Scriptura. He labeled this book as apocrypha. However, modern protestants generally accept James as part of the cannon, while they don't accept many of the other "apocryphal" books from the OT.

It is clear that Ara didn't even take the time to read the references I mentioned. This inadequate understanding of the position of Luther is sadly very adequate for those who already have a predisposition of their own guiding cause and that guiding cause is surely not the truth, in this case the truth of history. If he did read the references I mentioned then he would have easily read the following by James Swan:

Third, Luther does appear to have held lifelong doubts about the canonicity of James, but it wasn't because he was purely subjective as Roman Catholics claim. He did not whimsically dismiss Biblical books simply because he did not like their content. Luther was aware of the disputed authenticity of the book. Eusebius and Jerome both recorded doubts to the apostolicity and canonicity of James. Luther did not consider James to be James the Apostle. He wasn't alone in this. The great humanist Scholar Erasmus likewise questioned the authenticity of James, as did Cardinal Cajetan, one of the leading 16th Century Roman Catholic scholars.

So to simply say "Martin Luther rejected James as part of the cannon because he felt that it violated his understanding of Solo Scriptura." is irresponsible at best and deceptive at its very worst. Also, there are no "deuterocanonical NT books" that is why I asked which ones he was referring to. All apocryphal writings are during the intertestimental period. It is evident that Ara's understanding of what is deemed apocryphal or in his case deuterocanonical is limited. If he means that since Martin Luther did not accept James as Scripture then all protestants should not and so why are we, as protestants, accepting it? He is applying his own understanding of Sola Ecclesia, Church Alone, in deeming what is Scripture and applying such an understanding to protestants.

Quote:

While in the early church there wasn't 100 percent agreement on all of the books of the OT, there was 100 percent (or nearly 100 percent) agreement on some of the OT books that modern protestants reject, such as Macabees, the Wisdom of Solomon, and Sirach. This is a tragedy.

Do you reject this books? If so, how do you justify this when nobody else did for 1500 years?

The tragedy here is Ara's lack of knowledge of the truth of the history of the canon. As most protestants understand, the canon is not decided, it is discovered because it was already Scripture once it was penned. Click here for more on the Apocrypha and canon.. I certainly do reject these books and so should you Ara if you study its history and its content.

"Do you reject this books? If so, how do you justify this when nobody else did for 1500 years?"

Nobody rejected the Apocryphal canon for 1500 years? Are you serious? You just said "in the early church there wasn't 100 percent agreement on all of the books of the OT" and then you turn around and make a blanket statement that no one rejected it? That's a clear contradiction on your part but also a lack of understanding as to what early church father's accepted. Well let's look at your claim with who really rejected the Apocrypha (by William Webster on aomin.org:

As has been noted, the early Church's Bible was the Septuagint for the Greek (eastern) church and the Old Latin which was a translation of the Septuagint for the Latin (western) church. The Septuagint contained not only the books of the Hebrew canon but also the books of the apocrypha or what became known as the "Septugintial plus" which for our purposes in this article we will call the Septuagint canon. There were fathers in the early church who used the Septuagint but who followed the Hebrew canon and therefore did not adhere to the "Septugintial plus". In other words, they did not accept the apocrypha as canonical. Others, however, such as Origen, did embrace the "Septugintial plus". So it is important in these discussions when citing certain fathers to note which canon they followed.
As for Cyril of Jerusalem and Athanasius, we are dealing with church fathers who followed the Hebrew canon as opposed to the 'Septuagintial plus'. When referring to 1 and 2 Esdras they make the significant statement that these books were considered one book, just as Origen did. That statement is an important qualifier because it reveals to us that they were following the Hebrew canon because, again, the Jews considered Ezra and Nehemiah to be one book. They are not giving the Septuagint listing and they did not follow the Septuagint canon as accepted by Hippo/Carthage because they both reject the books of the apocrypha from canonical status.

Cyril
"Learn also diligently, and from the Church, what are the books of the Old Testament, and what those of the New...Read the Divine Scriptures, the twenty-two books of the Old Testament, these that have been translated by the Seventy-two interpreters...Of these read the two and twenty books, but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings" (NPNF2, Vol. 7, Cyril ofJerusalem, Catechetical Lectures IV.33-36).

Athanasius
"But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being merely read" (NPNF2, Vol. 4, Athanasius, Letter 39.2-7).

And Rufinus holds precisely the same opinion as Cyril and Athanasius in his statements on the canon. He followed the Hebrew canon and not the 'Septuagintial plus'. He refers to the two books of Ezra which he names as Ezra and Nehemiah (not as 1 and 2 Esdras) and then he adds, which the Hebrews reckon one. Clearly the perspective of Rufinus as a western father is antithetical to that of Augustine, who is also a western father and to the western councils of Hippo/Carthage. Augustine and Hippo/Carthage list the 2 books of Ezra as 1 and 2 Esdras. Rufinus does not do so. He lists them as Ezra and Nehemiah. One is following the Septuagint and the other is following the Hebrew canon. Then he states that the books of the apocrypha were not considered canonical:

"But it should be known that there are also other books which our fathers call not 'Canonical' but 'Ecclesiastical:' that is to say, Wisdom, called the Wisdom of Solomon, and another Wisdom, called the Wisdom of the Son of Syrach, which last-mentioned the Latins called by the general title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book, but the character of the writing. To the same class belong the Book of Tobit, and the Book of Judith, and the Books of the Maccabees" (NPNF2, Vol. 3, Rufinus, Commentary on the Apostles' Creed 36).

Even Athanasius, the father of the eastern churches, did not accept the canon as you accept it today. And even the council of Trent was not complete in the list of Apocryphal books it accepted. It rejected 1 Esdras. Click here for the article.

Well Ara I hope you take this to heart. It questions the very foundation of your faith, that is you hold to Sola Ecclesia not Sola Scriptura and this is but a symptom of this core issue.

Armenian Churches

no_email@example.com (onnig)

vatche wrote:

Onnig my fine-feathered friend,

I am not opposed to having worship services in Armenian, but this can be done at an English speaking church. I would not even be opposed to the idea of a protestant-reformed church that is strictly Armenian speaking for those dear saints who cannot comprehend English.

Then we are in agreement here.

Quote:

What I do believe is seriously problematic is the self-segregation that many Armenians engage in by establishing Armenian churches. Generally in these churches everything is pretty much executed in English but the mass of congregants is Armenian. What's the point of doing this?

Yeah I can see this also as segregation and the most likely cause would be Armenian nationalism which is rooted in pride. We should also understand that people of the same culture will most likely congregate together only because they are most familiar and comfortable with each. I am guilty of the same. When I became a believer I was almost only around other Armenian believers but through Christian maturity I saw the error in this.

Quote:

Not only is this un-beneficial it is expressly harmful, here are some of the reasons why I believe Armenian's should stop this:

1. In this self-segregation, theological development is stunted. The leadership tends to be cut off from traditionally rich (spiritually) streams of theological heritage and draw only from the polluted wells pop-evangelicalism or in some cases the theological and ecclesiological heritage of its founder(s).

Completely agree. Unfortunately most Armenian preachers are shallow when it comes to theology and are satisfied with this inadequate understanding of God.

Quote:

2. The pastor being ignorant (willfully or unintentionally) of the rich reformed heritage of the church deprives his congregants from the same.

Yes! Reformed theology has opened the doors to great understandings of biblical doctrine.

Quote:

3. The Armenian culture/traditions become the ruling paradigm on how the church functions.
4. Because of the limited gene pool (spiritually/culturally speaking) the negative aspects of Armenian culture/tradition tend to be magnified.

Yes, but we must be patient that the Holy Spirit break this trend and we should be faithful in our reproof of it.

Quote:

5. Because most/all of the congregants tend to be Armenian it is more difficult to see those instances wherein the Armenian culture/traditions hinder biblical faithfulness.

I can see how that can happen. "What's wrong with magnified Armenian nationalism when everyone else has no problem with it?"

Quote:

There are many more reasons that I will give in the future, but these are food for thought. Gracias.

I also wanted to add that this problem also stems from a lack of a biblical perspective. When one's priority is to extend Armenian Nationalism it is evidence that they are not "looking to things that are above". Christ is not going to judge you on the grounds of your nationality since "Jews and Greeks" are both saved by grace alone.

But, I don't see a problem if one has Armenian nationalism only if it takes second place to the gospel. One must have balance in there cultural pride and that's almost impossible to control because pride came before the fall.

Shnorhagalootyoon

Dr. James White and Church History

no_email@example.com (onnig)

Dr. James White has done a great series on Roman Catholic Apologists' misrepresentation of Church History. See the following link for videos:

http://youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A344ABA14541A479

Onnig

Dr. Greg Bahsen

no_email@example.com (onnig)

I wanted to recommend a reading of the life of Greg Bahnsen. He was a very influential apologist who vigorously defended and successfully used presuppositional apologetics. I do not promote every conviction of the late Dr. Bahsen, i.e. theonomy, but he was a valiant warrior for Christ. Read more here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Bahnsen

Onnig

What is the Church?

no_email@example.com (onnig)

Is the Church the building, the leaders of the church like the so-called priests, or the pastors or elders? Or is the Church every single person in associated within the body of Christ? The church is made up of every single person in the body of Christ, every believer, every saint. There is no elite few that are considered saints. All who are in Christ are saints.

1 Cor 1:2 "To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours:"

This is how Paul describes the church that was at Corinth. They are those who "call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ" and the "saints by calling". Is he referring only to a select few? No!

2 Cor 1:1 "Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, To the church of God which is at Corinth with all the saints who are throughout Achaia:"

Again, he equates the church as being the "saints". Just do a word study of "saint" or "church" and you will find that in every case it always referenced the entire body of Christ.

This is not to say that there is no leadership in the church. There certainly is but for a purpose.

Eph 4:11-13 "And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ."

That building up of the body of Christ includes a governing of the church through this leadership. This is the purpose of the leadership and nothing more. There is no special authority of doctrine or rule that anyone is granted in Christ's church.

BOOK - GOD'S PLAN FOR SALVATION BY JOHN MARK

no_email@example.com (onnig)

Well, this is expected when one does not think they need to study the great history of Christian doctrine expressed through the Apostles to the Father's (pick and choose according to Biblical consistency) and to the Reformers. His, John Mark's, intentions may have been sincere but the most sincere intentions can be stained with sin. Thanks for this review.

Apostolic Succession

no_email@example.com (onnig)

The Armenian Apostolic Church grants itself authority by the idea of Apostolic Succession. Archbishop S. Kaloustian of the Armenian Apostolic Church said,

"By the term Apostolic Succession is meant that the mission conferred by Jesus Christ upon the Apostles passed from them to their legitimate successors, in an unbroken line, until the end of the world? The Church is Apostolic because its rulers, the Bishops, derive their office and authority by lawful succession from the Apostles. That is why we call our Bishops ?Surpazan,? which means ?of Holy Lineage? that is to say, direct successors of Apostles."[i]

The Church is described in many respects. In the greek it literally means ?the called out ones?. It is also pointed out that the church is given certain individuals to be overseers (1 Timothy 3:1-7), also called elders, pastors and shepherds (Acts 20:17,28; 1 Peter 5:1-4). They were given also as deacons (1 Timothy 3:8-13). There was no separation between ?clergy? and ?laity? but rather those who were gifted with leadership positions were called to equip all the saints for the work of the ministry (Eph 4:7-16). Therefore, the Church is NOT specific to only the leaders but it is rather the whole of the body of believers who are called to minister and with this understanding, passages like 1 Timothy 3:15 where the ?Church? is referred to as the ?pillar and support? of truth can be understood properly as all believers removing any notion of a select few with absolute doctrinal authority. Yes, the Lord gave to the same body of believers teachers and elders in authority in order for the body to learn, be governed and to be edified; but Peter?s description in 1 Peter 2:9-10 is not exclusively for the leaders; it is for the entire body of believers, in other words, the Church. In Eph 4:11, Paul the Apostle explains what God has gifted the Church with; ?And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers.? This goes against the grain of the idea of Apostolic succession for which the Armenian ?Apostolic? Church stands. How? Since Paul says God gave these types of leaders, does that mean that He has given these today? Does that include Apostles in the fullest sense of the term referring to Paul and the Twelve? No not at all.

In the broadest sense, the term Apostle (ἀπόστολος ap-os'-tol-os, derived from a verb meaning to send, to send away on a commission, to dispatch; ἀποστέλλω) is anything which is sent or by which something is sent, or anyone who is sent or by whom a message is sent. The word occurs ten times in the Gospels, nearly thirty times in Acts, greater than thirty times in the Pauline epistles (including the five times in the Pastorals), and eight times in the rest of the New Testament. In later Judaism, envoys were sent out by the Jerusalem patriarchate. These envoys were called apostles. In the New Testament the term is distinctly religious in which the widest meaning of apostle refers to any gospel messenger. The person represents his sender with the message of salvation. Barnabas, Epaphroditus, Apollos, Silvanus, and Timothy are all called ?apostles? (Acts 14:14; I Cor. 4:6, 9; Phil. 2:25; I Thess. 2:6, cf. 1:1; and see also I Cor. 15:7). They represent God?s purpose and some specific churches (2 Cor. 8:23). Paul and Barnabas represent the church at Antioch (Acts 13:1,2) and Epaphroditus at Philippi (Phil 2:25). In this broad sense of the term apostle we can also reference Andronicus and Junius (Rom. 16:7), and James, the Lord?s brother (Gal. 1:19), which once again reference messengers. There is a fuller sense of the term apostle. The fullest sense of the term apostle is that person who is an apostle for life and wherever he goes. He is given the authority of the One who has sent him in which he directs both doctrine and life with that granted authority. We do NOT have these types of Apostles, in the fullest sense of the term, today. Why? There are several characteristics of full apostleship described by the New Testament:

1. They have been chosen, called, and sent forth by Christ himself. They have received their commission directly from him (John 6:70; 13:18; 15:16, 19; Gal. 1:6)
2. They are qualified for their tasks by Jesus, and have been ear-and-eye witnesses of his words and deeds; specifically, they are the witnesses of his resurrection (Acts 1:8, 22; I Cor. 9:1; 15:8; Gal. 1:12; Eph. 3:2?8; I John 1:1?3).
3. They have been endowed in a special measure with the Holy Spirit, and it is this Holy Spirit who leads them into all the truth (Matt. 10:20; John 14:26; 15:26; 16:7?14; 20:22; I Cor. 2:10?13; 7:40; I Thess. 4:8 ).
4. God blesses their work, confirming its value by means of signs and miracles, and giving them much fruit upon their labors (Matt. 10:1, 8; Acts 2:43; 3:2; 5:12?16; Rom. 15:18, 19; II Cor. 12:12; I Cor. 9:2; Gal. 2:8 ).
5. Their office is not restricted to a local church, neither does it extend over a short period of time; on the contrary, it is for the entire church and for life (Acts 26:16?18; II Tim. 4:7, 8 ).[ii]

So you see that full Apostolic calling ended after the Twelve and Paul passed away. To say that the same full Apostolic calling has succeeded to the present day by an authoritative lineage in the Church requires two things; a redefining of the term Church and ignorance of the biblical record as to what it means to have a calling as a full Apostle.

--All references to full apostolic calling are from William Hendricksen and Simon J Kistemaker New Testament Commentary. Baker Book House. 1984. See section on 1 Timothy 1:1.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[i] Saints and Sacraments of the Armenian Church. Archbishop Shnork Kaloustian. 1969. Pgs 12, 77
[ii] All references to full apostolic calling are from William Hendricksen and Simon J Kistemaker New Testament Commentary. Baker Book House. 1984. See section on 1 Timothy 1:1.