@davidpwithun Well, you know ML’s intent WAS to reform from within, but I think the harshness of the initial reaction to even the slightest bit of dissent from ML led him to believe that was a pipe dream. I’m surprised you would prefer they had reformed from within, rather than simply return to the OC.

Interestingly, did you know that one of ML’s first challenges to the Papacy was its claim that there was no salvation outside of the RC Church, when he asked “What about the Greek Christians?”

@thekingmaker10 What I mean by that, is that he stresses the point that there is only one faith, and that faith is inseparable from a desire to do good works of righteousness.

Most Protestants would agree, and we have a word for that which some people call “dead faith”. We call that “show”. ie: “John Doe isn’t really a true believer, he was only baptized for show”.

We believe that true faith, as we (and apparently Mr. Khomiakov) define it, COMPELS good works.

@thekingmaker10 Rather than trying to reform the Church from within the community of believers, the Protestants rather began a seemingly endless line of break-offs every time there was a dispute over doctrine and/or practice. Rather than the conciliar nature of the ancient Church, Protestants introduced an extreme individualism — again, making every man his own Pope.

@thekingmaker10 or group didn’t like was a heretical accretion of the Papists. Rather than looking to the Ancient Apostolic Faith and trimming off what had been added and changed by the Papists, everything now became the subject of somebody’s disdain — and everybody got to be their own Pope. 2. In other ways, the Protestants did not go far enough. They trimmed off some of the heretical

@thekingmaker10 we are posing a foolish question, or to put it another way, no question at all, for true faith is a living faith that performs works: it is faith in Christ and Christ in faith.

I apologize for the lengthy quote, but I thought it was necessary as I don’t seem to be able to explain this point very well on my own. I hope you understand now.

@thekingmaker10 such faith is possible; rather, in that assumption, he states that [such faith] would be useless. The Sacred Scriptures should not be read with a spirit of secular wisdom, debating over terms, but with the spirit of Sophia, Gods Wisdom, and candor and simplicity of soul. In delineating faith, the

@thekingmaker10 is dead, so faith without works is dead also. Is he comparing faith with body and works with spirit? No, for that would be a false analogy. However, the meaning of his words is clear. As a soul-less body is no longer a person and cannot be called a person, but rather a corpse, so faith without works cannot be called true faith, but only false faith, i.e. external knowledge, knowledge that is fruitless, and is attainable even by demons. What is written

@thekingmaker10 mercy by removing [him]? Thus, both those who say that faith alone is not a saving faith, that works are also needed, and those who say that faith without works is salvific are foolish: without works, faith is dead, is not true faith, for in true faith Christ is truth and life; if it is not true, then it is but false and external knowledge. And can falsehood save? If [faith] is true, it is alive, i.e. performing works, and if it is performing works, then what other works are

@thekingmaker10 is at the same time both life and truth; it is an operation by which man, condemning his own imperfect and evil character, seeks to unite with a moral being, with the righteous Jesus, with God Incarnate, with God-Man. Faith, in its very essence, is a moral imperative; a moral imperative that would not also entail a striving for discovery would thereby condemn its own impotence, or, more precisely, its nothingness, its non-being. Discovery of faith is precisely

@thekingmaker10 on certain points difficult, as the ancient Christian understanding is much more Semitic than it is Greek. The ancient Christians encountered many of the same problems in speaking to the pagan philosophers of their time. I think that this quote from the 19th century Russian Orthodox theologian A.S. Khomiakov may explain the Orthodox position very well:

@thekingmaker10 Let me put it this way: when you were baptized — was there a real, mystical washing of sins and conference of the Holy Spirit upon you? When you partake of the Eucharist — is there a real mystical change in the bread and wine and a conference of the real presence of God to the partaker? If your answer is in the negative, this is because of the pagan Aristotle’s influence.

@thekingmaker10 later Middle Ages in the West, Western Christians (originally Roman Catholics and then, through the RCs, Protestants as well) came to reject the ancient Christian sacramental worldview, which included the redemption of matter, the distinction between God’s energies and essences, and the belief in a real, direct divine experience’s possibility. This is what I mean when I say that

@thekingmaker10 Perhaps a better way to state it would be to say that Protestants lack the sacraments because of a lack of a sacramental worldview. Holding something in “high regard” is not the same as believing it to be a mystical conference of the uncreated grace of God. (I have to say, also, that you are the first Protestant I have ever heard refer to anointing or marriage as