Heresy Has Infiltrated The Christian Church Throughout History

coffee · June 2, 2007

.

Christian History & Biography

Issue 51

Heresy in the Early Church

Fine-Tuning the Incarnation

A lot of mistakes were made before the church figured out how best to describe Jesus Christ.

Bruce L. Shelley

July 1, 1996

Shortly after the turn of the second century, Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor, consulted Emperor Trajan about the rapidly spreading Christian "superstition" in his district, asking him what he should do about it. By interrogating a few people, Pliny learned that "on an appointed day," Christians habitually met before daybreak and recited "a hymn to Christ, as to a god."

These hymns, which go back to the earliest days of Christianity, sharply contradict the popular notion that the doctrine of the Incarnation is only a brainchild of fourth-century theologians playing irrelevant word-games [implying the first Ecumenical Council at Nicea]. Long before Christian emperors convened their solemn assemblies, thousands of Christian worship services sang the praises of the Holy Child of Bethlehem.

This is one reason the orthodox party eventually triumphed in the Arian controversy: Athanasius simply argued theologically what the church had been singing for two centuries. But if the Arian controversy settled the issue of Christ's full divinity and humanity, it did not settle the issue of exactly how the divine Christ became human. That concern was left to later theologians.

Very God of Very God? Could a transcendent God so limit himself? Could a holy God so willingly associate with human flesh? Such questions troubled many early Christians.

Echoing Athanasius, Apollinarius began his case for the Incarnation with the full deity of Christ: only God could save the world, and, if Christ is Savior, he must be divine. But the question is, how?

The more extreme members of the Antioch school made clear the need to talk about Christ's deity and humanity in convincing terms, especially terms describing the union of both in a single person.

Against the earlier heretic Arius, the assembly affirmed that....

....Jesus was truly God, and....

....that he was truly man....it confessed that....

Jesus' deity and humanity were not changed into something else, and....

....that Jesus was not divided but was one person.

In order to deny the Greek conception of God as remote and uninterested, but at the same time to be loyal to Scripture, [the Council at] Chalcedon offers no "explanation" of Jesus' mystery. The council fathers knew that Jesus fits no class. He is absolutely unique. [The Council at] Chalcedon left the mystery intact; the church remained a worshiping community.

But the affirmation also made it possible to tell the story of Jesus as good news. Since Jesus was a normal human being, he could fulfill every demand of God's righteous law, and he could suffer and die a real death.

Since he was truly God, his death was capable of satisfying divine justice.

God himself had, by his grace, provided the sacrifice.

Bruce Shelley is senior professor of church history at Denver Seminary, and an editorial adviser to Christian History. He is the author of many books, including All the Saints Adore Thee: Insights from Christian Classics (Baker, 1988).

Heresy in the Early Church: Christian History, Issue 51, (Carol Stream, IL: Christianity Today, Inc.) 1997.

.

coffee · June 3, 2007

.

The King Visits Earth

July 1, 1996

[Condensed and modernized from "St. Athanasius on the Incarnation," translated and edited by a religious of C.S.M.V. (St. Vladimir's, 1944). Used with permission.]

What was God to do in face of the dehumanizing of humankind, this universal hiding of the knowledge of Himself by the wiles of evil spirits? What else could He possibly do but renew His image in humankind, so that through it people might once more come to know Him?

And how could this be done save by the coming of the very image Himself, our Savior Jesus Christ? Human beings could not have done it, for they are only made after the image; nor could angels have done it, for they are not the images of God.

The Word of God came in His own person, because it was He alone, the image of the Father, who could recreate human beings made after the image.

At one and the same time”this is the wonder”as man, He was living a human life; and as Word, He was sustaining the life of the universe; and as Son, He was in constant union with the Father.

The solidarity of humankind is such that, by virtue of the Word's indwelling in a single human body, the corruption that goes with death has lost its power over all. You know how it is when some great king enters a large city and dwells in one of its houses. Because of his dwelling in that single house, the whole city is honored, and enemies and robbers cease to molest it.

Even so is it with the King of all; he has come into our country and dwelt in one body amidst the many, and in consequence, the designs of the enemy against humankind have been foiled, and the corruption of death, which formerly held them in its power, has simply ceased to be.

Some may ask, Why did He not manifest himself by means of other and nobler parts of creation such as sun or moon or stars or fire or air, instead of mere man?

The answer is this: the Lord did not come to make a display. He came to heal and to teach suffering people. For one who wanted to make a display, the thing would have been just to appear and dazzle the beholders. But for Him who came to heal and to teach, the way was not merely to dwell here but to put Himself at the disposal of those who needed him.

”Athanasius

"On the Incarnation"

Heresy in the Early Church: Christian History, Issue 51, (Carol Stream, IL: Christianity Today, Inc.) 1997.

.

coffee · June 5, 2007

.

A Hammer Struck at Heresy

July 1, 1996

"It was of great importance in Christian and even in world history," wrote historian W.H.C. Frend about the first Council of Nicea.

In Christian history, the doctrine of Christ's divinity, a doctrine essential and unique to Christianity, was formally affirmed for the first time. In world history, never before had the entire church gathered to determine policy and doctrine, let alone at the bidding of the Roman emperor.

The following article, written by the late writer and biographer Robert Payne (d. 1983), is excerpted and adapted from his The Holy Fire: The Story of the Early Centuries of the Christian Churches in the Near East (1957).

Forty years of scholarship later, one can rightfully quibble about some historical details (clarifications and some updated findings are in brackets). But no other narrative conveys as well the human dimension of this critical event.

Alexander of Alexandria had called a meeting of the presbyters [priests]. According to the historian Socrates, the aging "pope, with perhaps too philosophical minuteness" began to lecture on the theological mystery of the Holy Trinity [some early senior bishops were called "papa," that is, "father"].

Alexander had been discussing the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost for some time when he was interrupted by one of the presbyters called Arius, a native of Libya. There is no evidence that Alexander was a profound theologian. He may have bumbled, and it is possible that Arius was justified in accusing Alexander of Sabellianism, a heresy that involved a belief in the unity of God at the expense of the reality of the Trinity.

But in combating Alexander, Arius fell into a new heresy, for he announced, "If the Father begat the Son, then he who was begotten had a beginning in existence, and from this it follows there was a time when the Son was not."

Here, at some time in 319, the cry of the Arians, "There was a time when the Son was not", WAS FIRST HEARD. The words were to have an extraordinary influence on the shaping of the church.

They were dynamite and split the church in two, and these words, which read in Greek like a line of a song, still echo down the centuries.

Heresy in the Early Church: Christian History, Issue 51, (Carol Stream, IL: Christianity Today, Inc.) 1997.

.

coffee · June 7, 2007

.

It is pretty accurate to say that among our Molokan people, especially the current generation of native, English-speaking Americans, very few, if that, are interested in the history of the early Christian Church. I tend to agree with the argument that much of the historical record makes for tedious and laborious reading.

However, as it pertains to our Molokan people, for those who DO invest the time and energy to read about the development of the different creeds that were confirmed and established by the historical Ecumenical Councils, one very important truth stands out above everything else.

According to the historical record, the first, second and third century followers of the Lord Jesus Christ, and into the fourth century as well, long before the convening of the first Ecumenical Council of Church leaders, openly worshipped Jesus as God, as the Creator God, as Who He truly IS, according to what is recorded in the Scriptures, which is what we see in the opening post above:

Shortly after the turn of the second century, Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor, consulted Emperor Trajan about the rapidly spreading Christian "superstition" in his district, asking him what he should do about it. By interrogating a few people, Pliny learned that "on an appointed day," Christians habitually met before daybreak and recited "a hymn to Christ, as to a god."

According to the historical record, there is no doubt that the early Christian Church, based on the teachings about the faith that was handed down to them from the very Apostles and Disciples of Christ Himself, acknowledged that Jesus is God, that Jesus is God Who came from heaven to dwell on earth "in the flesh", the flesh of Jesus of Nazareth.

In Post #4 of the thread entitled "Molokans are Trinitarians According to the S & L", it is demonstrated, with clear, concise historical documentation, that for centuries prior to the very first Ecumenical Council at Nicea, early Christians taught and practiced their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, based on the existing, established, foundational Scriptural truth, that Jesus is indeed God "in the flesh".

Especially among our most recent generations of Molokans here in America, because those who are the followers of Rudometkin historically have been aggressive "bullies" in their quest to take over the political leadership within our Molokan churches, the only "version" of so-called "history" that today's current crop of Rudometkinites have ever been exposed to is that which their uneducated forefathers taught them, and which ultimately has been "made up" to suit them, as we see in the comments that fourvetta has often repeated on these forums:

The ecumenical councils polluted the message of the Gospel by making Christ a God-man, beginning with the Council of Nicea.

The whole purpose of the ecumenical councils was to establish Christ as God.

(fourvetta, Post #15, MGR`s Group 3 Has Not Sinned)

Until that time, the whole world was in darkness from the 4th century with the first ecumenical council in Nicea. The true teachings of the Spirit of Truth died at that time.

(fourvetta, Post #30, Would mgr Have Been Considered An Elder / Bishop / Pastor (episkopos)?)

There is no nice way to say it, but these are baldfaced lies, because when we read the historical record, according to what truly transpired, we find that what the Rudometkinites like fourvetta expound as purported "history", is void of any substantiated, historical truth.

We often hear the claim made by today's Rudometkinite zealots that the term "Trinity", in reference to the Triune existence of God, was allegedly "never" taught among the early followers of the Lord Jesus Christ.

The Rudometkinites religiously uphold their theory that the early Christians allegedly "never" used this term, indeed that it supposedly was "never" heard of among those in the early Christian Church, purportedly until after the first Ecumenical Council in Nicea, 325 AD.

We continually hear from those who are today's devout followers of Rudometkin's heresies in the Spirit and Life book, that the very "concept" of Jesus being God, manifest in human flesh, was an alleged "new teaching" which was allegedly "never" found among those in the early Christian Church, but was something that allegedly "originated" with the Ecumenical Councils.

From an article that was published in the U.M.C.A Molokan newsletter, in the December 1985 issue:

Jesus, is the Son of God. He is not God; as some factions preach in our church. These usually are young and zealous individuals who have learned elsewhere, other than from elders in our church.

I am confused and hurt, to think that our young people are trying to bring this type of thinking into our church; as if we and our past elders and martyrs have been duped by the devil himself.

When in reality, this, Jesus is God theory, comes from the devil himself.

It originated at the Ecumenical Council in Nicene, in the 3rd century. They made Jesus God, using the same reasoning that are used today.

Eddie Liege

We will not hold it against Uncle Ed, being that he is a longtime front row elder in our Molokan churches, but this is an excellent example of the lack of education among those who are indeed responsible, since they are the very elders who taught the present generation of Rudometkinites the erroneous and inaccurate version of history that they currently believe.

No disrespect intended towards Uncle Ed, but the name of the town where the first Ecumenical Council was held is Nicea, not Nicene, and the first Ecumenical Council was held in the 4th Century, in 325 A.D., not in the 3rd Century.

No matter how long Uncle Ed has been a front row elder in our Molokan churches, no matter how badly Uncle Ed and others would like to believe what he wrote in his article, according to the historical record, what Uncle Ed and the other Rudometkinite elders have been teaching for all of these years is untrue.

The truth that the early Christian Church worshipped the Lord Jesus Christ as God, is accurate, based on historical fact, contrary to whatever today's crop of Rudometkinites want to believe.

In addition to how today's young Rudometkinite zealots deny the deity of Jesus, they also avoid and ignore the historical documentation that exists, which proves that the early Christian Church not only accepted and believed, but also taught that the Lord Jesus Christ walked the earth as God in human flesh.

The early followers of the Lord Jesus Christ were those who accepted and followed the teachings of Christ's Apostles.

The earliest known existing manuscripts of the New Testament Scriptures predate the emperor Constantine and the first Ecumenical Council by almost two centuries.

These documents are virtually identical in content, and context, as that which is known today as the Holy Bible, which is what the present-day followers of the Lord Jesus Christ revere today as the written Word of God, the Holy Scriptures.

This includes the very Scriptures that are recorded in John 1:1-18....

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

....including the Scriptures that are written in John 20:24-29....

Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe."

Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!"

....as well as what is recorded in the Bible, in Romans 9:1-5....

They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises.

To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.

....as well as what is written in the Bible, in 1 Corinthians 8:5-6....

For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth - as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords" -

yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

....as well at that which is recorded in the Scriptures, in Colossians 1:15-23:

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities - all things were created through him and for him.

....not to mention that which is written in the Scriptures, in Hebrews 1:7-9:

But of the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom."

To put it another way, the multiple Scriptures existing in the Biblical text that we read today, which testify that the Lord Jesus Christ is indeed God in human flesh, are virtually identical to that which was written by the Apostles of Jesus during the first century AD, and which all exist in manuscripts that are dated from as early as 180-200 AD.

In other words, the historical record itself proves that the early Christian Church believed in the deity of Jesus long before the emperor Constantine was even born, long before the concept of the Ecumenical Councils was ever conceived.

This means that contrary to the excuse commonly heard from today's Rudometkinites, it is literally impossible for Constantine and the bishops who attended the Ecumenical Councils, to have ever made any such alleged "changes" to the existing, historical Biblical text, the Scriptural text which testifies that the Lord Jesus Christ is indeed God in human flesh.

In spite of the overwhelming documentation in existence, as historical evidence, the current crop of Rudometkinites continues to recycle the name of Constantine, as if the Ecumenical Councils were somehow the first ones to ever teach that the Lord Jesus Christ is God in human flesh.

Following are excerpts from writings that were in existence long before any of Constantine's Ecumenical Councils ever came into existence, and more importantly, long before the year 319 AD, which is when Arius first introduced his heresy, the heresy that was heard for the very first time ever in the history of the Christian Church, that "If the Father begat the Son, then he who was begotten had a beginning in existence, and from this it follows there was a time when the Son was not."

From an evangelist named Lactantius, in 307 AD:

But when we speak of God the Father and God the Son, we do not speak of them as different, nor do we separate each, because the Father cannot exist without the Son, nor can the Son be separated from the Father.

(Lactantius, Divine Institutes, 4:28-29)

From a preacher named Methodius, in 305 AD:

For the kingdom of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is one, even as their substance is one and their dominion one.

Whence also, with one and the same adoration, we worship the one Deity in three Persons, subsisting without beginning, uncreated, without end, and to which there is no successor.

For neither will the Father ever cease to be the Father, nor again the Son to be the Son and King, nor the Holy Spirit to be what in substance and personality He is.

For nothing of the Trinity will suffer diminution, either in respect of eternity, or of communion, or of sovereignty.

(Methodius, Oration on the Psalms, 5)

From the theologian named Thaumaturgus, who is often referred to in history as "Gregory, the miracle worker", in 262 AD:

But if they say, "How can there be three Persons, and how but one Divinity?", we shall make this reply:

That there are indeed three persons, inasmuch as there is one person of God the Father, and one of the Lord the Son, and one of the Holy Spirit; and yet that there is but one Divinity, inasmuch as....there is one substance in the Trinity.

(Thaumaturgus, A Sectional Confession of Faith, 14)

As written by Dionysius, in 262 AD:

Therefore, the divine Trinity must be gathered up and brought together in one, a summit, as it were, I mean the omnipotent God of the universe....

It is blasphemy, then, and not a common one but the worst, to say that the Son is in any way a handiwork [in other words, to say that Jesus was "created", is blasphemy]....

But if [we are to assume that] the Son came into being, [we would have to assume that] there was a time when these attributes [of the Trinity] did not exist; and, consequently, [we would have to assume that] there was a time when God was without them, which is utterly absurd

(Letters of Dionysius, to Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria, 1-2).

Tertullian, in his debate against Praxeas, wrote in 200 AD:

We define that there are two, the Father and the Son, and three with the Holy Spirit, and this number is made by the pattern of salvation....bringing about unity in trinity, interrelating the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

They are of one substance and power, because there is one God from whom these degrees, forms and kinds devolve in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. (Tertullian, Against Praxeas, 156-7)

From Irenaeus, in 180 AD:

For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the Earth, has received from the apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, Father Almighty, the creator of heaven and Earth and sea and all that is in them;

and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation;

and in the Holy Spirit, who announced through the prophets the dispensations and the comings, and the birth from a Virgin, and the passion, and the Resurrection from the dead, and the bodily Ascension into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus our Lord, and his coming from heaven in the glory of the Father to re-establish all things;

and the raising up again of all flesh of all humanity, in order that to Jesus Christ our Lord and God and Savior and King, in accord with the approval of the invisible Father, every knee shall bend of those in heaven and on Earth and under the earth....

(Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 1, Chapter 10, Section 1)

From Athenagoras, an explanation about what the early followers of the Lord Jesus Christ believed, in 160 AD:

They hold the Father to be God, and the Son [to be] God, and the Holy Spirit [to be God], and declare their union [existing as the same One God] and their distinction [existing as three distinct persons] in order....

(Athenagoras, A Plea for the Christians, 10.3)

From Ignatius, in 110 AD:

Ignatius, also called Theophorus, sends heartiest good wishes for unalloyed joy in Jesus Christ to the Church at Ephesus in Asia; a church deserving of felicitation, blessed, as she is, with greatness through the fullness of God the Father; predestined, before time was, to be - to her abiding and unchanging glory - forever united and chosen, through real suffering, by the will of the Father and Jesus Christ our God.

(Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians, 1)

Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church that has found mercy in the transcendent Majesty of the Most High Father and of Jesus Christ, His only Son; the church by the will of Him who willed all things that exist, beloved and illuminated through the faith and love of Jesus Christ our God;

Heartiest good wishes for unimpaired joy in Jesus Christ our God, to those who are united in flesh and spirit by every commandment of His; who imperturbably enjoy the full measure of God's grace and have every foreign stain filtered out of them.

(Ignatius, Letter to the Romans, 1)

Contrary to the heretical messages coming from today's vocal young Rudometkinites, the term describing God as "the Trinity" was common among those in the early Christian Church, which existed for an entire three full centuries previous to the Emperor Constantine, prior to the first of the historical Ecumenical Councils that Uncle Ed Liege alluded to in his article.

The Scriptural truth that the Lord Jesus Christ is God, Who came down from heaven and walked the earth literally "in the flesh", in the human flesh of Jesus of Nazareth, is what Bible based Christians have accepted and believed from the very first century AD. It is what was taught by Christ's Apostles, by those very eyewitnesses who observed and lived with Jesus Himself, when He walked the earth "in the flesh".

To be continued....

.

coffee · June 9, 2007

.

A Hammer Struck at Heresy

July 1, 1996

The Issue

Alexander was appalled by the new heresy and knew that desperate measures would be necessary to combat it. Once it is admitted that "there was a time when the Son was not," then a bewildering series of further heresies follows. High as he is, the Son is now infinitely lower than the Father. The words are like a wedge, splitting the monotheism of the church. Athanasius [Alexander's chief deacon assistant] saw the danger clearly, and he seems to have taken over from Alexander the task of refuting Arius.

To the credit of Athanasius, he saw clearly that the most dangerous of existing heresies was precisely the heresy announced by Arius. It was a very simple heresy.

All Arius said was that if the Father begat the Son, then the Son must have had a birth, and therefore there was a time when the Son of God did not exist. He had come into existence according to the will of the Heavenly Father, and therefore he was less than the heavenly Father, though greater than man. Christ was no more than a mediator between man and God. No, answered Alexander and Athanasius; Christ is absolute God.

In our own heretical age, the dispute between Athanasius and Arius may appear to be a splitting of hairs, but it was not so at the time. The historian Gibbon was amused by the thought that Christianity almost foundered on the controversy between homoousios and homoiousios, the fate of humankind hanging on a single iota. But the difference between Christ the mediator and Christ the God is a very real one, and whether Christ is of the same substance [homo-ousios] or a like substance [homoi-ousios] to God the Father is a matter of importance to all Christians, not only theologians.

Arianism brought Christ down to earth, making him at once inferior to the Father, and more popular. Following Arius, a person could believe that Christ was no more than a great, virtuous, and superbly godlike hero. Against this conception, Alexander and Athanasius rebelled, and they seem to have been perfectly aware that the heresy had the power to destroy the church as they knew it.

Heresy in the Early Church: Christian History, Issue 51, (Carol Stream, IL: Christianity Today, Inc.) 1997.

.

coffee · June 10, 2007

.

The very "issue" against which the Church elders, Alexander and Athanasius, rebelled, and which eventually led to the convening of the First Ecumenical Council in Nicea, was isolated on the attempt by Arius to introduce a theory (heresy) in 319 AD, which was new to the established teachings of the early Christian Church, new to what the existing Church elders and leaders had been stewards of for over 3 centuries.

Here, at some time in 319, the cry of the Arians, "There was a time when the Son was not", was first heard. The words were to have an extraordinary influence on the shaping of the church.

Against this conception, Alexander and Athanasius rebelled, and they seem to have been perfectly aware that the heresy had the power to destroy the church as they knew it.

With the introduction of his new hypothesis, Arius was responsible for the resulting heresy that attempted to reduce the Lord Jesus Christ from being deity altogether, which was in stark contrast to the established teachings of the Christian Church, already in existence from the days of the Apostles and the Disciples of Christ Himself.

According to the historical record, those who followed Arius and who accepted this new theory were numerous, and they were instrumental in spreading his new heresy, which reduced Jesus to being no more than some kind of mediator figure between man and God, someone who was inferior and infinitely lower than God the Father, someone who was ultimately no more than a great, virtuous, and superbly godlike hero, something less than God, but still greater than man.

Some of those who attended the First Ecumenical Council at Nicea, who ultimately rejected the heresy that was introduced by Arius, based on a thorough comparison with the written Word of God as written in the Holy Scriptures, were:

From the East came bishops who had suffered persecution. There was Paul, bishop of Mesopotamian Caesarea, with his hands scorched by flames. Paphnutius of Upper Egypt, famous for the austerity of his life, had had his right eye dug out and the sinews of his left leg were cut during the Diocletian persecution. Bishop Potammon of Heraclea, who had known Antony and lived in the deserts of the Nile, had also lost an eye.

Heresy in the Early Church: Christian History, Issue 51, (Carol Stream, IL: Christianity Today, Inc.) 1997.

These were men who had suffered persecution for their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, for their belief in Him, and their knowledge of Him, based on what is written in the Bible, which testifies that Jesus of Nazareth was God Who had come down from heaven to earth, and who indeed walked the earth "in the flesh". In rejecting the heresy that had been introduced by Arius, these men, who were true martyrs within the early Christian Church, were determined to remain steadfast in the conviction of their existing and established faith, which they had long been teaching those "sheep" who were under the care of their spiritual guidance and leadership.

To quote the Historian Jaroslav Pelikan, in adherence to the teachings of the early Church fathers themselves, underlying the Nicene Creed "was the conviction that only He who had created the universe could save man, and that to do either of these, [Jesus] had to be divine and not a creature."

From manuscripts dating back to the second century AD (the period of history between 100-200 AD), of writings that testify about the true identity of the Lord Jesus Christ, which are part of today's New Testament Scriptures, the very same Scriptures that were used by those leaders and elders of the Christian Church who attended the First Ecumenical Council in Nicea in 325 AD, to determine the distinction between Biblical truth versus that which is heresy:

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities - all things were created through him and for him.

(from Colossians 1:15-23)

The teaching coming out of the Rudometkinites, that the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea somehow "polluted the message of the Gospel by making Christ a God-man is totally false. That Christ is both God and man, in the human being body of the Lord Jesus Christ, is what the Christian Church knew and understood from the teachings of Jesus Himself, as well as the subsequent teachings of His Apostles and Disciples.

The first recorded heretical teaching, that Jesus was anything less than God in human flesh, was first introduced to those in the early Christian Church by Arius, in 319 AD, almost four centuries after the death, resurrection and ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ.

(to be continued)

.

fourvetta · June 11, 2007

The teaching coming out of the Rudometkinites, that the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea somehow "polluted the message of the Gospel by making Christ a God-man is totally false. That Christ is both God and man, in the human being body of the Lord Jesus Christ, is what the Christian Church knew and understood from the teachings of Jesus Himself, as well as the subsequent teachings of His Apostles and Disciples.

The first recorded heretical teaching, that Jesus was anything less than God in human flesh, was first introduced to those in the early Christian Church by Arius, in 319 AD, almost four centuries after the death, resurrection and ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ.

(to be continued)

.

Jesus, then, for all time was declared to have been God for all eternity. Forever after there would always be a chasm separating humanity from Jesus Christ, who was deified beyond recognition as a result of the council's decision.

The key Greek word used in the creed was homoousios, meaning that Jesus was "of one substance with" the Father; he was not created by God but was "very God of very God."

The subtle distinction that Arius had made between the Son (as the Archetypal firstborn of God) and the Word- Logos who was "God from God" was either cleverly ignored or suppressed outright. The bishops who sided with Arius knew that they had blasphemed by placing the man Jesus, whom they knew to have been created by God, on the same level with the eternal God” the unmanifest and absolute Deity.

As Origen gave the Son of God free will to choose to cling to the Wisdom-Logos and thus become the Logos, so the council condemned the teaching that the Son was susceptible to variation and change. Jesus Christ, therefore, according to the Nicene Fathers, did not choose to cling to the Logos and thus become one with him” he was himself the Logos for all eternity.

The council concluded that Jesus, in effect, had no free will to choose or not to choose. The implication of the Nicene doctrine is that Jesus as God the Logos, God Himself, simply assumed a human nature and body (or the semblance of humanity) for the purpose of saving mankind. He himself did not need to follow a path to attainment, nor did he have to strive for union with God. Jesus then was not really man” he was the eternal God in the appearance of man.

We recall that no Christian school or theology, either Christian-Gnostic or proto-orthodox, had ever taught such a doctrine regarding Jesus prior to the Nicene Council. The above formula also makes it unnecessary for each individual to follow Jesus. There is no purpose in seeking to experience the "initiations" that Jesus experienced. The esoteric gnostic doctrines of Jesus which taught man how to attain to Jesus' level of spiritual knowledge and power are now become superfluous.

Jesus is no longer the mediator between God and man” bridging the gap between God and man and bringing man into a closer union with the

Father; he is now God Himself” a full-fledged remote Deity.

The Christian is therefore bereft of a mediator” an advocate before the Father” in the person of Jesus.

The hierarchy of the church” the very bishops who supported the creed” have now insinuated themselves subtly between God and the aspiring Christian, who was taught not to think for himself but to simply acquiesce in favor of the greater knowledge of the bishops. Thus an entirely new theology would be developed out of the Nicene Creed” a theology far removed from the original doctrines of Jesus and his apostles.

The new theology evolved from the Nicene formula promoted a passivity on the part of the average Christian. According to the creed, Jesus is God and he has already accomplished the salvation of every believer. The believer need only accept the creed, partake of the sacraments, obey the bishops and the decisions of the councils in order to be saved. He need not go through his own crucifixion and resurrection as Paul the Apostle taught and demonstrated. He need not become one with the Father as the Christian-Gnostic taught. The Nicene Creed prepared the way for the ultimate abdication by the faithful of their own nature as sons of God” that sonship that Arius and his followers were attempting to uphold in vain.

The Nicene Creed prepared the soil into which was planted the new doctrine of original sin by Augustine in the following century, thus contributing to the final debasement of humanity.

coffee · June 11, 2007

.

Such is the problem that heretics like Arius have when introducing their extra-Biblical heresies. Ultimately, the decision comes to the point that those who are followers of the Lord Jesus Christ must compare all new theory, like the one introduced by Arius in the fourth century AD, as well as that which Rudometkin later introduced in the nineteenth century, to what exists in the recorded record, to the written Word of God.

Jesus, then, for all time was declared to have been God for all eternity.

Contrary to what fourvetta wants to believe, in his support and defense of the Arian heresy, it was not the First Ecumenical Council at Nicea that determined the truth that Jesus is "God for all eternity". Ultimately, what the elders and church leaders relied upon in their comparison of the hypothesis that was introduced by Arius, in 319 AD, which was the very first time that such a theory had ever been introduced up to that point in the history of the early Christian Church, was the Biblical text, what had been recorded as Holy Scripture, where it is written:

They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises.

To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.

(From Romans 9:1-5)

The fact that Arius was attempting to circumvent, to ignore and avoid being held accountable to what was written in the Bible, ultimately was what the Council at Nicea used in their decision to correctly determine and identify Arius as the heretic that he was.

Regarding:

The bishops who sided with Arius knew that they had blasphemed by placing the man Jesus, whom they knew to have been created by God....

And exactly HOW did these followers of Arius, his supporters and sympathizers, allegedly "know" that Jesus had supposedly "been created"?

Once again, the elders and the Church leaders at the Council in Nicea used the written record, the written Word of God in the Holy Scriptures, to compare Arius's theory with the established truth that is written in the Bible, before accurately identifying this newly introduced hypothesis as heresy.

From the Scriptures:

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities - all things were created through him and for him. (From Colossians 1:15-23)

For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth - as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords" -

yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (From 1 Corinthians 8:5-6)

According to the Scriptures, Jesus is identified as The Creator God, period. As the "Creator", He cannot have "created" himself, which simply means that contrary to what Arius and his followers wanted to believe, the Lord Jesus Christ is not a "created being.

Arius failed in his attempt to introduce his heresy to the existing and established early Christian Church fathers because the only way his theory could ever have been justified, was to ignore, overlook and outright reject certain specific Scriptures having to do with the true identity of the Lord Jesus Christ in the Biblical text.

The same is true with those who are followers of Rudometkin's heresies that are printed in the Spirit and Life book today.

As it was in the days of Arius, who had gained quite a following, it is no different with today's Rudometkinites, like fourvetta, who continue to cling to the heresies in the Spirit and Life as if they are sacred inspiration from God, yet time after time are they exposed and revealed to be heresy against that which is recorded in the Holy Scriptures, by the very fact that they contradict the Biblical text.

.

fourvetta · June 11, 2007

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

According to the Scriptures, Jesus is identified as The Creator God, period. As the "Creator", He cannot have "created" himself, which simply means that contrary to what Arius and his followers wanted to believe, the Lord Jesus Christ is not a "created being.

Arius failed in his attempt to introduce his heresy to the existing and established early Christian Church fathers because the only way his theory could ever have been justified, was to ignore, overlook and outright reject certain specific Scriptures having to do with the true identity of the Lord Jesus Christ in the Biblical text.

.

You can't see the forest because them dang trees keep getting in the way.

Who caused the growth of the cells of Jesus Christ in the womb of Mary? Whom by the way, you would also have to call, "The mother of God". You are a catholic by this definition.

Christ is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. God is Spirit.

Christ is the veil and the mediator between God and man. The presence behind the veil is the Father, who sent His Son to reunite man with Him. Sonship regained. The Father's whole purpose for His Son.

Without His Mediator there is no sonship. Neither can any man regain the image that was lost in the begininng.

One must go through the veil to the presence behind the veil, the way, the path and the light to the Father.

Christ gave us the true knowledge and understanding of how to regain sonship. Christ Himself being the forerunner into the Holy place, meaning that others would also follow after Him.

The Sons reunited, are also One with the Father and His Son. Co inheritors of the Father through and with Christ.

The greater heresy is the one of Alexander and Athanasius. Which I call Alexanderism and Athanasiusism or Alexander and Athanasius ISM.

Man without a mediator between man and God the Father. No forgiveness of sins.

9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone.

10 For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

11 For both He who sanctifies and those who are being sanctified are all of one, for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren,

12 saying: " I will declare Your name to My brethren; In the midst of the assembly I will sing praise to You."

13 And again:" I will put My trust in Him."And again:" Here am I and the children whom God has given Me."

14 Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil,

15 and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

16 For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham.

17 Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

18 For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted.

coffee · June 11, 2007

.

Just so that there is no confusion, the response by fourvetta in Post # 7 is cut and pasted from a website in defense of the Arian heresy. Post # 7 is not something that fourvetta composed all by himself, even though it does accurately reflect the beliefs of the Rudometkinites, that the Jesus who they believe in is different, and less than, the Jesus Christ Who is described in the Holy Scriptures.

Not to be redundant, but Arius more than likely would have had success with his theory that he attempted to introduce in 319 AD, had it not been for the fact that the early Church elders and leaders, from the days of the very Apostles and Disciples of Christ, all understood what the Lord Jesus Christ had already revealed to them regarding His deity, according to what is recorded in the Scriptures. This is seen from the historical teachings of those in the early Christian Church that predated Constantine and the historical Ecumenical Councils.

The following is from the year 262 AD, which was 57 years prior to Arius and his new heresy, and 63 years prior to the First Ecumenical Council in Nicea.

As written by Dionysius, in 262 AD:

Therefore, the divine Trinity must be gathered up and brought together in one, a summit, as it were, I mean the omnipotent God of the universe....

It is blasphemy, then, and not a common one but the worst, to say that the Son is in any way a handiwork [in other words, to say that Jesus was "created", is blasphemy]....

But if [we are to assume that] the Son came into being, [we would have to assume that] there was a time when these attributes [of the Trinity] did not exist; and, consequently, [we would have to assume that] there was a time when God was without them, which is utterly absurd

(Letters of Dionysius, to Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria, 1-2).

The following is from the year 180 AD, which was 129 years prior to Arius and the new heresy that he attempted to introduce to the Church, and 135 years prior to the First Ecumenical Council in Nicea.

From Irenaeus, in 180 AD:

For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the Earth, has received from the apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, Father Almighty, the creator of heaven and Earth and sea and all that is in them;

and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation;

and in the Holy Spirit, who announced through the prophets the dispensations and the comings, and the birth from a Virgin, and the passion, and the Resurrection from the dead, and the bodily Ascension into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus our Lord, and his coming from heaven in the glory of the Father to re-establish all things;

and the raising up again of all flesh of all humanity, in order that to Jesus Christ our Lord and God and Savior and King, in accord with the approval of the invisible Father, every knee shall bend of those in heaven and on Earth and under the earth....

(Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 1, Chapter 10, Section 1)

If only the Arians had come first, before the early Church fathers, if only Arius had introduced his theory before the established teachings of the early Church elders and leaders had already long ago been handed down from the Apostles and Disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ to the early Christian Church, perhaps Arius's heresy would have had more success, and Arianism would have then led the way to a successful transition to what we can accurately refer to as Rudometkinism, years later.

If only the Arians, and in turn the Rudometkinites, could eliminate certain Scriptures from the Biblical text, they could effectively establish their heresies without contradicting that which has already been established by God in the Holy Scriptures. It is because the heresies of Arius and Rudometkin ignore, overlook and reject key specific Scriptures, that the Bible based followers of the Lord Jesus Christ can accurately identify the teachings of Arius, as well as those of the Rudometkinites, as heresy.

From the Bible, the Scripture that fourvetta quoted above, out of Hebrews 2:10....

For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering. (Hebrews 2:10)

And Who is this referring to? Who is this "He, for whom and by whom all things exist"? It is as if the heretics do not even know how to read. After all, it is written there, clear as daylight, but somehow they just do not seem to "see" that this Scripture is in specific reference to the Lord Jesus Christ, Who is being described in the Bible as our Creator God, with words that were literally "breathed out" by God Himself, and written down for the posterity of mankind:

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities - all things were created through him and for him. (From Colossians 1:15-23)

For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth - as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords" -

yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (From 1 Corinthians 8:5-6)

From fourvetta:

Christ is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. God is Spirit.

And the Scriptural truth that the heretics refuse to accept is that God, in "Spirit" form, became flesh when God came down from heaven to earth, to become a human being in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, Jesus of Nazareth, as it is written:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (From John 1:1-18)

If only the heretics somehow could come up with a convincing argument that this Scripture is not "person specific", referring to the only, one-of-a-kind, unique person of the Lord Jesus Christ, perhaps they would be successful in teaching others about their own version of "Jesus", without contradicting the Scriptures that were entrusted to those early elders and church leaders, and subsequent brothers and sisters included, who are the historical Bible-based followers of the Lord Jesus Christ.

If only the heretics could make those Scriptures go away, or like fourvetta likes to do, if only they could make up an alternate Scripture, and be allowed to call it "Scripture", then perhaps their heresies would be recognized as allegedly credible, as supposedly consistent with the truth of the Scriptures.

Instead of conforming to the truth that is recorded in the written Word of God, heretics twist the Scriptures out of context, as in the case of Arius and his 319 AD heresy, and introduce new theories which they attempt so desperately to "blend" somehow with Biblical truth, which we continue to see today with fourvetta and the Rudometkinites.

The new name of Jesus Christ is King of Spirits and God to the faithful.

But you, say that Lord God cannot be made Manifest in the flesh.

Which is contrary to the scripture, "The Word of God shall be made manifest in man."

Then you never understood the message of the Gospel.

(fourvetta, Post # 5 - Forvetta, Who is Jesus Part II)

The point being is that fourvetta's alleged "scripture" does not exist in the Bible. It is an example of the heretical attempt to change the context of Scripture, in order to circumvent the Biblical Truth that God became flesh when "Spirit" became flesh, when the Word became flesh, when the Lord Who is God gave Himself as the only sacrifice good enough to pay the debt owed by all of mankind, which is death and eternal separation from God, so that those who will accept and believe, will have eternal life together with Him.

.

coffee · June 12, 2007

.

As it turns out, there were two major roadblocks to what Arius was attempting to do in 319 AD, when he first introduced his new, never-before-heard-of theory about the identity of the Lord Jesus Christ to others within the early Christian Church at that time.

The first major roadblock was the fact that the written record, the written Word of God, the Holy Scriptures themselves, testifies that the Lord Jesus Christ is our very Creator God, Who in His preincarnate existence, was with God, and WAS God in Spirit form, Who became human flesh in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.

This Biblical truth is well documented in manuscripts of Scripture that are still in existence today, dated from as early as 180 AD, which are virtually identical in content and context to the same Biblical text that was used by the early Christian Church when Arius was alive, and which the majority of the English-speaking world today has available to read, in a number of existing accurate translations.

That was the first major roadblock.

In addition, the early Christian Church had already been in existence for over 3 centuries, and the very belief system that had already long been in effect, and part of the Christian Church teachings for over 300 years, had been established and virtually hand delivered to them initially by the very Apostles and Disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, in obedience to the instruction that they had personally been given by Jesus, according to what is written in the Scriptures, in Matthew 28:16-20, which has since come to be identified as The Great Commission.

Included in the teachings of the Apostles and the Disciples of Christ is the Biblical truth that Jesus Christ is indeed our Creator God, Who formerly existed in Spirit form as the Word [of God], Who became human flesh in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.

This Scriptural truth was then handed down from the Apostles and the Disciples of Jesus, to those who were selected to be the early shepherds and overseers of the very churches that were established by Christ's own handpicked ambassadors.

In time, the initial elders and church leaders passed these very teachings of the Apostles and the Disciples of Christ on to subsequent elders and church leaders, so that by the time Arius showed up on the scene in the early 4th century, with his new, never-before-heard-of theory about the identity of Jesus, the teachings and practices of the existing Christian Church had already long been established and time tested.

That was the second major roadblock.

Therefore, when the fallout of Arius's newly introduced theory resulted in such disturbing and disruptive controversy within the Church, the First Ecumenical Council of Church leaders and elders, bishops and presbyters, was convened in Nicea by the emporer Constantine primarily to discuss Arius's new theory, and to compare it with what they had known already for the past 300 years to be Scriptural truth, and to determine if Arius's new theory was compatible and consistent with the Scriptural truths that the established early Christian Church had initially received directly from the very Apostles and Disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

The fact that at the end of this discussion and debate at the Council in Nicea, 98 percent of those elders and leaders in attendance chose to uphold the truth of the existing Scriptural text, and the beliefs of the early Apostolic Christian Church, over Arius's attempt to introduce new, never-before-heard-of theology, is what pronounced Arius accurately as a heretic, and his new theory as heresy against God.

The Nicene Creed did not establish anything "NEW". The very purpose of the Creed was to formulate and summarize, in written format, an agreement among the early Church fathers, that what the Council had established in written form was indeed an accurate representation of what these experienced, time tested elders and leaders of the early Christian Church, including those who were already martyrs for their Bible based faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, had themselves already long been teaching their congregations for the previous 300 years.

.

fourvetta · June 12, 2007

The Nicene Creed did not establish anything "NEW". The very purpose of the Creed was to formulate and summarize, in written format, an agreement among the early Church fathers, that what the Council had established in written form was indeed an accurate representation of what these experienced, time tested elders and leaders of the early Christian Church, including those who were already martyrs for their Bible based faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, had themselves already long been teaching their congregations for the previous 300 years.

.

Here is the Nicene Creed as established by coffee's church fathers, who by the way are not mine. Coffee must and without a doubt believe every word or be anathematized by his church fathers and elders. .

We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen."

This is to be said orally by the recipient of baptism which is to be administered by a priest.

Notice the words (I believe in the) one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

Which is not the same church established by Christ's Apostles. Apostle Paul warned the church that ravenous wolves would come up out from among you which will not spare the flock. That they would preach another Gospel, one that they did not preach.

To be continued..

seeking_truth_1 · June 12, 2007

Please do notice the word catholic (Not Capitalized)

It has nothing to do with the Catholic Church

catholic (lower case) simply means whole or comprehensive

You really should do your research while you continue to jump to wrong conclusions

No need to continue...You, again, are wrong

Pronunciation: 'kath-lik, 'ka-th&-

Function: adjective

Etymology: Middle English catholik, from Middle French & Late Latin; Middle French catholique, from Late Latin catholicus, from Greek katholikos universal, general, from katholou in general, from kata by + holos whole -- more at CATA-, SAFE

1 a often capitalized : of, relating to, or forming the church universal b often capitalized : of, relating to, or forming the ancient undivided Christian church or a church claiming historical continuity from it c capitalized : ROMAN CATHOLIC

2 : COMPREHENSIVE, UNIVERSAL; especially : broad in sympathies, tastes, or interests <a catholic taste in music>

coffee · June 12, 2007

.

There are certain consistencies with those who are steeped in heresy, as is seen from fourvetta, who has to make up his own "scripture" in order to believe his own false teachings:

Here is the Nicene Creed as established by coffee's church fathers, who by the way are not mine. Coffee must and without a doubt believe every word or be anathematized by his church fathers and elders. .

We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen."

Notice the words (I believe in the) one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

Which is not the same church established by Christ's Apostles. Apostle Paul warned the church that ravenous wolves would come up out from among you which will not spare the flock. That they would preach another Gospel, one that they did not preach.

Not only are the majority of Rudometkinites Biblically illiterate, but most are ignorant of the history of the Christian Church, as fourvetta has demonstrated so appropriately.

In 325, when the First Ecumenical Council convened in Nicea, there was no Vatican, and no Pope. The significance of this is that the historical Roman Catholic Church, as it exists today, had not yet come into being, and was not yet the worldwide denomination that is has since become. As Seeking Truth correctly pointed out, the term "catholic", as it was applied to the Nicene Creed, WAS NOT in any way a reference to the eventual, historical Roman Catholic Church.

In the context of the Nicene Creed, the term simply meant "universal", which was in reference to the diverse areas and regions from which those who were in attendance at the First Ecumenical Council in Nicea, came. In other words, while living miles apart from each other, these early Church fathers were equal members of the same One universal, or "catholic", Church of the Lord Jesus Christ, which at that time, had been in existence for only 300 years, and was much smaller in terms of physical "head count", than what exists today.

Amongst themselves, the Rudometkinites have turned the word "catholic" into a negative term, based completely on Rudometkin's objections to the authority that the Russian Greek Orthodox Church had properly exercised over him, when they intervened and effectively ended Rudometkin's attempts to perpetuate his own heresies among the Russian peasant people at that time in Southern Russia.

In the process, the Orthodox Church accurately identified Rudometkin as the heretic that he was, and he was put in prison, where he belonged, and from where, if the claims that he had been making about himself were indeed true, it would not make a difference anyway, since even the Russian authorities knew that if Rudometkin's claims were in fact true, that he was indeed the alleged NEW messiah, supposedly "god of the faithful" on earth over his followers there in Nikitino, there was no prison anywhere on the face of the earth that could or would contain him anyway, and if the crude Russian prisons were effectively able to confine Rudometkin and contain him until his death, then Rudometkin must not have been the "king of spirits" that he thought he was.

All one needs to do is read what is written in the Bible, in Acts 5:17-25 and in Acts 12:1-17, to see that the constraints of locked prison walls and chains on prisoners are no match for God.

After all, what kind of so-called "king" rules his subjects from the confines of prison walls, sniveling like a wimp the entire time about the authority of the Ecumenical Councils, yet not having any power to do anything about it.

According to the Scriptures, and the testimony of eyewitnesses, the Lord Jesus Christ, Who is Lord, Master, Savior and King, in fact God Himself in the flesh, for those who are true followers of Him, is the only King Who, after being buried in a grave, which is a prison from which no inhabitants ever escape on their own, actually resurrected from the dead and lives today.

He is alive today, and He reigns from His throne in heaven, where He ascended to in front of eyewitnesses, and from where He will return to earth to gather His followers, in the same way that He was taken up to heaven

.

seeking_truth_1 · June 12, 2007

Another twist for FV

Did you not read?

I said that catholic (lowercase C) has NOTHING to do with the Catholic Church yet you can read that and get a 180 degree opposite interpretation

catholic is a word not a denomination

READ what I stated

Nice try

fourvetta · June 12, 2007

Please do notice the word catholic (Not Capitalized)

It has nothing to do with the Catholic Church

catholic (lower case) simply means whole or comprehensive

You really should do your research while you continue to jump to wrong conclusions

No need to continue...You, again, are wrong

I do know the difference between the two. And you are correct. The catholic religion (lower case) is the one universal church of the anti-christ.

The seven storied tower of confusion rules them all.

Just as during the tower of Babel, God confused them by separating their language. During the councils, all of them got confused over the Word of God with their own free will thinking.

The Babylonian harlot sits upon the seven headed beast. On her fore head is written the word, Mystery. The harlot is the catholic (lower case) or one universal false christian faith, which base their beliefs of the seven ecumenical councils.

The seven heads are also the seven sacraments of the catholic (lower case) church.

The first sacrament of the catholic (lower case) church or the entrance to the church is Water Baptism. Which follows the confession of the Nicene Creed.

Have you got dunked lately?

fourvetta · June 12, 2007

Not only are the majority of Rudometkinites Biblically illiterate, but most are ignorant of the history of the Christian Church, as fourvetta has demonstrated so appropriately.

In 325, when the First Ecumenical Council convened in Nicea, there was no Vatican, and no Pope. The significance of this is that the historical Roman Catholic Church, as it exists today, had not yet come into being, and was not yet the worldwide denomination that is has since become. As Seeking Truth correctly pointed out, the term "catholic", as it was applied to the Nicene Creed, WAS NOT in any way a reference to the eventual, historical Roman Catholic Church.

In the context of the Nicene Creed, the term simply meant "universal", which was in reference to the diverse areas and regions from which those who were in attendance at the First Ecumenical Council in Nicea, came. In other words, while living miles apart from each other, these early Church fathers were equal members of the same One universal, or "catholic", Church of the Lord Jesus Christ, which at that time, had been in existence for only 300 years, and was much smaller in terms of physical "head count", than what exists today.

Amongst themselves, the Rudometkinites have turned the word "catholic" into a negative term, based completely on Rudometkin's objections to the authority that the Russian Greek Orthodox Church had properly exercised over him, when they intervened and effectively ended Rudometkin's attempts to perpetuate his own heresies among the Russian peasant people at that time in Southern Russia.

In the process, the Orthodox Church accurately identified Rudometkin as the heretic that he was, and he was put in prison, where he belonged, and from where, if the claims that he had been making about himself were indeed true, it would not make a difference anyway, since even the Russian authorities knew that if Rudometkin's claims were in fact true, that he was indeed the alleged NEW messiah, supposedly "god of the faithful" on earth over his followers there in Nikitino, there was no prison anywhere on the face of the earth that could or would contain him anyway, and if the crude Russian prisons were effectively able to confine Rudometkin and contain him until his death, then Rudometkin must not have been the "king of spirits" that he thought he was.

All one needs to do is read what is written in the Bible, in Acts 5:17-25 and in Acts 12:1-17, to see that the constraints of locked prison walls and chains on prisoners are no match for God.

After all, what kind of so-called "king" rules his subjects from the confines of prison walls, sniveling like a wimp the entire time about the authority of the Ecumenical Councils, yet not having any power to do anything about it.

According to the Scriptures, and the testimony of eyewitnesses, the Lord Jesus Christ, Who is Lord, Master, Savior and King, in fact God Himself in the flesh, for those who are true followers of Him, is the only King Who, after being buried in a grave, which is a prison from which no inhabitants ever escape on their own, actually resurrected from the dead and lives today.

He is alive today, and He reigns from His throne in heaven, where He ascended to in front of eyewitnesses, and from where He will return to earth to gather His followers, in the same way that He was taken up to heaven

.

The first ecumenical council was the birth of the seven headed beast upon which all false christian faiths base their beliefs. Written on his neck is His name of 666. MGR book 3 article 19

The final beast, the eighth from the seventh is already in place. He shall lead all believers of the anti christ to perdition, the battle of Armageddon.

The harlot will fall from the beast and the ten kings will hate the whore and burn her with fire. Compelling all those who dwell in the earth to worship the first beast under the threat of death.

All of you will be compelled to serve the anti-christ in his temple as his priests and clergy.

Because you did not believe the truth, but loved a lie.

coffee · June 13, 2007

.

Regarding:

Notice the words (I believe in the) one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

Which is not the same church established by Christ's Apostles.

Apostle Paul warned the church that ravenous wolves would come up out from among you which will not spare the flock.

That they would preach another Gospel, one that they did not preach.

The historical record is clear, without a doubt, that the very Church which was established by the Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ, and which is the same "one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church" that is mentioned in the Nicene Creed, believed, and in fact were convinced of the one foundational Scriptural truth, that the Lord Jesus Christ was indeed our Creator God, Who had come from heaven to earth, to be incarnate in the human being body of Jesus of Nazareth, to be born on earth in physical human flesh, as the only begotten Son of God.

Based on the writings of the Apostle Paul in the Holy Scriptures, from manuscripts that have been preserved from as early as the second century AD, the Apostle Paul taught this Biblical truth openly to those he was an overseer of.

What the First Ecumenical Council in Nicea did was to follow the very exhortation and warning from the Apostle Paul, by demanding from Arius an explanation for his never-before-heard-of theory about the identity of the Lord Jesus Christ, and correctly follow the guidelines established by the Apostle Paul in the Scriptures, to make the proper determination that Arius and his followers were these very "ravenous wolves" that the Apostle Paul had referred to and had warned about, and these elders and Church leaders were able to correctly identify Arius's never-before-heard-of-in-the-history-of-the-early-Christian-Church theory, as heresy, as well as those who prescribed to it, as heretics.

Thank God for the diligence of these early Church fathers to rid the Church of the evil of Arius's un-Biblical and extra-Biblical heresy.

If only our Molokan elders and church leaders had the same conscience towards God, and the same backbone as these early Church elders and leaders who were in attendance at the First Ecumenical Council in Nicea, to devote the same such scrutiny towards Rudometkin and his heretical writings in the Spirit and Life book, our Molokan brotherhood today would not be in the mess that it is.

.

fourvetta · June 13, 2007

.

Regarding:

Notice the words (I believe in the) one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

Which is not the same church established by Christ's Apostles.

Apostle Paul warned the church that ravenous wolves would come up out from among you which will not spare the flock.

That they would preach another Gospel, one that they did not preach.

The historical record is clear, without a doubt, that the very Church which was established by the Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ, and which is the same "one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church" that is mentioned in the Nicene Creed, believed, and in fact were convinced of the one foundational Scriptural truth, that the Lord Jesus Christ was indeed our Creator God, Who had come from heaven to earth, to be incarnate in the human being body of Jesus of Nazareth, to be born on earth in physical human flesh, as the only begotten Son of God.

Based on the writings of the Apostle Paul in the Holy Scriptures, from manuscripts that have been preserved from as early as the second century AD, the Apostle Paul taught this Biblical truth openly to those he was an overseer of.

What the First Ecumenical Council in Nicea did was to follow the very exhortation and warning from the Apostle Paul, by demanding from Arius an explanation for his never-before-heard-of theory about the identity of the Lord Jesus Christ, and correctly follow the guidelines established by the Apostle Paul in the Scriptures, to make the proper determination that Arius and his followers were these very "ravenous wolves" that the Apostle Paul had referred to and had warned about, and these elders and Church leaders were able to correctly identify Arius's never-before-heard-of-in-the-history-of-the-early-Christian-Church theory, as heresy, as well as those who prescribed to it, as heretics.

Thank God for the diligence of these early Church fathers to rid the Church of the evil of Arius's un-Biblical and extra-Biblical heresy.

If only our Molokan elders and church leaders had the same conscience towards God, and the same backbone as these early Church elders and leaders who were in attendance at the First Ecumenical Council in Nicea, to devote the same such scrutiny towards Rudometkin and his heretical writings in the Spirit and Life book, our Molokan brotherhood today would not be in the mess that it is.

.

Say you would say, Anathema to anyone who does not adhere to and abide in the principles established by the first ecumenical councils?

Being that you say the first is holy, the rest are also holy?

coffee · June 13, 2007

.

There is no other way to say it....the epitome of vanity, arrogance and stupidity....what a trinity among the Rudometkinites:

The first sacrament of the catholic (lower case) church or the entrance to the church is Water Baptism. Which follows the confession of the Nicene Creed.

Have you got dunked lately?

The confession of the Nicene Creed was an attempt to formalize and summarize, to the best of their ability, in written form, what the early Apostolic Christian Church elders and leaders, the "one holy, catholic [universal] apostolic" church that had been handed down from the very Apostles and Disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, professed as their religious belief system, what was the foundation for the profession of their faith in God, and what they believed about the Lord Jesus Christ.

The truth about these men, that they were not as eloquent with words, as perhaps an attorney or a politician, or public relations manager might be, is reflected in the fact that it took them several years and several Ecumenical Councils later to refine the language so that they could eventually be totally comfortable, as a consensus in agreement, that the final version of the Creed accurately put into words what represented the confession of faith that had been handed down to them from the Lord Jesus Christ's own Apostles and Disciples.

Baptism did not begin with the First Ecumenical Council in Nicea. The practice of water baptism is Biblical, and as we can see from the following excerpts from the Scriptures, water baptism was not only practiced by those who were the first to become followers of the Lord Jesus Christ, but the Apostles and the Disciples of Christ themselves were instructed and commanded by Jesus Himself to baptize in water those who were eventually to become followers of Him, based on the evangelical efforts of those very ambassadors who Jesus had sent out into the world, when He gave them what has become known as The Great Commission.

22 After this Jesus and his disciples went into the Judean countryside, and he remained there with them and was baptizing.

23 John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because water was plentiful there, and people were coming and being baptized

24 (for John had not yet been put in prison).

25 Now a discussion arose between some of John's disciples and a Jew over purification.

26 And they came to John and said to him, "Rabbi, he who was with you across the Jordan, to whom you bore witness”look, he is baptizing, and all are going to him."

27 John answered, "A person cannot receive even one thing unless it is given him from heaven.

28 You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, 'I am not the Christ, but I have been sent before him.'

29 The one who has the bride is the bridegroom. The friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom's voice. Therefore this joy of mine is now complete.

30 He must increase, but I must decrease."

(John 3:22-30)

The Biblical text is clear that Jesus Himself approved of water baptism, and that his disciples were given the task of baptizing those who would come to faith, those who would come to repent of their sins and receive Jesus Christ into their life as Lord and Savior.

16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them.

17 And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted.

18 And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.

(Matthew 28:16-20)

One of the "commands" that Jesus had given His Disciples was the command to "baptize", and the only method of baptism that Jesus had previously given to His chosen ones was water baptism.

42 And he commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one appointed by God to be judge of the living and the dead.

43 To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name."

44 While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word.

45 And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles.

46 For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared,

47 "Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"

48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.

(Acts 10:42-48)

The Rudometkinites refer to baptism as if it is a deadly sin that is going to send a person to hell, as if it is somehow an offense to God, as if to be baptized in water is in the same category somehow as committing adultery and fornication, or some other objectionable sin against God.

The reason that water baptism was included in the Nicene Creed is because it is something that was commanded by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and because these men who had convened at the First Ecumenical Council in Nicea were the descendants of the very hand picked elders and leaders of the first century Christian Church, who had previously been hand picked by the Apostles and Disciples of Jesus Christ, Who Himself had hand picked the very Apostles and Disciples themselves, these early Church elders and leaders felt obligated to be obedient to the very command of the One in Whom they had placed their faith, the One Who had come down from heaven to earth, to become flesh, to be crucified and die on their behalf, to save them from their sins and grant them eternal life together with Him.

.

fourvetta · June 15, 2007

The reason that water baptism was included in the Nicene Creed is because it is something that was commanded by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and because these men who had convened at the First Ecumenical Council in Nicea were the descendants of the very hand picked elders and leaders of the first century Christian Church, who had previously been hand picked by the Apostles and Disciples of Jesus Christ, Who Himself had hand picked the very Apostles and Disciples themselves, these early Church elders and leaders felt obligated to be obedient to the very command of the One in Whom they had placed their faith, the One Who had come down from heaven to earth, to become flesh, to be crucified and die on their behalf, to save them from their sins and grant them eternal life together with Him.

.

Yes, Ð´ÑÐ´Ñ Ð²ÑÐµ Ð·Ð½Ð°ÐµÑ‚ it was commanded by Christ. As you quoted, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.

To baptize someone is to teach someone.

But as second jews, without water one cannot be made clean. Water is only for the cleansing of the outer body of dirt and odor. MGR book 2 articles 15 & 16

This was handed from the jews to the catholic and Catholic faiths.

The dragon handed its authority and its seat to the beast.

You are teaching the baptism of John and not of Christ.

The baptism of the Lord Jesus Christ is by the Holy Spirit and fire, which cleanses the soul.

Edited June 15, 2007 by fourvetta

fourvetta · June 16, 2007

.

There is no other way to say it....the epitome of vanity, arrogance and stupidity....what a trinity among the Rudometkinites:

Close, but not quite.

A quadinity exists among the book only, so called christian.

First Ignorance. Followed by Delusion, Blindness, and Deafness. MGR book 5 article 16 and book 6 article 8:8

By these four things, the false christian is made into a soulless statue who compel all to worship him. He is the image of the first beast.

fourvetta · June 16, 2007

In the process, the Orthodox Church accurately identified Rudometkin as the heretic that he was, and he was put in prison, where he belonged, and from where, if the claims that he had been making about himself were indeed true, it would not make a difference anyway, since even the Russian authorities knew that if Rudometkin's claims were in fact true, that he was indeed the alleged NEW messiah, supposedly "god of the faithful" on earth over his followers there in Nikitino, there was no prison anywhere on the face of the earth that could or would contain him anyway, and if the crude Russian prisons were effectively able to confine Rudometkin and contain him until his death, then Rudometkin must not have been the "king of spirits" that he thought he was.

All one needs to do is read what is written in the Bible, in Acts 5:17-25 and in Acts 12:1-17, to see that the constraints of locked prison walls and chains on prisoners are no match for God.

After all, what kind of so-called "king" rules his subjects from the confines of prison walls, sniveling like a wimp the entire time about the authority of the Ecumenical Councils, yet not having any power to do anything about it.

Victory does not come by strength but by weakness.

The Spirit of Truth rules today among the true believers.

You have heard the phrase, the pen is mightier than the sword?

The Preacher said;

13 This wisdom I have also seen under the sun, and it seemed great to me:

14 There was a little city with few men in it; and a great king came against it, besieged it, and built great snares around it.

15 Now there was found in it a poor wise man, and he by his wisdom delivered the city. Yet no one remembered that same poor man.

16 Then I said:" Wisdom is better than strength. Nevertheless the poor man`s wisdom is despised, And his words are not heard.

17 Words of the wise, spoken quietly, should be heard Rather than the shout of a ruler of fools.

18 Wisdom is better than weapons of war; But one sinner destroys much good."

lastinline · June 16, 2007

In the process, the Orthodox Church accurately identified Rudometkin as the heretic that he was, and he was put in prison, where he belonged, and from where, if the claims that he had been making about himself were indeed true, it would not make a difference anyway, since even the Russian authorities knew that if Rudometkin's claims were in fact true, that he was indeed the alleged NEW messiah, supposedly "god of the faithful" on earth over his followers there in Nikitino, there was no prison anywhere on the face of the earth that could or would contain him anyway, and if the crude Russian prisons were effectively able to confine Rudometkin and contain him until his death, then Rudometkin must not have been the "king of spirits" that he thought he was.

All one needs to do is read what is written in the Bible, in Acts 5:17-25 and in Acts 12:1-17, to see that the constraints of locked prison walls and chains on prisoners are no match for God.

After all, what kind of so-called "king" rules his subjects from the confines of prison walls, sniveling like a wimp the entire time about the authority of the Ecumenical Councils, yet not having any power to do anything about it.

Victory does not come by strength but by weakness.

The Spirit of Truth rules today among the true believers.

You have heard the phrase, the pen is mightier than the sword?

The Preacher said;

13 This wisdom I have also seen under the sun, and it seemed great to me:

14 There was a little city with few men in it; and a great king came against it, besieged it, and built great snares around it.

15 Now there was found in it a poor wise man, and he by his wisdom delivered the city. Yet no one remembered that same poor man.

16 Then I said:" Wisdom is better than strength. Nevertheless the poor man`s wisdom is despised, And his words are not heard.

17 Words of the wise, spoken quietly, should be heard Rather than the shout of a ruler of fools.

18 Wisdom is better than weapons of war; But one sinner destroys much good."

The spirit of truth that you speak of aka "the great deceiver" has gotten his reward for leading astray those who choose to follow him. He has been banished to where ALL heretics go!

It is no accident that God placed this statement and/or warning in Revelations;

Rev 22:15 Outside the city are the dogs-the sorcerers, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idol worshipers, and all who love to live a lie.

Rev 22:16 "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this message for the churches. I am both the source of David and the heir to his throne. I am the bright morning star."

Rev 22:17 The Spirit and the bride say, "Come." Let each one who hears them say, "Come." Let the thirsty ones come-anyone who wants to. Let them come and drink the water of life without charge.

Rev 22:18 And I solemnly declare to everyone who hears the prophetic words of this book: If anyone adds anything to what is written here, God will add to that person the plagues described in this book.

Rev 22:19 And if anyone removes any of the words of this prophetic book, God will remove that person's share in the tree of life and in the holy city that are described in this book. NLT

ÐžÑ‚ÐºÑ€Ð¾Ð²ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ðµ Ð˜Ð¾Ð°Ð½Ð½Ð° 22

lastinline (where the view is great!)

coffee · June 16, 2007

.

As unpleasant as it is sometimes, I truly appreciate it whenever the Rudometkinites like fourvetta display the very "spirit" and the "attitude" that is part and parcel of their interaction with others.

When confronted with historical and Biblical truth, instead of acknowledging that which he is in error about, the standard operating procedure for the stereotypical Rudometkinite is to ignore that which is fact, and simply continue with business as usual, with stiff-necked arrogance, typically with some kind of sarcastic or irreverent smart-aleck remark, following the pattern of his elders before him, in fact following the very behavior pattern of his ultimate hero and spiritual leader, Rudometkin himself.

The track record of the Rudometkinites is such that what they are today, they typically remain the same as they get older. Unless fourvetta breaks the mold that has been set for him by his Rudometkinite predecessors, the rude and childlike smart aleck that he is today, at 45 years of age, he is going to be the same arrogant and disrespectful smart aleck when he is an old man, at 75 years of age.

Yes, Ð´ÑÐ´Ñ Ð²ÑÐµ Ð·Ð½Ð°ÐµÑ‚ it was commanded by Christ. As you quoted, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.

To baptize someone is to teach someone.

This was handed from the jews to the catholic and Catholic faiths.

The dragon handed its authority and its seat to the beast.

You are teaching the baptism of John and not of Christ.

The baptism of the Lord Jesus Christ is by the Holy Spirit and fire, which cleanses the soul.

What utter foolishness! To baptize someone is to teach someone? What a most ignorant statement!

The baptism of John and not of Christ?

No........to baptize someone, especially as it applies to the command that Jesus gave His Apostles, when He instructed them to go out into all the world and make disciples of all nations, is to immerse someone in water.

According to the instruction that the Disciples received from the Lord, this baptism was to be done in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. According to early Church history, and Church tradition, as well as from reading specific excerpts from the Scriptures, this baptism of new believers was always done in water, in a river or pool of water, as it is written:

5 Philip went down to the city of Samaria and proclaimed to them the Christ.

12 But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John,

15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit,

16 for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

26 Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, "Rise and go toward the south to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza." This is a desert place.

27 And he rose and went. And there was an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure. He had come to Jerusalem to worship

28 and was returning, seated in his chariot, and he was reading the prophet Isaiah.

29 And the Spirit said to Philip, "Go over and join this chariot."

30 So Philip ran to him and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and asked, "Do you understand what you are reading?"

31 And he said, "How can I, unless someone guides me?" And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

32 Now the passage of the Scripture that he was reading was this:

"Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter and like a lamb before its shearer is silent, so he opens not his mouth.

33 In his humiliation justice was denied him. Who can describe his generation? For his life is taken away from the earth."

34 And the eunuch said to Philip, "About whom, I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?"

35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus.

36 And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, "See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?"

38 And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.

39 And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing.

(Acts 8:4-40)

Quite obviously, Philip first "taught" the Ethiopian eunuch about the Lord Jesus Christ and His gift of grace, of salvation and eternal life, and then Philip "baptized" the man. Contrary to the foolish and ignorant statement made by fourvetta, the Biblical pattern for baptism is immersion in water, and fourvetta's statement that "To baptize someone is to teach someone" is ridiculous stupidity.

This immersion in water is the very baptism that the Lord Jesus Christ had instructed His Apostles and Disciples to do to new believers, which is why "baptism" is included in the Nicene Creed that fourvetta and the Rudometkinites have been taught to view as something that is supposedly evil somehow.

As it applies to someone who becomes a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ, baptism is a symbolic act on the part of a new believer, as a demonstration that they have indeed repented of their sins, and have accepted the death of the Lord Jesus Christ as the ONLY WAY mankind has of ever being truly "cleansed", to be washed clean.

This "cleansing", which baptism in water is only symbolic of, is the only hope mankind has of ever being redeemed to God, by the one and only acceptable sacrifice and gift of grace that could ever be good enough to pay the debt that each person indeed owes for sin and disobedience against a Holy God, that debt being death and eternal separation from God after our life in the body here on earth has ended.

As we can read in the Biblical account of Philip with the Ethiopian Eunuch, baptism is a voluntary act, done willingly by the new believer as a demonstration that by accepting the Lord Jesus Christ, the ONE Who is described in the Holy Scriptures, the One Who is our Creator God Who has come from heaven to dwell on earth in human flesh, and that by believing in Him, the new believer has been washed of all sins and is saved unto eternal life together with Him, when the Lord eventually returns to gather His followers and takes them to be with Him forever in His Kindom, in heaven.

When the Disciples and the elders and leaders of the early Christian Church baptized new believers, they were being obedient to the specific instruction that they had originally received from the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. Being that Jesus is the very One Who commanded His Apostles and Disciples to perform this baptism on all new believers in Him, this baptism is the baptism of Christ, not of John.

Those elders and leaders of the various Christian Churches who had convened at the First Ecumenical Council in Nicea were not making something up on their own. They were not instituting something "new". Even though they considered themselves all to be fellow brothers in the Lord Jesus Christ equally, and in that way, all members and part of the One Holy universal (catholic) apostolic Church, they were not starting any new religion, Roman Catholic or otherwise.

History is clear that it was Arius who was the one who was attempting to introduce something "new" in 319 AD, which was his theory that Jesus was not God in the flesh, and because this new, never-before-heard-of hypothesis contradicted both the established Scriptural text, as well as the very teachings that had been handed down to the early Christian Church fathers by the Apostles and Disciples of Jesus Himself, specifically about God having become human flesh in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, the Church elders and leaders accurately and properly identified what Arius was attempting to introduce to the Church as heresy, which made Arius and his followers and sympathizers heretics against God, which they were.

From the Bible:

42 And he commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one appointed by God to be judge of the living and the dead.

43 To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name."

44 While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word.

45 And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles.

46 For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared,

47 "Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"

48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.

(Acts 10:42-48)

Obviously, as we can read in the above Biblical account, the new believers mentioned above first received the Holy Spirit when they accepted the Gospel message about the Lord Jesus Christ, and salvation and eternal life through Him, and then they were baptized, in water, in the name of Jesus, in the baptism of Christ, not the baptism of John.

.

fourvetta · June 16, 2007

The spirit of truth that you speak of aka "the great deceiver" has gotten his reward for leading astray those who choose to follow him. He has been banished to where ALL heretics go!

It is no accident that God placed this statement and/or warning in Revelations;

Rev 22:15 Outside the city are the dogs-the sorcerers, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idol worshipers, and all who love to live a lie.

Rev 22:16 "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this message for the churches. I am both the source of David and the heir to his throne. I am the bright morning star."

Rev 22:17 The Spirit and the bride say, "Come." Let each one who hears them say, "Come." Let the thirsty ones come-anyone who wants to. Let them come and drink the water of life without charge.

Rev 22:18 And I solemnly declare to everyone who hears the prophetic words of this book: If anyone adds anything to what is written here, God will add to that person the plagues described in this book.

Rev 22:19 And if anyone removes any of the words of this prophetic book, God will remove that person's share in the tree of life and in the holy city that are described in this book. NLT

My case and point. Thanks for volunteering!

Nevertheless the poor man`s wisdom is despised, And his words are not heard.

You missed something.

Rev 22:19 And if anyone removes any of the words of this prophetic book, God will remove that person's share in the tree of life and in the holy city that are described in this book.

Written upon the person who does not follow the Spirit of Truth are the words;

Remember Lot's wife! This fool chose not to follow the Spirit of Truth who is the builder of Zion. MGR book 8 article 21: 4-7

The same Holy City in Revelations 22:9

One MUST enter the Holy City through its Gates of Zion. Who is the King of Spirits!

Outside the city are the dogs, the sorcerers, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idol worshipers, and all who love to live a lie. And also the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile .

fourvetta · June 16, 2007

What utter foolishness! To baptize someone is to teach someone? What a most ignorant statement!

The baptism of John and not of Christ?

No........to baptize someone, especially as it applies to the command that Jesus gave His Apostles, when He instructed them to go out into all the world and make disciples of all nations, is to immerse someone in water.

According to the instruction that the Disciples received from the Lord, this baptism was to be done in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. According to early Church history, and Church tradition, as well as from reading specific excerpts from the Scriptures, this baptism of new believers was always done in water, in a river or pool of water, as it is written:

First of all, respect is a privilege earned and not demanded.

There are Elders that are to be respected for their wisdom. And there are Olders that are respected because of their age.

You are simply.... Older. And I respect that.

But you have been disrespectful to our faith, forefathers and elders for longgggg time. You will not get any respect from me.

Paul tells us;

19 For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."

20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

The wise man, the scholar and the philosopher of this world are not found in the kingdom of God.

Apostle Paul tells us that Israel was taught by Moses into the law given to him on the Mount Sinai.

1 For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea.

2 They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.

3 They all ate the same spiritual food

4 drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.

John the Baptist, "I John baptize you with water unto repentance. He who comes after me is greater than me. He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire."

At that point in time it was to late for the jews to accept Christ. If they were not first taught, excuse me baptized, by John.

3 After Christ's suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.

4 On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: "Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about.

5 For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit."

In Acts 2

38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off”for all whom the Lord our God will call."

40 With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, "Save yourselves from this corrupt generation."

41Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

Those who heard the message preached and believed were baptized. No water here.

Also in Acts 8

12 But when they believed Philip as he preached the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

13 Simon himself believed and was baptized. And he followed Philip everywhere, astonished by the great signs and miracles he saw.

14 When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them.

15 When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit,

16 because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.

17 Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

They believed the message that Philip was teaching. In verse 16 they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. They were taught of the name of Christ.

Again, no water.

Unless one is born again of the water and of the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

To put it simply. Water baptism is now Heresy. The first sacrament of the Catholic church, the entrance into their faith.

coffee · June 16, 2007

.

Regarding:

First of all, respect is a privilege earned and not demanded.

There are Elders that are to be respected for their wisdom.

And there are Olders that are respected because of their age.

You are simply.... Older. And I respect that.

But you have been disrespectful to our faith, forefathers and elders for longgggg time.

You will not get any respect from me.

Let us get one thing out of the way, so that there is no potential for further misunderstanding. What the Rudometkinites think in terms of "respect", or lack of it, should never be of concern to any Bible based Molokan Christian. No disrespect intended towards fourvetta, but to gain or "earn" the "respect" of any extra-Biblical Rudometkinite, least of all fourvetta, is not something to aspire to, not for anyone who is a true follower of the Lord Jesus Christ.

I believe Scripture is pretty specific, that the Rudometkinites have fallen under the judgment of what is written in the Bible:

9 The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders,

10 and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.

11 Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false,

12 in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. (2 Thessalonians 2:9-11)

As one of our Molokan friends has reminded me of from time to time, our ministry is to be focused on, and directed towards, those who are in jeopardy of possibly being influenced to be "sympathetic" to the heresy of the Spirit and Life book, whether because of intermarriage of their own fellow Molokan Christian family members with those who are Rudometkinites, or by some other way.

In my experience, the "spirit" of arrogance and irreverence is that which accompanies the Rudometkinites wherever they go, regardless of whom they interact with. Whether young or old, this trademark "attitude" is ever present among those who are the stereotypical Rudometkinites, and continues to be passed down from one generation to the next.

When my wife and I were active members of Freeway Church in Los Angeles, there were a number of Rudometkinites in the kitchen group that we were part of, and this same trademark sarcasm and disrespect of others, which is part and parcel of the Rudometkinite "spirit", was present in the Rudometkinite aura and personality of these men, from the oldest front row "elder", down to the youngest "brother", without fail.

After all this time, the Rudometkinites, as in this case with fourvetta, still do not seem to "get" it. Those who are our historical, Bible based Molokan Christian forefathers have at best tolerated the Rudometkinites, considering the fact that these individuals are led by a "spirit" that is not the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is He Who leads and guides those who are the true followers of the Lord Jesus Christ, whereas the "spirit" that leads the Rudometkinites is a new spirit, with a new pathway to whichever "spirit" happens to be Rudometkin's "god".

As can be seen from fourvetta's comments above, the Rudometkinites are sadly mistaken about the assumption they make, that they somehow are automatically included whenever anyone mentions the religious identity of "Molokan".

The truth is that fourvetta's "faith, forefathers and elders" are not the same as the faith of our original, historical Molokan Christian sect, nor are his Rudometkinite forefathers and elders the same as those who are our historical Bible-based Molokan Christian forefathers and elders.

We need only look to fourvetta's Clark Street upbringing, and to his immediate family and relatives, to see that although they share a common ethnic heritage with others today whose ancestry is also from Molokans who formerly lived in Russia, fourvetta seems oblivious to the fact that even though he apparently considers the members of the Clark Street congregation to have in common the same religious designation of "Molokan", they do not share the same belief system, nor are they in the same category of "Molokans", as the majority of the rest of today's Molokan brotherhood.

Although he participates here on the forums, fourvetta and his family do not consider themselves to be the same "Molokans" as the rest of those who are active in today's socio-religious Molokan community. The Clark Street congregations have segregated themselves from the rest of the other "Molokan" congregations in the current brotherhood.

Therefore, to hear fourvetta's complaint that someone has been "disrespectful to our faith, forefathers and elders for longgggg time" is to be taken in context. Fourvetta's "faith, forefathers and elders" are not, and have never been, the same "faith, forefathers and elders" as those Bible based Molokans Christians who have long rejected Rudometkin and the Spirit and Life book, from the very beginning.

In truth, fourvetta's "faith, forefathers and elders" are what Rudometkin himself identifies in his writings in the Spirit and Life book as "new israel", which is Rudometkin's own adaptation of the religious belief system known as Khlystovschina, which was handed down to Rudometkin by his own Khlysty forefathers.

.

coffee · June 17, 2007

.

Based on fourvetta's responses, it is doubtful that any of today's current crop of Rudometkinites are aware of the historical information that is available, especially as it applies to the practice of water baptism in the early Christian Church.

To put it simply. Water baptism is now Heresy. The first sacrament of the Catholic church, the entrance into their faith.

I am sure we can all agree that the man named Philip who is described in the Bible was never influenced by the historical Roman Catholic Church, or for that matter, any of the decisions that were ever made by the historical Ecumenical Councils.

In the Scriptural passage that is written in Acts 8:39-40, when Philip, the Disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ, baptized the Ethiopian Eunuch in water, are we to believe that Philip was practicing heresy, or that he had been supposedly practicing what fourvetta and the Rudometkinites claim, that water baptism is allegedly heresy?

The answer obviously is "No!"

In the Scripture that is later recorded in Acts 10:42-48, which describes a scenario that is not too dissimilar to the account of Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch, are we to believe that the Apostle Peter was practicing heresy, when he supervised the water baptism of new believers who had just been baptized with the Holy Spirit?

Again, the answer is "No", most certainly not!

If these new converts had just received the Holy Spirit, having been baptized with the Holy Spirit, in the same manner that occurred on the Day of Pentecost, why would the Apostle Peter then follow up with the command to baptize these new believers, in water?....

Especially since they had already been baptized with the Holy Spririt, Who as fourvetta has already reminded us, John the Baptist had foretold about, and Jesus had prepared his followers to receive?

The answer is that the "pattern" that was used by the Lord Jesus Christ, beginning with His own hand picked Apostles and Disciples, is that when addressing the masses, the Gospel message about salvation and eternal life through Jesus Christ was taught and preached to the crowds FIRST, after which an open invitation was then made to all who would accept and believe, for the people to come forward, confess and repent of their sins, at which time they were baptized, with water.

Even the Ethiopian Eunuch new the process, and when the Holy Spirit entered him, he stopped the chariot in which he and Philip were riding, in response to the Holy Spirit, and asked Philip to baptize him, in water.

The "formula" that the Apostle Peter used in the account of the Gentile converts in Acts 10:42-48, is exactly the same chronology of events that took place earlier, on the Day of Pentecost, as it is written in the Bible, in Acts 2:1-41.

Those who heard the message preached and believed were baptized. No water here.

They believed the message that Philip was teaching. In verse 16 they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. They were taught of the name of Christ.

Again, no water.

Unless one is born again of the water and of the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

According to early Church tradition, the Apostle Peter's supervision of the "method" of baptism was the same in both instances, with the use of water as a symbolic representation of cleansing.

The truth is that the Biblical text is not thorough enough in the passage in Acts 2:41, to let us know whether or not water was indeed used in the baptism of the three thousand individuals on that Day of Pentecost, since water is not specifically mentioned, nor is a thorough description of everything that transpired on that day given in the text.

Nor is there sufficient information written in the Scriptural text in Acts 8:12-16, to determine whether or not Philip had used water to baptize the men and women, and the man named Simon, and the Samaritans who received the Holy Spirit, for that very reason.

However, if we use fourvetta's theory, that the word "baptism" is purportedly a so-called synonym for the term "to teach", we would then have to read the key Scriptures that he quoted as follows:

From Acts 2:38-41, "the message" according to fourvetta:

And Peter said to them, "Repent and be taught, every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

This statement is being made right after the Apostle Peter had just finished "teaching" the people about the Lord Jesus Christ, after they had already accepted and believed Peter's "teaching". In other words, they had already "been taught". Why would the Apostle Peter be telling them that they needed to "repent and be taught"?

From Acts 8:12-16, "the message" according to fourvetta:

But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were taught, both men and women.

Once again, this statement is being made after Philip has already "taught" these men and women, after these men and women have already believed Philip's "teaching".

Therefore, we have to refer to other Scriptural text, such as the one recorded later, in Acts 10:42-48, to the help us understand the pattern that was used by the Apostles of Jesus.

Or, we can refer to historical information that is available, to help understand the method used by the early Church, as it pertains to "baptism".

The Didache, a Syrian liturgical manual that was widely circulated among the early churches in the first few centuries of Christianity, is perhaps the earliest Christian writing outside of the New Testament.

The Didache was written around A.D. 70 and, although there has never been an attempt by any of the historians to imply that it is in any way equal to the recorded Scriptures, as being inspired or "God breathed", it is a strong witness to the early Church sacraments that were practiced by Christians in the apostolic Church of the first centuries, predating the very first of the Ecumenical Councils by almost three hundred years.

It is the first "church manual", with composite authorship, to have survived from early Christianity. Literally, it is identified as The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. It includes instructions on how to baptize, when to fast, what to pray, and how to appoint community leaders, among other things.

In its seventh chapter, the following is written in the Didache, which was written 255 years prior to the First Ecumenical Council in Nicea:

"Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner:

Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river].

If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm.

If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head [of the new believer] in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Before the baptism, moreover, the one who baptizes and the one being baptized must fast, and any others who can.

And you must tell the one being baptized to fast for one or two days beforehand."

These instructions in the Didache were composed either during the time when some of Christ's initial Apostles and Disciples were still alive, quite obviously as is the case of the Apostle John, or during the next generation of Christians, and they represent an already established Church custom, as it applies to the practice of "baptism".

That the early Church permitted pouring instead of immersion in administering baptism, is demonstrated by the Didache. The testimony of the Didache is verified by other early Christian writings as well.

Hippolytus of Rome, wrote the following in 215 AD, which was 110 years prior to the First Ecumenical Council in Nicea:

"When they come to the water, the water shall be pure and flowing, that is, the water of a spring or a flowing body of water.

If water is scarce, whether as a constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available.

The children shall be baptized first. All of the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer.

If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family.

After this, the men will be baptized. Finally, the women, after they have unbound their hair, and removed their jewelry.

No one shall take any foreign object with themselves down into the water." (The Apostolic Tradition, 21)

From the writings of Tertullian, who wrote in 206 AD, 119 years previous to the First Ecumenical Council in Nicea:

A treatise on our sacrament of water, by which the sins of our earlier blindness are washed away and we are released for eternal life will not be superfluous.....taking away death by the washing away of sins.

The guilt being removed, the penalty, of course, is also removed...

Baptism is itself a corporal act by which we are plunged in water, while its effect is spiritual, in that we are freed from sins.

Jesus gave as his last command that they should immerse into the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, not into one person.

Therefore, all who believed were immersed. For we are immersed, not once but thrice, at the naming of every person of the Trinity."

(On Baptism 1:1; 5:6; 7:2)

From the writings of Justin Martyr, from the year 151 AD, 174 years prior to the First Ecumenical Council in Nicea:

And for this [rite of baptism] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training;

in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe;

he who leads to the laver [the baptismal where immersion into water takes place] the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone¦And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings.

And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Spirit, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, they then receive the washing with water.

For Christ also said, 'Except you be born of water and the Spirit, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven'."

(First Apology, 61)

Obviously, according to the Biblical record, as well as the historical record, baptism, as it was commanded by the Lord Jesus Christ, was an integral part of the evangelical ministry of the early Christian Church, which was established by the very Apostles and Disciples of Jesus.

According to both Biblical history, as well as the actual recorded history of the early Christian Church, baptism predated the First Ecumenical Council in Nicea by almost three full centuries, and contrary to what fourvetta and the Rudometkinites have been taught by their Rudometkinite predecessors, baptism is not some kind of alleged "heresy" that was instituted supposedly by some evil Roman Catholic Church Pope.

Baptism was included in the Nicene Creed because it was a regular part of what the Early Christian elders and Church leaders had been teaching their own individual congregations, and what had been practiced among the people since the days when the Lord Jesus Christ walked the earth.

.

fourvetta · June 17, 2007

Obviously, according to the Biblical record, as well as the historical record, baptism, as it was commanded by the Lord Jesus Christ, was an integral part of the evangelical ministry of the early Christian Church, which was established by the very Apostles and Disciples of Jesus.

According to both Biblical history, as well as the actual recorded history of the early Christian Church, baptism predated the First Ecumenical Council in Nicea by almost three full centuries, and contrary to what fourvetta and the Rudometkinites have been taught by their Rudometkinite predecessors, baptism is not some kind of alleged "heresy" that was instituted supposedly by some evil Roman Catholic Church Pope.

Baptism was included in the Nicene Creed because it was a regular part of what the Early Christian elders and Church leaders had been teaching their own individual congregations, and what had been practiced among the people since the days when the Lord Jesus Christ walked the earth.

.

Anyone with a computer and a internet connection can access this information. After all we are in the 21st century.

I think that you will find this interesting being that it comes from one of their own.

The Church formulated the Nicene Creed before it selected certain apostolic writings, called them the New Testament, and declared them to be Holy Scripture. Another way of looking at it is that God chose the people who were bound by the Nicene Creed to affirm the contents of the New Testament, thereby endorsing the theology of the creed. The Nicene Creed is therefore a reliable test of our interpretation of the New Testament. If we are at variance with the Nicene Creed, we are in error. So whoever denies the Trinity must also deny the New Testament, and whoever upholds the New Testament as Holy Scripture must also affirm the Trinity.

In the beginning, the Church did not have a formal creed, nor did it have a formal list of the books in the New Testament. Then it formulated the Nicene Creed to express its doctrines and to serve as a test of orthodox teaching. So for a while there was a Church with the Nicene Creed but, even though it used the books of the New Testament as Holy Scripture, it had no official statement saying that they were. After the Church was bound by the Nicene Creed, it made a formal list of the books in the New Testament. Therefore, whoever attempts to reconstruct the ancient Church with an official list of New Testament books but without the Nicene Creed is reconstructing an imaginary church that never existed. This doesn`t mean their church is invalid, it just means that it isn`t a historic reconstruction, because in any part of Church history in which there was an official list of New Testament books, the Nicene Creed was the official expression of faith and the final test of orthodoxy.

To put it more precisely, the Nicene Creed and the canon of the New Testament were formed together as part of the same process.

The following precautions should be taken while baptizing however;

Special Cautions

You can cause serious problems if you attempt to immerse infants or people who are dizzy, bedridden, infirm, or of advanced age, who have cardiac or respiratory problems, who are connected to medical equipment, who are unable to walk without assistance, or who might panic if they are immersed. In these cases, it is probably best to use pouring instead.

Take measures to avoid inadvertent nudity. Make sure that the baptismal clothing will not rise up in the water or become transparent when it is wet. Sew fishing weights in the bottom hems if necessary. You can purchase specially designed baptismal robes from your vestment supplier. They are made of white fabric that is opaque when wet and they have weights in the hems.

Some people involuntarily tense up or struggle. Since this is an involuntary reflex, neither you nor the candidate will find out about it until the last minute. As soon as the candidate shows signs of stiffening or struggling, bring them back upright, spread your feet apart, and make sure you have firm footing. Wait until the candidate is composed, then continue gently. You could also have the candidate bend their knees to go straight down while you rest your hand on their shoulder.

Have a dry rehearsal in advance. (A dry baptism in a sense)

Make sure the candidates know where the changing rooms are.

Make sure the candidates know the route between the changing rooms and the baptistery.

Tell the candidates that they should not rely on your strength to lift them up out of the water, especially if they are larger than you are. Tell them that they are supposed to lean back and stand up following your cues.

If the church is supplying the baptismal robes, the candidates need to bring a towel and a change of underwear.

Since they will be changing clothes twice in a hurry, they should wear simple clothes. It`s probably best to avoid panty hose, corsets, girdles, cufflinks, tie clasps, garters, suspenders, and anything that takes a long time or requires an assistant.

Remind everyone that their heads will be underwater. On that day they need a hairdo that they can restore quickly with a towel and a brush or comb. There won`t be time for elaborate blow-dryer tricks.

And finally make sure you fill in the name in the blanks.

Use the baptismal formula in your service book, but don`t speak while the candidate is under water.

Normally it goes like this: Before you immerse the candidate, you say, "_____, I baptize you in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." If there is any doubt about a previous baptism, you can say instead, "_____, if you are not already baptized, I baptize you in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

After all this, your sins are all erased and you are a new creation.

False christianity at its best. I will have none of it.

coffee · July 9, 2007

.

Regarding:

False christianity at its best. I will have none of it.

What is so ludicrous about the above statement is that fourvetta and those Rudometkinites who share fourvetta's beliefs are neither equipped nor qualified to know what true Christianity is, from that which is false. Their worldview is limited to the very deception of the heresy in which they exist.

The reason for this is that the basis of their own belief system has been founded on the heresy that is written in the Spirit and Life book, specifically those heresies that exalt Rudometkin to be the alleged "king of spirits", the so-called "god of the faithful on earth", and as the self-proclaimed leader of those followers who Rudometkin identified as his "new israel", which is simply a new, customized version of the historical Khlysty New Israel heresy.

In truth, among our current, native, American-born and native, English-speaking Molokan people, it is the Rudometkinites like fourvetta who comprise the pseudo-Christian element of today's population, and who have numbered themselves with what fourvetta refers to as "false Christianity".

As has been thoroughly demonstrated, the Rudometkinites have long been responsible for perpetuating lies among their compatriots about the role that the First Ecumenical Council in Nicea played in the history of the early Christian Church.

One of the heresies that the Rudometkinites promote, even today, alleges that "True Christianity" supposedly does not believe and teach that the Lord Jesus Christ is our Creator God, Who came down from heaven to live on earth, begotten "in the flesh" as the only begotten Son of God.

This is a shameless lie. Contrary to what the Rudometkinites continue to teach, the Scriptural record, as well as the historical record, clearly reveals that the opposite is in fact true.

The current crop of Rudometkinites continues to perpetuate and defend the heresy which was first introduced by the heretic Arius, who, namely in 319 A. D., for the very first time ever in the history of the Christian Church, claimed that the Lord Jesus Christ is supposedly a created being, who had a so-called beginning, and that there was allegedly a time when He "did not exist".

The Rudometkinites also zealously champion what amounts to a shameless false teaching, an erroneous myth, claiming that the First Ecumenical Council at Nicea was supposedly wrong about the important decision which they had made, that because Arius and his teachings about the Lord Jesus Christ was unBiblical and extra-Biblical, and ultimately false, Arius and his followers were thereafter identified as heretics.

The very fact that the Rudometkinites today stand in opposition to this historical truth about Arius and his heresy, which includes opposition to the very authority of the Scriptures that was used by the Nicean Ecumenical Council in order to make their determination about Arius, is both shameful and dishonest, not to mention the epitome of ignorance.

According to the historical record, the truth is that the established Christian Church, those who are the true followers of the Lord Jesus Christ, has always known that Jesus of Nazareth is the single individual in the history of mankind Who is God in human flesh, and that the heresy which Arius attempted to introduce to the Christian Church, in 319 AD, was correctly identified as heresy, and properly rebuked by those early Church fathers who we refer to as the Ecumenical Council of Nicea.

This historical gathering of godly men was comprised of experienced, time tested elders and leaders of the early Christian Church, including those who were already martyrs for their Bible based faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, who were led by the Holy Spirit to formulate and summarize, in written format, an accurate representation of what these early Church fathers had themselves already long been teaching their congregations for the first three centuries of the historical Christian Church, the same Church which had been established and handed down to them by those who are named in the Bible as the very Apostles and disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ.

What fourvetta has consistently demonstrated is that the Rudometkinites, like the heretic Arius before them, have historically ignored and dismissed certain specific truths which are recorded in the Holy Scriptures, that testify about the Lord Jesus Christ, especially the fact that He Who is our Creator God, Who is God in Spirit form, came down from heaven to dwell "in the flesh" on earth, in the only, one-of-a-kind, unique human being body of Jesus of Nazareth.

We who are today's Bible-based followers of the Lord Jesus Christ continue to affirm this same truth which was confirmed way back in the fourth century A. D., by the First Ecumenical Council in Nicea, who was led and guided by God the Holy Spirit to identify and reject the heresy of Arius and his followers.

From the Bible:

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it

and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. (1 Timothy 3:14-17)

In contrast to the wise council of the Scriptures, which the Nicean Ecumenical Council ultimately used to guide them in their rejection of the heresy that Arius attempted to introduce in 319 A. D., the Rudometkinites like fourvetta instead adhere to the following false teaching:

The letter and the book [referring to the Bible] kills, but it is the Spirit that gives life.

Christ proved it beyond the shadow of a doubt.

So one who lives according to the letter and the book [again referring to the Bible] is still dead.

(fourvetta, Post #14, Article 23, Commemoration of the Dead thread)

To put this into context, God tells us in His written Word, the Holy Scriptures, that the very writings in the Bible are to be read and referred to as the ultimate benchmark, in order to acquire wisdom unto salvation, through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Stated another way, this means that in order to receive Godly wisdom, in order to become wise unto salvation, in order to become a spiritual person, with God Himself, the very Holy Spirit dwelling inside of you, in order to become a child of God, trained in righteousness, competent and equipped for spiritual service to God, one must read and continuously refer to that which has been recorded in the Bible.

In contrast to this, the Rudometkinite heretics, as demonstrated by fourvetta, contend that the writings of the Scriptures lead to death, and that the "one who lives according" to what is written in the Bible is "still dead".

The Rudometkinites like to pat themselves on their backs, flattering themselves in the process, with their self-perception that they supposedly are the so-called "spiritual".

The underlying mentality of this belief system is that the Rudometkinites arrogantly view themselves as being superior to, above and beyond, the "elementary" Scriptures that are recorded in the Bible.

The message of the Gospel, preached throughout the ages is to come out of the letter [referring to the Bible] which kills and to come to the Spirit [referring to Rudometkin`s new spirit] which gives life.

(fourvetta, Post #44, Spiritual Marriage Discussion)

The Rudometkinites can often be heard to imply that those who do not accept Rudometkin's heresies in the Spirit and Life book have no "spiritual discernment".

In addition, the Rudometkinites contend that those who are the Bible-based followers of the Lord Jesus Christ, have "human wisdom" only, allegedly because the Bible-based Molokan Christians are supposedly "unable" to understand the deeper "spiritual truths" of Rudometkin and the Spirit and Life book, as fourvetta suggests:

13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.

14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

15 The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment: (from 1 Corinthians 2:13-16)

(This post has been edited by fourvetta: Jun 23 2007, 07:41 PM, Post #27, Are Christians God? thread)

9 He said, "Go your way, *****, for the words are shut up and sealed until the time of the end.

10 Many shall purify themselves and make themselves white and be refined, but the wicked shall act wickedly. And none of the wicked shall understand, but those who are wise shall understand. (from ***** 12:9-10)

3 And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the sky above; and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever. (From ***** 12:3)

(fourvetta, Post #17, Is There a Safe Place During the Tribulation thread)

However, it is explained in the Scriptures by the Apostle Paul that spiritual wisdom, literally the secret and hidden wisdom of God, and "the power of God", are summed up in the single, simple statement:

For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. (1 Corinthians 2:2)

Now THIS is what is known as a "deep spiritual truth", something which only someone who is indwelled by the Holy Spirit of God, someone who has the very "mind of Christ", is able to comprehend in true context.

This Biblical truth is something which neither Rudometkin, nor any of his zealous and loyal followers, have ever been able to wrap their minds around.

And the question continues to be asked:

"Who do you worship?"

This is a very simple question, but extremely serious, with most definite consequences. Consider the fact that IF the very description and "version" of Jesus Christ that is included as part of one's religious belief system does not match the identity of the Biblical Jesus Christ, the following is what one has to look forward to:

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?'

And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.' (Matthew 7:21-23)

Perhaps the key question here is to know exactly what is the "will of my Father" that Jesus is referring to. What is it exactly that God the Father wants mankind to "do" in order to be allowed into His kingdom of heaven?

The very "clue" is given by the Lord Jesus Christ, when He explains to his followers what one must do to inherit eternal life:

"Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal."

Then they said to him, "What must we do, to be doing the works of God?"

Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent." (John 6:27-29)

Notice that Jesus is not saying that we are to believe in "Jesus Christ", as if simply attaching a name onto ourselves, although we know from the Scriptures that even "the name" of Jesus Christ has much power and authority.

Those who are even a little bit familiar with the history of the Mormons know that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints openly believes in someone who they refer to in their church literature as "the Lord Jesus Christ".

So do the Jehovah's Witnesses. So did Jim Jones. So did David Koresh.

So does virtually every person who is a practicing member of any number of existing pseudo Christian cults and pseudo Christian religious groups, from one extreme of religious behavior to the other.

Even though his version of Jesus Christ did not conform to what is recorded in the Bible, Arius and his followers believed in someone called "Jesus Christ". So did Montanus and his followers.

So did the Khlysty. So did Rudometkin, and so does fourvetta and the other loyal followers of Rudometkin today.

The distinction to be made is that the instruction from our Lord is to believe "in the One Whom God has sent".

If an individual is to be granted salvation and inherit eternal life into the kingdom of heaven, the Bible declares that we must first be sure that the version of the Lord Jesus Christ Whom we believe in matches the description and definition of what is written in the Scriptures about our Creator God, Who is Spirit, Who came down from heaven to "become" human flesh, begotten in the human being body of Jesus of Nazareth.

Ultimately, this was the task of the Nicean Ecumenical Council, to distinguish between the Biblical Jesus Christ, versus the heretical version that was introduced by Arius in 319 A. D. And praise God, that is exactly what happened.

Led by the Holy Spirit, these elders and church leaders, with a conscience to God, did their best to formulate, in as concise of a summary as possible, a creed that could be universal in application, in description and definition, for anyone who desired in that day to become part of the "holy catholic" Church of Jesus Christ, meaning literally the "universal" or "global" Church, comprised of saved, born again, true followers of the Lord Jesus Christ, from every tongue, tribe and nation.

And no matter how much fourvetta and his fellow Rudometkinites want to believe otherwise, this included the fulfillment of the commandments given personally by the Lord Jesus Christ, when He instructed His initial chosen followers to go out unto the entire world and make disciples of all nations.

No matter how much fourvetta and his fellow Rudometkinites want to believe otherwise, as part of that process, Christ's commandment was to baptize (literally with the symbolic use of water) all new believers in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

.

fourvetta · July 9, 2007

And no matter how much fourvetta and his fellow Rudometkinites want to believe otherwise, this included the fulfillment of the commandments given personally by the Lord Jesus Christ, when He instructed His initial chosen followers to go out unto the entire world and make disciples of all nations.

No matter how much fourvetta and his fellow Rudometkinites want to believe otherwise, as part of that process, Christ's commandment was to baptize (literally with the symbolic use of water) all new believers in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

.

Just as second jews. Without water they cannot cleanse anything. Water is for the cleansing of the outer body of dirt and odor.

But it is the Baptism of the Holy Spirit that cleanses the soul of sin. And without the Holy Spirit we are but dead men. The Holy Spirit is the Resurrection of the dead and the translation of all the living. And the leader of our education.

******************* ************************ ******************************* ************** *************** ***************** ******************* ***** **************************

anonymous · July 10, 2007

Just as second jews. Without water they cannot cleanse anything. Water is for the cleansing of the outer body of dirt and odor.

But it is the Baptism of the Holy Spirit that cleanses the soul of sin. And without the Holy Spirit we are but dead men. The Holy Spirit is the Resurrection of the dead and the translation of all the living. And the leader of our education.

Apostle Peter, a Jew, to the men of Israel, Jews, regarding JESUS:

"Let all the house of Israel (Jews) therefore know for certain that GOD has made HIM both LORD and CHRIST, THIS JESUS (of Nazareth) WHOM you crucified.

Now when they (the house of Israel, Jews) heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter (a Jew) and the rest of the apostles (all Jews with the possible exception of Luke who some believe was a Gentile although SCRIPTURAL evidence of this is slim to nil), ˜Brothers (fellow Jews), what shall we do?` And Peter (a Jew) said to them (the men of Israel, Jews), ˜Repent and be baptized every one of you in THE NAME of JESUS CHRIST for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of THE HOLY SPIRIT." (Acts 2:36-38)

Apostle Peter, a Jew, to the Gentiles, regarding JESUS:

"And we are witnesses of all that HE did both in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They put HIM to death by hanging HIM on a tree, but GOD raised HIM on the third day and made HIM to appear, not to all the people but to us who had been chosen by GOD as witnesses, who ate and drank with HIM after HE rose from the dead. And HE commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that HE is THE ONE appointed by GOD to be judge of the living and the dead. To HIM all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in HIM (JESUS of Nazareth) receives forgiveness of sins through HIS NAME (JESUS of Nazareth).

While Peter (a Jew) was still saying these things, THE HOLY SPIRIT fell on all who heard the word (of GOD WHO IS GOD.......JESUS of Nazareth). And the believers from among the circumcised (Jews) who had come with Peter (a Jew) were amazed, because the gift of THE HOLY SPIRIT was poured out even on the Gentiles. For they (the Jews who were with Peter, a Jew) were hearing them (the Gentiles on whom THE HOLY SPIRIT [already] fell) speaking in tongues and extolling GOD.

Then Peter (a Jew) declared, ˜Can anyone withhold water (H2O) for baptizing these people (the Gentiles), who have [already] received THE HOLY SPIRIT just as we (Jews) have?` And he (Apostle Peter, a Jew) commanded them (the Gentiles who had [already] received THE HOLY SPIRIT) to be baptized (with H2O = water) in THE NAME of JESUS CHRIST (for forgiveness of their sins)." (Acts 10:39-48a)

If fourvetta is consistent with his own "logic" regarding water baptism and false Christianity, he believes the Apostle Peter was a false CHRISTian.

Obviously THE HOLY SPIRIT isn't fourvetta's "leader of education" as THE HOLY SPIRIT is THE ONE WHO led and taught Apostle Peter, a Jew, who commanded the Gentiles be baptized with water in the name of JESUS of Nazareth for forgiveness of [their] sins following [their] receipt of HIM, THE WORD OF GOD WHO IS GOD.......JESUS of Nazareth, and HIM, THE HOLY SPIRIT, THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH, WHO testifies of and glorifies THE WORD OF GOD WHO IS GOD.......JESUS of Nazareth (John 15:26; 16:14) WHO IS THE TRUTH (John 14:6a). It is also THE HOLY SPIRIT, THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH, WHO is THE AUTHOR of THE HOLY SCRIPTURES which SCRIPTURES fourvetta does not believe and rejects.

fourvetta and his s&l brethren's "leader of education" is the same spirit, the spirit of deception/falsivity who led and taught their beloved hero(es) of fourvetta and his s&l brethren's anti- and un-SCRIPTURAL faith.

(Sorry for the intrusion, coffee.)

fourvetta · July 15, 2007

No matter how much fourvetta and his fellow Rudometkinites want to believe otherwise, as part of that process, Christ's commandment was to baptize (literally with the symbolic use of water) all new believers in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

.

"For this reason we now have no need of any manifest bodily purification or immersion into water. Although the Apostles at times baptized with tangible river water those turning from heathenism to Christ and even circumcised some. Even from among the jews."

In context and if taken literally, along with water baptism, one would now also have to go back to circumcision of the flesh.

"But this was only done so that the jews would not suddenly be deprived of a true understanding of their Messiah, for they boasted very strongly concerning water purification and circumcision of the flesh according to the law of Moses.

But the Lord Himself is Spirit and the Lord unto all and because of this did not send the Apostle Paul to baptize the gentiles with water, but only to preach the gospel concerning Himself to them."

Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 1. This is for lastinline for a fact check.

10 Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

11 For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe`s household, that there are contentions among you.

12 Now I say this, that each of you says, "I am of Paul," or "I am of Apollos," or "I am of Cephas," or "I am of Christ."

13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,

15 lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name.

16 Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other.

17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.

By going back to water baptism and eventually back to circumcision of the flesh, the whole sinistral christian world has effectively nullified the message of the gospel.

Christ Himself did not baptize anyone in water but in the Holy Spirit and fire.

Baptism of water and spirit we acknowledge as true divine instruction and the path of the true knowledge of Christ.

lastinline · July 16, 2007

Baptism of water and spirit we acknowledge as true divine instruction and the path of the true knowledge of Christ.

Translation, get all your instruction from the horse! M.G.R. of course!

Case CLOSED, now bring on the men in the WHITE COATS!

Seeking, can you now post the tune to the Mr. ED tune, I think it would be quite appropriate, do you not?

lastinline (being harsh to make a point)

coffee · July 23, 2007

.

Because of their confusion over certain specific Biblical truths, in this instance the sacrament of water baptism in the early Christian Church, the practice of which historically has been directly attributed to the fulfillment of the commandment given by the Lord Jesus Christ to His Apostles and disciples, the following remarks are excellent examples of the imbecilic ignorance that exists within our Molokan community among Rudometkinites like fourvetta:

In context and if taken literally, along with water baptism, one would now also have to go back to circumcision of the flesh.

By going back to water baptism and eventually back to circumcision of the flesh, the whole sinistral christian world has effectively nullified the message of the gospel.

As has been adequately illustrated already seemingly countless times, the Rudometkinites end up confused, without answer and without credibility, whenever their beliefs contradict what is written in the Bible. Instead of confronting their heretical convictions, fourvetta and his fellow Rudometkinites defiantly avoid and ignore key Scriptural passages, as in the incident that is recorded in the Bible about the Apostle Peter, in Acts 10:34-48.

In this particular chronology of events, new believers, after having "been taught" the Gospel message, after having believed the message about salvation and eternal life that was being preached by the Apostle Peter, these new Gentile converts made the decision to become followers of the Lord Jesus Christ.

According to the Biblical account, these new believers were FIRST baptized by God with the Holy Spirit, as evidenced by the fact that they had begun to extol God in languages that were other than their own native tongue.

AFTER these individuals had been taught the truth about the grace of God, AFTER they had believed the Gospel message, AFTER they had received the Holy Spirit, AFTER they had made the decision to become followers of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Apostle Peter THEN baptized each of them, IN WATER, in obedience to Christ's command, which the Christian Church has long referred to as "The Great Commission", which is found written in the Scriptures, Matthew 29:16-20.

Obviously the Apostle Peter was not purportedly "going back" to water baptism, or allegedly participating in some so-called Roman Catholic Church heresy, contrary to whatever fourvetta and his fellow Rudometkinites want to believe. From the days of the early Christian Church, literally from the days when Jesus walked the earth, water baptism has always been the "next step forward" in the process, once an individual first believes, and then makes the decision to become a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ.

According to the Biblical pattern, as is confirmed by the historical record most conclusively, water baptism was administered in the early Christian Church to all new believers, beginning first with Christ's own handpicked Apostles and disciples, and this was done in obedience to the very instruction and commandment of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

As any student of the Bible will notice, the Apostle Peter did not ask for the circumcision knife so that he could circumcise those Gentile converts after they had become believers. Had he done so, it could then be said that the Apostle Peter was indeed "going back" to the practice of circumcision, which was a religious practice that had been given specifically to the Jews, to the children of Abraham.

However, according to the Scriptural account, it was WATER that the Apostle Peter had asked for, specifically:

Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have? (Acts 10:47)

It is obvious by what the Apostle Paul wrote to "the saints and brothers in Christ at Colossae" that the practice of circumcision was not something which was considered necessary within the early Christian Church, neither by Christ Himself, nor by His own handpicked Apostles and disciples, for anyone who was to become a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ.

In contrast to circumcision, according to what is recorded in the Bible, baptism was indeed a "given" during the days of the early Christian Church, a forgone conclusion that all converts and new believers would be baptized, with the symbolic use of water, as it is written in the following Scriptural passage:

See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

For in him [meaning the physical human being body of Jesus of Nazareth] the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,

and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority.

In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ,

having been buried with him in baptism [specifically referring to being "buried", or immersed in water], in which you were also raised with him through faith [specifically referring to being "raised", or coming up out of the water, after being immersed] in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,

by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.

(Colossians 2:8-15)

The Apostle Paul, the one who wrote the letter to the Colossians, himself testified that the practice of circumcision performed on males, both infants and adults, was no longer to be continued in the early Christian Church, and this is obvious by what is found written in the Bible:

For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love. (Galatians 5:6)

For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. (Galatians 6:15)

For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God. (1 Corinthians 7:19)

In contrast however, it is obvious by what has been recorded throughout the New Testament Scriptures that the practice of baptism, with the symbolic use of water, was indeed performed on all new believers, including the Apostle Paul when he first believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, at which time he was also baptized, the Biblical account of which is written in Acts 9:10-19 and in Acts 22:12-16.

According to his own personal testimony that is recorded in the Scriptures, the Apostle Paul followed this same Biblical pattern when he also baptized new converts, after they first believed in Jesus.

In this way, the creed that was penned by the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea echoes the very words that are recorded in the Scriptures, as written by the Apostle Paul, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit:

But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian,

for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.

For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise. (Galatians 3:25-29)

The Ecumenical Council of Nicea was not the Roman Catholic Church. The purpose of the Council was not to establish a separate, segregationalistic worldwide religious denomination. On the contrary, their intent was to solidify the early Christian Church as it existed in that day, and to unify the Church leadership in the acknowledgment and recognition of what Christ's followers believed and practiced, according to what had been handed down from Jesus Himself to His own Apostles and disciples, and subsequently to those very elders and church leaders who had been assembled together by the emperor Constantine at the Nicean Council.

This council was comprised of elders and church leaders from the various Christian churches that had already been established, and which were in existence during that day. Some of the men in attendance were already martyrs for their faith in Jesus, having had their bodies mutilated by the governing authorities in their respective territories, where the persecution of those who were followers of Christ had already long been common.

In general terms, the geographical area in which the early Christian Church existed at the time of the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea, had not yet expanded to the West beyond the boundary of what is now known as Spain, to as far East as what is known today as the western part of Iran, to as far North as what we identify today as parts of Italy, Greece, Turkey and Armenia, to as far South as the northern parts of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Libya.

In the 4th century AD, there were no Christian churches established yet in Northern Europe, or Scandinavia, or Russia or China. The evangelistic efforts of the early Christian Church had not yet reached India, Indonesia and Japan, nor had the Gospel message yet been preached in Australia and New Zealand.

In that day, the message about the grace of God, namely the gift of salvation and eternal life through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, had not yet been proclaimed in North America, in the land that is now Canada and the United States of America, nor had it yet reached the native people in Mexico and Central America, or down into South America.

As compared to the head count of those who are followers of the Lord Jesus Christ today, which is international and global in scope, the world view of the those who were the early church fathers of the existing Christian Church during the days of the Nicean Ecumenical Council was focused on and confined to a relatively small geographical area.

Therefore, it was the goal of these elders and church leaders that they could agree on certain Scriptural absolutes which would be upheld by the Christian Church in that day as being basic to what a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ believed and practiced, no matter where one lived, so that at the conclusion of the Nicean Council, when these Church fathers eventually returned to their respective homes, living miles and territories apart from one another, they would still be in agreement with one another with regard to basic theology, as it pertains to Biblical truth.

This is the very purpose and intent of what was ultimately drafted as the Nicean Creed. What the Ecumenical Council of Nicea accomplished was not perfection, even by their own admission, but these men were led by God, and the decisions they made were the result of the guidance and the authority of the Holy Spirit. This is evident by how these Godly men ultimately dealt with the heretic Arius, and his heretical teachings about the true identity of the Lord Jesus Christ.

When Arius, in 319 AD, first attempted to introduce his unBiblical heresy, to even hint at the possible suggestion that there was purportedly a time when the Word Who became flesh did not exist as God, with God, the audacity of Arius was met with the authority of the Scriptural Word of God, which was administered by these very chosen elders and men of God who had convened at the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea, in 325 AD.

The end result is that these men of God, these followers of the Biblical Jesus Christ, with a conscience to God and as was their God-given responsibility to do, correctly identified the extra-Biblical theory of Arius as being a contradiction to the Scriptural record. In so doing, Arius and his followers were pronounced to be heretics, and accurately so.

What the sacrament of baptism has become today among various groups of religious denominations, is admittedly not the same, simple Biblical practice of water baptism that was administered to new believers during the days when Jesus walked the earth, the practice of which then continued during the days of the early Christian Church, when those who were Christ's Apostles and disciples, in obedience to the instruction of our Lord, literally went out into the world to preach to unbelievers the Gospel message of salvation and eternal life through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and to make disciples of all nations, baptizing all new believers in the name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

The theology of the Nicean Creed is thoroughly Biblical. In truth, it is an accurate representation of what the early Church fathers had been teaching their congregations for the first 4 centuries of the early Christian Church, from the days when the Lord Jesus Christ first taught these same Scriptural truths to His very own Apostles and disciples.

What fourvetta and his fellow Rudometkinites defiantly and ignorantly scoff at as something that is negative and repulsive to them, is something that all Bible-based Christians who are followers of the true Jesus Christ, recognize as something that is the work of the Holy Spirit, the intentional gift of love from God our heavenly Father to all of mankind.

To review what fourvetta quoted from another source:

The Church formulated the Nicene Creed before it selected certain apostolic writings, called them the New Testament, and declared them to be Holy Scripture.

Another way of looking at it is that God chose the people who were bound by the Nicene Creed to affirm the contents of the New Testament, thereby endorsing the theology of the creed.

The Nicene Creed is therefore a reliable test of our interpretation of the New Testament. If we are at variance with the Nicene Creed, we are in error.

So whoever denies the Trinity must also deny the New Testament, and whoever upholds the New Testament as Holy Scripture must also affirm the Trinity.

In the beginning, the Church did not have a formal creed, nor did it have a formal list of the books in the New Testament. Then it formulated the Nicene Creed to express its doctrines and to serve as a test of orthodox teaching.

So for a while there was a Church with the Nicene Creed but, even though it used the books of the New Testament as Holy Scripture, it had no official statement saying that they were. After the Church was bound by the Nicene Creed, it made a formal list of the books in the New Testament.

Therefore, whoever attempts to reconstruct the ancient Church with an official list of New Testament books but without the Nicene Creed is reconstructing an imaginary church that never existed.

This doesn`t mean their church is invalid, it just means that it isn`t a historic reconstruction, because in any part of Church history in which there was an official list of New Testament books, the Nicene Creed was the official expression of faith and the final test of orthodoxy.

To put it more precisely, the Nicene Creed and the canon of the New Testament were formed together as part of the same process.

To say it another way, to deny the historical teachings of what the early Christian Church has believed from the very beginning, to deny that the Lord Jesus Christ is indeed our Creator God, Who has come from heaven to dwell on earth in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, is to deny the canon of the New Testament as Holy Scripture.

We can thank the Lord that through the faithful work of the Nicean Ecumenical Council, our loving God preserved for all of mankind the one established Biblical record, the one consistent standard of Scriptural truth, the one benchmark that is identical for all of humanity, applicable equally, without prejudice and without showing favoritism of any kind, no matter where one lives on the face of the earth.

From the Bible:

And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers. (1 Thessalonians 2:13)

Those who oppose the truth of the Biblical record, as well as those whose teachings contradict what is recorded in these Scriptures, just like Arius before them, are nothing less than heretics, and the belief system which these individuals ascribe to is just as evil of a heresy as that which Arius attempted to introduce to the early Christian Church, in 319 AD.

If only our Molokan churches had convened an Ecumenical Council of our own when Rudometkin's followers first published their hero's writings in 1915, and later when the Rudometkinites began to introduce the Spirit and Life book into the individual congregations in 1928, perhaps our Bible-based Molokan Christian elders and church leaders could have put an end to the influence and proliferation of Rudometkin's many heresies within our Molokan community, and in the process achieve the same results as when the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea put an end to the evil heresy which Arius was attempting to introduce to the early Christian Church in 319 AD.

.

fourvetta · September 17, 2009

In contrast however, it is obvious by what has been recorded throughout the New Testament Scriptures that the practice of baptism, with the symbolic use of water, was indeed performed on all new believers, including the Apostle Paul when he first believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, at which time he was also baptized, the Biblical account of which is written in Acts 9:10-19 and in Acts 22:12-16.

The Baptism of water is the Baptism of John. Symbolic of the Law and the Prophets. Which is the tutor unto Christ.

But the Baptism of Jesus Christ is the Baptism in His Blood. Which is the forgiveness of all sin.

If the use of water is symbolic, then the use of lamb's blood should also be symbolic. To signify the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and fire.

By all means there should be a baptismal basin filled will blood in so called bible based churches and new converts should be immersed in it.

Since of course all things are cleansed with blood.

coffee · September 19, 2009

.

The Baptism of water is the Baptism of John. Symbolic of the Law and the Prophets. Which is the tutor unto Christ.

But the Baptism of Jesus Christ is the Baptism in His Blood. Which is the forgiveness of all sin.

If the use of water is symbolic, then the use of lamb's blood should also be symbolic. To signify the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and fire.

By all means there should be a baptismal basin filled will blood in so called bible based churches and new converts should be immersed in it.

Since of course all things are cleansed with blood.

Folks, in another thread, Disciple challenged those who still consider themselves to be part of the present day "Molokan" church, to stand up to the plate and participate with others who have it on their hearts to "fix" that which is wrong with the spiritual influences and religious practices of the Rudometkinites and other Orthodox zealots, which have come to dominate the political decisions that today's elders and church leaders have instituted and which, according to those who have openly shared their testimonies, have only added to the oppression and disintegration of our Molokan brotherhood, which once was a thriving social community.

As we can see from fourvetta's comments above, the old saying applies, "You can't fix stupid." In this case, it is not a matter of simple intelligence, since fourvetta obviously is able to function in the world, work to support his wife and family, plan their vacations, read, write, and communicate with others.

However, like the rest of his Clark Street Church family members, fourvetta is a Biblically illiterate dead soul, eternally separated from the Biblical Jesus, and void of the basic foundations of spiritual truth which God Himself has provided for mankind, through the writings that are recorded in the Holy Scriptures. Like Rudometkin himself, as well as Rudometkin's Khlysty forefathers, fourvetta continues to applaud himself for his Gnostic, mystical interpretations of Scriptural passages, and to pat himself on the back that he is somehow "spiritually enlightened" above and beyond the "rest of the world", especially those who are Bible based Jesus followers.

Regarding:

Tim and Kevin, you are not being honest. I have not yet heard that you two and your familes has left the molokan church and joined another. If you have not, then you are still joined to it and as believers, you share in the responsibility for what goes on therein. That is the point of my above post, you can't say that you have no part in nor responsibility for the molokan people. As believers, you do.

(Post # 10 - Absolutes - Are you willing to speak out despite the costs?)

The problem with the Rudometkinites, who still use the name of "Molokan" as part of their religious identity, is that they DO indeed share the same ethnic heritage as the rest of us who use this nickname as part of our social identifier. However, as has been demonstrated so thoroughly here on the forum, their belief system resembles more that of Rudometkin's Khlysty forefathers, than those of our Bible based "Molokan" Christian forefathers, the ones who went through the process of having the Russian government recognize them as a Christian sect, founded on their belief in the Holy Scriptures as the ultimate authority for their belief in God, and in salvation and eternal life through the person of God in human flesh, the Lord Jesus Christ, centuries before Sokoloff and Rudomektin ever began to introduce their Klystical beliefs and practices among our "Molokan" people in the Transcaucasus, during the early 1800s.

Within today's "Molokan" church, today's generation is living the consequences of the weakness of prior church leadership having allowed these Khysty, in "the interest of peace", to not only coexist but to actually practice their heresy within the confines of "accepted" church services. The difficulty now is that these Khlysty have become so integrated throughout the social community that it is extremely difficult, if not virtually impossible, to eradicate this spiritual filth, this very cancer which is the heresy of the writings in the Spirit and Life book.

For those like Disciple and others who are working in the fields of the Lord within the confines of our current "Molokan" brotherhood, the advice to be "wise as serpents but innocent as doves" (Matthew 10:16) no longer applies, since the Rudometkinites see the Bible based Jesus followers coming from miles away, and are already prepared for you. If we read that Scripture in the 10th chapter of Matthew, we find that Jesus is preparing his followers that they are going to be persecuted for their belief in Christ.

What kind of persecution is it to preserve your social status by watching what you say, so as not to offend anyone, while you are sitting and having "boarsh and lapsha" together with those who, when given the opportunity are still going to sing praises to their "king of spirits", while jumping "in the spirit" extra enthusiastically? And all this while the book of heresy remains an integral part of the so-called "worship" of God.

Is this pleasing to the Lord? To have Rudometkin worship, forefather worship, and Jesus worship coexist in the same common church service? Does Jesus find pleasure with His followers just "going along" with something that does NOT honor Him?

In my experience, just like you cannot "fix" the stupid in fourvetta, there is no way to "fix" the present problem of Rudometkin's heresies that are written in the Spirit and Life book, without complete removal of that book from the table in your home, and only with a direct, uncompromising approach of ministry to our present day "Molokan" people, beginning with what I consider to be "absolutes":

1) What has been recorded in the Bible is the ultimate truth which comes from the very mind and mouth of God, and He has intervened to make sure that His Words have been preserved and written down so that everyone on the face of the earth, no matter which native language one speaks, no matter which family and ethnic heritage one has been born into, has the same revelation from the Lord, by which humanity is able to know about the Creator, about His expectation of mankind, and how there is only one way for sinful man to have a right relationship with a Holy God.

2) There is only One Savior, specific and without compromise, Who is able to save mankind from being eternally separated from the Lord, and that person is God, Who came down from heaven to become the real, historical, physical human being known as Jesus of Nazareth, when God became human flesh.

3) The writings in the Spirit and Life book are heresy against the Holy Scriptures, and Rudometkin's Khlystical, Gnostic ramblings in that book, as well as Klubnikin's "spiritually inspired" writings and illustrations, are evil in the sight of God.

Again, in my experience, without this approach and preparation towards ministry to our current generation of "Molokans", as we can see from fourvetta's self perceived spiritual enlightenment, the "status quo" will only continue.

Our prayers are with Disciple and those who have chosen to use the "soft sell" method of ministry. However it is my opinion that individuals like poopsqually, stevepiv and Disciple, and others like them, would never have come to hear Christ's voice calling them out of the deception they were in, if the "soft sell" method had been used to minister to them, instead of the direct, uncompromising approach.

Philip J. Efseaff

.

fourvetta · September 20, 2009

fourvetta is a Biblically illiterate dead soul, eternally separated from the Biblical Jesus, and void of the basic foundations of spiritual truth which God Himself has provided for mankind, through the writings that are recorded in the Holy Scriptures.

As Apostle Paul writes that the world though its wisdom of the scriptures did not come to know God.

Any enlightenment comes from the Creator who shines His Face upon whom He will. Such are considered fools for Christ's sake.

9 For I think that God has displayed us, the apostles, last, as men condemned to death; for we have been made a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men.

10 We are fools for Christ’s sake, but you are wise in Christ! We are weak, but you are strong! You are distinguished, but we are dishonored!

11 To the present hour we both hunger and thirst, and we are poorly clothed, and beaten, and homeless.

12 And we labor, working with our own hands. Being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we endure;

13 being defamed, we entreat. We have been made as the filth of the world, the offscouring of all things until now.

Your assumption that Most Priguni are Rudometkinites is completely untrue. On the contrary, today's priguni would fit under the category of Baptists. Being ignorant of the meanings of the writings of the King of Spirits.

Which is fine. The constitution of the United States protects ones rights to the freedom of religion.

A freedom which will be taken away in the last days and people will be forced to worship the beast and receive his mark. Hewing each other on the battlefield of Armageddon to the last man because of the debate of the law of the letter.

Faith in the True God who is Spirit is found in liberty. Not under the compulsions of men.

"The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. And therein It preaches using the Spirit of freedom and not war and bloodshed. Today the Lord is Spirit and the Leader of our education.

Therein today we must reign in the Kingdom of God which is spiritual, manifestly in liberty.

Meanwhile let the fallen Jews and sinistral gentiles stay absorbed in the dead letter, with their superficial rituals and vestments.

And this is how we distinguish the light from the darkness or the living from the dead. "

coffee · September 21, 2009

.

Regarding:

As Apostle Paul writes that the world though its wisdom of the scriptures did not come to know God.

Any enlightenment comes from the Creator who shines His Face upon whom He will. Such are considered fools for Christ's sake.

Faith in the True God who is Spirit is found in liberty. Not under the compulsions of men.

Therein today we must reign in the Kingdom of God which is spiritual, manifestly in liberty.

This of course is the same, centuries-old mantra of all Gnostics throughout history, including that of Rudometkin and his own Khlysty forefathers.

The other similarity that fourvetta has with these pseudo Christian mystics is that his version of Jesus Christ is NOT the Biblical Lord, but is a figment of someone's imagination, and cannot save anyone, since his "jesus" is an alternative to the Scriptural One.

.

fourvetta · September 21, 2009

The other similarity that fourvetta has with these pseudo Christian mystics is that his version of Jesus Christ is NOT the Biblical Lord, but is a figment of someone's imagination, and cannot save anyone, since his "jesus" is an alternative to the Scriptural One.

Do you mean this one?

seeking_truth_1 · December 28, 2012

To The Top

Heresy Has Infiltrated The Christian Church Throughout History

Recommended Posts

coffee 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

coffee 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

coffee 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

coffee 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

coffee 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

coffee 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

fourvetta 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

coffee 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

fourvetta 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

coffee 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

coffee 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

fourvetta 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

seeking_truth_1 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

coffee 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

seeking_truth_1 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

fourvetta 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

fourvetta 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

coffee 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

fourvetta 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

coffee 0

Share this post