Eastern Orthodox adherents are very passionate about their faith. While that is all fine and good, there are a number of problems with that faith and their practices, and I have found the answers to these problems evasive, confusing, or non-existent. Since this church also claims to be the “One True Church,” it is disappointing to find its scholarship rather weak and misguided.
While there are a number of errors and practices of Orthodoxy that need to be addressed, I believe that foundational truths, those things on which the whole of this church should stand or fall, should be challenged first.
The first and ultimate question I have for Orthodox believers is, can they prove that Eastern Orthodoxy is the “One True Church” and that all others are outside the faith and apostate? While there a number of arguments that Orthodox believers postulate, none of these arguments, under scrutiny, hold water.
First, they state that they are the one true church because they hold the line of Apostolic succession. That is, since the “True Church” will consist of an unbroken line of Apostles from Peter and Paul until today, they claim that they are the True Church because their bishops are part of that unbroken line.
The first problem with this belief is that more than a dozen churches, Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant, also claim this line as proof that they are the one true church. In each of these churches they have a public listing of their unbroken line of bishops. Why then is the Orthodox right and them wrong?
The Orthodox claims the rightful line of Apostolic succession because they have not apostatized. And because the other churches have apostatized, they are not the True Church.
But how do we know that those other churches have apostatized and not the Orthodox Church? Because the Eastern Orthodox are the True Church, of course. They are the ones who have been given the Truth, and when others disagree with them, those other churches are wrong. And for the Orthodox, the Bible is not the final authority, the Church is. Therefore, what they say is the truth, is the truth. There is no higher authority or objective standard to which they appeal. Thus, when the church says that they are the True Church, it’s true, because they are the Final Authority, and they are the Final Authority because they are the True Church. This is a rather obvious tautological statement, and completely meaningless.
Can we appeal to the Bible? No. Not at all. As any non-Orthodox believer soon finds out, the Bible can only be rightly interpreted by the Eastern Orthodox believer, because they are in the Truth, and no one else is. Thus, any passage of scripture that we appeal to is rejected as a wrong interpretation. According to Orthodoxy, Scripture is not only interpreted and defined by them, they wrote it.
Can we then appeal to truth or logic? Again, no. For the Orthodox, truth can also only be interpreted by them. “Truth, to the Orthodox,” according to one official Eastern Orthodox web site, “is not a proposition or conclusion; Truth is a Person, a living experience accessible in the communion of the Church and expressed in the Scriptures, the councils, and the theology of the saints. Even the Ecumenical Councils needed to be received as normative by the body of the Church. Ultimately, there are signs that point to truth, but none of these signs is a substitute for a free and personal experience of truth, which is encountered in the sacramental community of the Church.” (emphasis mine). Again, truth is defined within the confines of the Orthodox Church.
However, we have to understand that the Orthodox know this “free and personal experience” of truth is true because “Truth is a Person,” namely the Holy Spirit. While we can agree that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth (Jn. 16:13), the Orthodox believe that He works only in their lives, and gives them the truth by experience. Or as the Mormons would call it, a “burning in the bosom.” So if their experience were to tell the Church that God is dead, and the church all agreed, then God would then be dead, for the Holy Spirit has given them the truth.
To conclude, the Orthodox lay claim to the Holy Spirit, truth, the interpretation of the Scriptures, the final authority, and Apostolic succession, because they are the True Church. And they are the True Church because they lay claim to all these things. None of these are proofs, and many other churches also claim these same proofs as their own.
But the real confusion is how and why do intellectual and discerning Christians, even staunch Calvinists, leave the Protestant faith to follow Orthodoxy? While I am quite sure of my assessment of Eastern Orthodoxy, I honestly wonder if I am missing something. Why would any Christian follow Orthodoxy given their beliefs?
Thus I ask if anyone can give an answer. What makes the Eastern Orthodox Church the True Church? Where is the proof? What makes Orthodox claims true – which are the same baseless claims as many other churches – and those other church claims false?
There is one request I have for anyone who answers. Your answer cannot be that Orthodoxy is true because Protestants are false. Proving one person wrong does not prove you right. We can both be wrong, but we cannot both be right. The question is not whether or not Protestants, Catholics, Anglicans, or Mormons are false, the question is how is Orthodoxy right? And more specifically, prove that Orthodoxy is the True Church when many others make the same claim.
Dante Tremayne
Neiswonger
Doug
Josh Hicks
Clay
Dear Dante,
I am sorry to hear that you have found nothing but unhelpful and circular statements from Orthodox quarters. This doesn’t help, but let me say that the above statements do make some sense once you see the perspective.
The basic Orthodox claim is similar to that of Rome: the Orthodox Church is the Body of Christ, spread throughout the Roman empire and beyond by the apostles, and nourished by the Holy Spirit throughout the ages. For the Orthodox, there is no sudden change — no apostasy, no turbulent switch — in Christian history. From Paul to Justin to John Chrysostom to John of Damascus to Gregory Palamas to today, there is a public continuous Christian community that lives in the light of Christ’s resurrection. Rome claims the same. Protestant communities, as you mention, also claim as much, but rather dishonestly.
How should we judge these competing claims? Well, we can look for continuity. It is not enough to find some sort of precedence — we must find a general and consistent acceptance of doctrines throughout the Christian era. If you do this, you will see that the Protestant confessions are aberrations in Christian history. It is true that Luther and Calvin found their inspiration in Saint Augustine of Hippo, but his peculiar views were quite singular, and they were rejected by the Western Churches for a thousand years after his death, despite his being the greatest Church Father who wrote in Latin. In the East, Augustine’s quirky theological speculations never influenced anyone. All of the great teachers in Christian history had their individual doctrinal musings. Favorite sons of the Orthodox Church Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Nazianzus also had peculiar ideas. However, such views were simply their own and did not reflect the general consensus of the faith as inherited through the centuries from the apostles. As such, they were considered the private opinions of wise and holy men — but they were not doctrine. The East had an advantage in this, as most early Fathers were Greek speaking and writing — there was no lack of witnesses writing in Greek from any era of the apostolic faith. No one person and his theological idiosyncrasies could substitute for the general catholic faith that everyone held.
It is a common Orthodox contention that most Western errors resulted from this lack of patristic diversity in the West. As the Empire in the West crumbled, fewer people knew Greek, and the knowledge of the early Church was lost in a way that never happened in the Greek East. Moreover, with the onset of the Dark Ages and fewer educated folks in the West, the place of Augustine and the few Western Fathers held an inappropriate influence over the West. Furthermore, the bishop of Rome was forced to take on secular responsibilities as civil authority either crumbled or was taken over by heretical Arians. Over centuries, this aggrandizement of power perverted Rome — from the Orthodox perspective — and made it more about princely power than about guarding the ancient faith for the salvation of souls.
Therefore, the Orthodox acknowledge that Rome has ancient roots, but they hold that historical circumstances facilitated Rome’s slow departure from the apostolic faith. Rome also acknowledges its changes, but it argues that such changes were divinely ordained. To weigh the two, you should consider the relative arguments. However, I think that the burden of proof must rest on Rome, which changed and gathered great power by those changes. Did the papacy transform into a super-episcopacy due to the will of God or due to the self-interest of power hungry men?
The Roman position puts so much stock in the power and infallibility of the papacy because it then allows Rome to justify all other changes. To any question, “Why did the Roman Church change from the ancient practice to another?,” Rome can simply answer “Because the Holy Spirit works through the magesterium of the papacy and directs the Church through Christ’s vicar on earth, the pope.” In one stroke, Roman Catholicism self-justifies.
The Orthodox reject such papal authority and rest with the ancient apostolic and patristic consensus. Obviously, new questions always arise, and new answers must develop to address them. Yet, the Orthodox position is that these new answers are based in the consistent unchanged “phronema” — the mind set — of the Church. Roman theologians often accuse the Orthodox of being stuck in the past, but for the Orthodox, God’s truth isn’t constrained by time. The Word of God is eternal.
The “truth is a person” bit that you mention is not an excuse not to engage intellectually, though many Western Christians initially think that of Orthodox Christians. Rather, it is a typical Orthodox response to what they see as the hyper-rationalization of divine matters. For the Orthodox, theology is not an academic exercise; it is not an engagement with abstract concepts but rather an engagement with the living God. Out of pastoral reasons, Orthodox priests try to steer Western inquirers to consider their faith more like a life lived — in a relationship of love — than one of propositions to which one assents. Westerners often misunderstand this move, since their prior experience with such responses usually comes from the post-modern, post-doctrinal, post-Christian factions of their own religious tradition: “Only the closet atheists say such things.” Thus, they dismiss Orthodoxy as wishy-washy feel good mystical gobbly gook nonsense.
Concerning scripture, the Orthodox rightly treasure the Bible, but they do not see it as something separate from the rest of their heritage from God. The legacy of Abraham, the law of Moses, the prophets, the apostles, the first Christian communities, the martyrs, the great theologians of the early Church, the great councils, the wisdom of the desert monks, the hymnography, the liturgical riches, and the poetry of the Church — these are all aspects of the Christian life, lived in the community of Christ’s gospel. You may hear such and interpret it as denigrating the scriptures, whereas the Orthodox are, from their perspective, putting the Bible in its greater context. The Bible isn’t a document without a home; its home is the Church, where it was written, where it has been kept, and where it has been taught for two thousand years.
So, with apostolic succession, scriptural interpretation, and doctrinal positions, the Orthodox can point to any century in the past and state that Christians held the same beliefs then. They do not see the Fathers as distant authorities — Orthodox Christians are not ecclesial archaeologists digging around in dusty cathedral basements — but rather the Orthodox see the Fathers as familiar pastors and teachers. For this reason, the Orthodox do not have the same crisis of faith that many Westerners have when it comes to learning the great upheavals in Church history. The Arian controversy is touted as evidence against the Trinity by some Protestants and apostate Christians, whereas the Orthodox remember it in the way that our parents remember Vietnam . . . it’s a family memory. They know that Arius was wrong, and they know why he was so successful for so long. The intricacies of the conflict are not arcane matters but stories that one knows because they defined a significant moment in one’s personal past — and often such moments are painful and complicated.
This is not to say that Orthodoxy doesn’t have problems. Rather, it is to admit that the problem with Orthodoxy is Orthodox Christians, whereas the problem with Protestantism is Protestantism. Anything connected with fallen man will be tainted and disappointing. Nonetheless, God has given us a path, and it is available to all.
My presentation of an Orthodox defense is highly unorthodox in that it is overtly intellectual. The more immediate Orthodox response to an inquirer of Orthodox claims would be an invitation to see if you find sanctity and spiritual nourishment in the Church. For it is easier to trick the intellect of most people than to deceive their hearts.
I, myself, don’t find the historical arguments ultimately fulfilling. Sure, they might show that the Orthodox Church has more in continuity with the earliest Christians, but it does not establish that the earliest Christians were right. Why follow Jesus at all? For me, Orthodoxy makes the world make sense; it provides better answers to my questions than any other system. But that is my own path.
However, each person comes to God in a unique manner. I wish you the best in your search.
Comment by Joseph — January 29, 2009 @ 1:29 pm |
dear everyone,
if you want to know what the real church is let me tell you that in the bible it mentions many churches founded by many apostals and then it mentions THE CHURCH
so theres churches and then theres the church …… The church is everyone who belives in the gosple has been baptised in the name of Jesus and received the holy ghost may they charismatics pentecostals roman catholic or eastern orthodox any man woman or child who has fullfilled the steps of savaltion
(Acts 2:38)
1 repentance
2 baptism( in Jesus name)
3 infilling of the holy ghost
is a member of the church of Christ however seeing as the eastern orthodox proclaims they have authority over scripture much as Rome dose. I think they are simply a church in much need of a prophet of God to lead them back to the truth
yours truly,
Justin R De Ville Servant of the living God
p.s even the early church was filled with conflict between it’s members . about whether to preach to gentiles and about how to moderate speaking in tongues how to honor a prophet and about tithes about how women should dress and if a woman was equal to a man… we are humans conflict is inevitable and unavoidable . throw in the corruption of Catholicism and you got a big pot of oil ready to burst into flames…. by the way it’s kinda hard to say you have an unbroken string of apostals when none of your bishops can lay hands on the sick and heal them. Judging by the bible it’s really hard not to recognize an apostal
Comment by Justin — January 30, 2009 @ 10:22 am |
Dante -
You stated – ‘However, we have to understand that the Orthodox know this “free and personal experience” of truth is true because “Truth is a Person,” namely the Holy Spirit. While we can agree that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth (Jn. 16:13), the Orthodox believe that He works only in their lives, and gives them the truth by experience. Or as the Mormons would call it, a “burning in the bosom.” So if their experience were to tell the Church that God is dead, and the church all agreed, then God would then be dead, for the Holy Spirit has given them the truth.’
I happened to pull up this blog today, and though I am not part of the EO church, I must admit that this statement is a pretty unhelpful argument. Especially this statement – ‘So if their experience were to tell the Church that God is dead, and the church all agreed, then God would then be dead, for the Holy Spirit has given them the truth.’
I am not trying to be harsh here, I just think you could have better addressed the issues, maybe even done a series on the EO and the challenges you have for them. I have one EO acquaintance and I have never heard him say that, because I am an evangelical Protestant, I am in apostasy.
Just some thoughts.
Comment by ScottL — February 3, 2009 @ 8:38 am |
Here is the key,
you wrote of the Eastern Orthodoxy, “the Bible is not the final authority, the Church is” and sadly don’t realize authority lies in someone greater than a book. In fact the book or books you hold in such high esteem never claims to be a final or more importantly “sole” rule of faith for all Christians. This idea is founded in your own tradition of authority originating outside the text yet you have yet to discover this small reality.
The bible happens to be a product of a authentic Church in turn the Church is a creation of God hence neither are at odds with each other or the Godly creating authority of both unless of course your decided upon “Church” is not authentic.
Jesus Christ did not come to create bickering communities (which is actually what you are supporting) all claiming authority over one another yet the creation and allow-ability of denomination-hood amongst non-Orthodox/non-Catholics was the end product of idealogues belonging to the “bible alone” , sola scriptura camp.
Returning to Pastorhood
When someone from a so-called “non-denominational”, non-orthodox community (quite often and truly of fundamentalist “Protestant” origin) suggests they don’t rely upon “Church” as a final authority I snicker.
The amount of contradictions amongst those opposed to a required valid apostolic succession is frankly outstanding in my opinion and anyone still proposing a throwing out of this requirement truly lacks knowledge in what marks of the authentic Christian Church are.
The recently created non-Orthodox communities all claiming Church-hood commonly enter into a game of semantics when attempting to argue away the connectivitiy of genealogy and true pastorship. One need only ask if you are in full communion with your pastor on theological topics and the profession of “bible alone” goes up in smoke.
Now many posting here look toward these later splintering of Christianity as a true sprit of Godly authority over coming some falsely believed in apostacy but there is great irony for these as the vast majority of Protestant Evangelical, or so-called non-Denominational communities don’t stand the test of time, lasting only one or two generations beyond the founding preacher. Why? , because they lack authority as pastoral imposters, they lack an authentic apostolic annointing of First Christianity, they lack membership in Christ’s ministerial priesthood established by Christ and handed onto his first century apostles.
In ending, since the period of Western “Protest”ant separation under men such as Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Wesley etc there as been great harm done under the guise of progress. Your focus is misguided as one should not be on the path of denial of Church but should be questioning,
Am I using the written text preserved for me by that Church in a valid and correct way?
Comment by Kevin — February 6, 2009 @ 11:13 am |
Hi Kevin,
I hope you understand why Protestants find your kind of argumentation marvelously unconvincing. Your comments while even perhaps having some truth to them, do nothing to support a contrary claim. Since what you think of as unexamined is really incredibly common to us it is easy for us to think that it is you who have not thought through your position.
That Bible is the product of the authentic church is something that we agree upon. That yours is the authentic church is something for which you seem to have handy rhetoric but no actual argument other than that you think it to be so. How would you know that your denomination, because that’s really all that it is, one more denomination, is the authentic one? Because it is old? Every heretical sect and unorthodox opinion was born in the life of the early church and the Apostle Paul’s writings are almost exclusively arguments of correction to an erring “authentic” church that was rife with moral and theological error. You seem to be simply ignoring the facts of history because it suits your purposes.
Being old, and even being being “authentic” whatever that could possibly means in the context of a conversation like this, might or might not be useful, but you have made no serious attempt to deal with the issues of the historic faith you try to defend. Your supposed unanimity of thought and identity of theology in the Eastern Church is myth. Your assumption of an absence of conflict within the theological environment of your communion is a whitewash. If Jesus did not come to create bickering communities then please stop bickering with us as the self contradiction shows the weakness in claim.
The one true church claim by Eastern Orthodoxy, and Rome, and the Mormons, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the Apostolic Pentecostal Church are not at all lost upon Protestants; they are simply not credible interpretations of biblical ecclesiology. You might even say that the claim itself should make one wary of whomever makes the claim.
The Protestant churches are the true church. This does not mean that we believe we are alone in that. The invisible church is the true church. Visible churches, like yours, have a passing value but only as a manifestation of a larger whole passing through history. Their value is measured by their purity, not their age or descent. This is known by their understanding and conformity to Scripture. If there is, was, or will be a True Church, there is no possible measurement of that identity other than from Scripture. If one says that the True Church is necessary to knowing the identity of the Scriptures themselves, having no way outside of Scripture to measure the identity of that True Church, this claim is itself a self contradiction and therefore meaningless. Sola Scriptura is the necessary default position for any thoughtful Christian.
There are problems with this view. Things to be discussed and conclusions to arrive at. But at the end of the day, since the identity and nature of the church is something that we can know nothing about apart from the histories and explanations of the Apostles and the Prophets themselves, the arguments are moot… and dangerous.
Neiswonger
Comment by Neiswonger — February 6, 2009 @ 1:53 pm |
Neiswonger,
you write, “they are simply not credible interpretations of biblical ecclesiology”
based on whose authority? and why suppose again an allegiance to “sola scriptura” by the ancient Christian Church when there is no such historical proof?
G. K. Chesterton stated it quite well in THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND CONVERSION,
I owe the fact that I find it very difficult to take some of the
Protestant propositions even seriously. What is any man who has
been in the real outer world, for instance, to make of the
everlasting cry that Catholic traditions are condemned by the
Bible? It indicates a jumble of topsy-turvy tests and tail-foremost
arguments, of which I never could at any time see the sense. The
ordinary sensible sceptic or pagan is standing in the street (in the
supreme character of the man in the street) and he sees a
procession go by of the priests of some strange cult, carrying their
object of worship under a canopy, some of them wearing high
head-dresses and carrying symbolical staffs, others carrying
scrolls and sacred records, others carrying sacred images and
lighted candles before them, others sacred relics in caskets or
cases, and so on. I can understand the spectator saying, “This is all
hocus-pocus”; I can even understand him, in moments of irritation,
breaking up the procession, throwing down the images, tearing up
the scrolls, dancing on the priests and anything else that might
express that general view. I can understand his saying, “Your
croziers are bosh, your candles are bosh, your statues and scrolls
and relics and all the rest of it are bosh.” But in what conceivable
frame of mind does he rush in to select one particular scroll of the
scriptures of this one particular group (a scroll which had always
belonged to them and been a part of their hocus-pocus, if it was
hocus-pocus); why in the world should the man in the street say
that one particular scroll was not bosh, but was the one and only
truth by which all the other things were to be condemned? Why
should it not be as superstitious to worship the scrolls as the
statues, of that one particular procession? Why should it not be as
reasonable to preserve the statues as the scrolls, by the tenets of
that particular creed? To say to the priests, “Your statues and
scrolls are condemned by our common sense,” is sensible. To say,
“Your statues are condemned by your scrolls, and we are going to
worship one part of your procession and wreck the rest,” is not
sensible from any standpoint, least of all that of the man in the
street.
again you write, “Visible churches, like yours, have a passing value but only as a manifestation of a larger whole passing through history. Their value is measured by their purity, not their age or descent. This is known by their understanding and conformity to Scripture.”
You actually believe this tripe?
The Church regardless of what you may claim that to be is built up of both sinners and saints hence perfection of overall piety (what you are labelling now as purity) will not be completely fulfilled until the end.
The Church in the world is not validated by a great piety of all her members for that would mean it’s truth relies merely upon those individual members. And if those within choose to leave your equation would mean it becomes less authentic as it’s holy members diminish.
The Church is never less authentic nor does it lack visibility in our age. As a promise of Christ was our Lord’s assertion to never leave it. And this is therefore the reasoning of the Church as holy because Christ her creator is holy. because of Christ the Church is called to be One (as in one faith, one baptism, one God) as in “let them be one so the world will know” , yet Protestantism chooses to venture away from this reality of Christ instead of toward. Protestantism could be explained as all the isms of the world with of course one exception… Catholicism.
Lets be intellectually honest together, and open our bibles and take a look at the first chapter of Matthew and then tell me age and descent does not matter. Even better, direct me to ancient Protestants so I may study them. Perhaps we’ll discover together this revisionism you’ve so strongly embraced is not founded upon authentic Church, but upon the same heretical groups opposed to authentic Christianity.
At this point I must my friend agree to disagree with you, Christ has created but one Church and many are in schism to it yet many are also separated brethren and the authentic Church continually prays for reunification with her brethren outside the one visible fold. Protestantism is not a Church(es) and can never be at best these are Christian communities in schism to the One Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church of Christ.
Kevin
Comment by Kevin — February 6, 2009 @ 3:24 pm |
Can you show me any creed, any church council, or any writing of a church father that claims your doctrine of the “Authentic” Church? Or did you just make it up?
Neiswonger
Comment by Neiswonger — February 6, 2009 @ 3:31 pm |
And by the way, you have not dealt with any of the issues involved or any of the arguments. You simply keep repeating the same things without argument or evidence. That’s why these arguments from supposed authority are so lame. They presume what it is necessary to show.
Neiswonger
Comment by Neiswonger — February 6, 2009 @ 3:35 pm |
One reason that Calvinists (Paulinists) leave the faith is that they have never truly understood and embraced the doctrines of grace. Similarly, there are many “Christians” who deny the faith; they have never been Christian in the first place. The faith of the apostles was always faith alone! Before you reply to quickly from James, I will point out from Jas. 2:23 that Abraham’s blessing of imputed righteousness occurred when he believed God first. This justification of faith alone occurred long before he offered Isaac where he was justified by works. It is clear therefore that James speaks to both justifications: one the means to salvation, the other a result of salvation.
There was a comment above that the church is built on sinners and saints. Of course, this reveals a lack of biblical understanding that all those who call upon the name of the Lord are saved. The Bible declares them to be saints. In fact, if you are not a saint, heaven is not your destination. 1 Cor. 1:2 shows that the church is comprised of saints. In Eph. 1:1, Paul writes to the saints at Ephesus. This presumes that the church there would have known that they were saints. They didn’t wonder whether or not they would become ’saints’ after they died. This brings us also to the major issue that wherever we deal with ‘church’ we need to understand it in its context. ‘Church’ means assembly. Not everyone who is member of any church is a Christian. Only those who are connected to the Head, who is Christ, are truly born again. The true church is the body of Christ.
In regards to the canon of scripture, it was not determined by the ecumenical councils, only affirmed. The NT writings were in circulation and in use much before councils ‘determined’ which books should be in or out. When you read the Bible and consider it as the truth of the Gospel of our Lord, it is not because a church has determined it for you, but because the written word is recognized. Hilkiah did not determine the book of the law; he recognized it. When he brought the scroll to Josiah, he too recognized it as the law of God, not determined.
Regarding the matter of tradition, Orthodoxy claims that it is on par with scripture. With this claim they gather to themselves authority that was never commanded, or implied in scripture. There is no command in scripture that Gentiles be circumcised, yet Paul knowing this, did circumcise Timothy to minimize any offense in their ministry to the Jews. We could call this a tradition because it was voluntary. Other means were presented in Acts 15 to not offend the Jews. Where are the Eastern Orthodox examples where in their concern for the conversion of Jews, a ‘priest’ would be voluntarily circumcised to minimize offending them?
Of course, we don’t have time for all their other ‘Orthodox’ deviations from scripture.
Comment by Howard — February 7, 2009 @ 8:59 pm |
I would just say that the esse of the church must be the life of God, concretized in Christ (there is a Paulinism). So, if this is true, there is no “physical” address (like Vatican City, Rome or something) for the “visible Church,” but instead a “spiritual” address which “receives” its life from Her head — Christ. Also, all the biblical metaphor’s of the churches’ relationship to Christ (temple, bride, body, etc.) all presuppose a “distinction” between Christ and “the Church;” albeit with an inseparable relationship (the incarnation is a helpful analogy here).
Anyway, just some quick thoughts. Oh, as far as genetic arguments (like Kevin is appealing to), they really are not sustainable given real life historical study. J. N. D. Kelly in his Early Christian Doctrine provides a good overview of the development of “ideas” (which indirectly speaks to the development of ecclesial structures) during the Patristic period . . . what his work helps illustrate (at least), as Christopher has been noting, is that any nice and neat monolithic understanding of the early church is just plain naive and sloppy characterization and special pleading of how that period actually was. Thus arguing that there was a “Roman Catholic Church,” or “EO Church” (as THE Church) is just not tenable, and becomes a non-starter in this discussion.
peace
Comment by bobby grow — February 9, 2009 @ 1:43 am |
Howard,
Please provide any positive support for “faith alone” being an apostolic doctrine. Additionally, please show how faith is not an action in and of itself.
We are given fairly clear means by which we enter into the Church. As per the Great Commission at the close of the Gospel of Matthew, the apostles a) went forth into all the world, b) baptising all nations in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, c) teaching them to obey everything that He commanded the apostles. I don’t see any juxtaposition of faith and works here – there is faith, and there is works, and the latter spring from the former. Obeying everything is nothing without being rooted in God, and a faith that claims to be rooted in God will have appropriate works or it, well, isn’t. Again: both faith and works are necessary, because works alone is useless, and faith alone is dead.
The writings were, indeed, in circulation well before the ecumenical councils. They were originally referred to as ‘the apostles’ memoirs’ by St Justin Martyr, when he was talking about the Liturgy of the Church to the Roman Emperor of the time. The Canon of Scripture, however, took quite some time to resolve – Marcion being the main, albeit negative, inspiration – on the basis of apostolic writing and correct teaching.
One of the things that Jesus did during his ministry here was found a Church (that the gates of hell would never prevail against). The Scriptures used were originally the Old Testament, with the Psalms as songbook. After a time, the Church acclaimed writings of the eyewitnesses of the Resurrection.
Finally, Timothy is a false dilemma. He was a Jew (through his mother), ministering to Jews; hence, he was circumcised. One would expect that anyone would at least follow their own cultural norms when ministering to their own people.
in Christ,
Andrew.
http://livingtheology.wordpress.com
Comment by smithakd — February 9, 2009 @ 3:00 am |
Andrew,
From James I provided evidence that he taught justification by faith alone. The context must determine the meaning of the word ‘justification’. In Rom. 1:17 the just shall live by his faith (not works), in 3:28 Paul “maintains that a man is justified apart from works”, in 4:3-5 “Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness” and to the one who does not work he justifies. In Rom. 9:30-33 the Gentiles attained righteousness by faith, not by works of law combined with faith. As soon as works are included as a means of conversion, we have something for which to take credit, therefore salvation must be soley based on the Person and work of Christ.
Paul teaches in Rom. 10:17 that “faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God”. The context is clear here that a written text does not save. God must give us hearing ears and He does that by His speaking. Ultimately the spoken word of Christ Himself must regenerate His elect. There are no human generated works here. A good illustration of this is how Jesus got Lazarus out of the tomb. He simply spoke the word and Lazarus became alive. Is faith an action? Is it a work? In John 6:29 Christ informs us that to believe Him is the work of God.(not man) John further reveals to us in 64-65 that no one can come to Him unless it has been granted. Some “disciples” followed Him no longer, indicating of course that their ‘belief’ or faith in Him was not really the work of God in the first place. The faith which Christ gives cannot be dead.
It is impossible for the true believer to have an attitude to belligerently continue in sin and yet be saved. (Rom. 6) The works of faith was evident even from the converted thief on the cross.
Concerning the matter of baptism, we know that physical baptism is not an essential element of conversion. The thief on the cross is an example of this. Biblically, baptism does not signify that we have joined a local church. In baptism we testify that we have been washed of our sins and that we are now members of the body of Christ. Joining a local assembly by baptism does not save us.
I don’t agree that Timothy is a “false dilemma”. The Jews at that time had already dispersed into other lands. Certainly, if the traditionalized ‘church’ (EO) was concerned not to offend other Jewish prospects, they would have recommended to already converted Jews who had not been circumcised to be circumcised to minimize offense to any other Jews. Acts 16:3 There is no reason to believe that Timothy would maintain ‘cultural norms’ by allowing himself to undergo painful surgery.
Rejoicing in Christ
Howard
Comment by Howard — February 9, 2009 @ 11:08 am |
Howard,
not wanting to go to far off the original topic as the question is not on justification (as per one tradition of bible interpretation) quoting out of context Rom. 1:17, Rom. 9:30-33 etc… Nor is this a discussion disputing the requirement of baptism or what non-Orthodox incorrectly relabel as “water baptism”
However, a new question must be raised,
Which works is the apostle Paul addressing? all works? No not all works that has been a poor instruction for the written text when one suggests all works do not fit into the salvation equation of followers of Christ.
We must seek to understand the bible with the correct backdrop, the correct context. Nowhere does James indicate he speaks on “justifying” works that is reading into the text neither are apostles Paul and James at odds over works. Both agree our salvation is about love and acts of charity are central to it. In no way is this a diminishment of one’s require faith sadly non-Orthodox are always setting up false dichotomies and attacking strawmen.
Regarding the Thief on the cross do you desire his punishment? do you desire martyrdom? The Thief is not a perfect example for denial of our baptism,
1. there was a clear desire of baptism in his case and
2. all things are possible with the mercy of God.
Try to remember that Saint Paul who you’ve quoted often, after taking instruction from the elder of the Church in Damascus, immediately arose and was baptized during his intial conversion. From this example alone we learn the requirement of baptism, the obedience to authority, and the unity of Church (oneness).
Kevin
Comment by Kevin — February 11, 2009 @ 7:01 am |
Chris,
re: reply #7 would references really make a difference for you?
re: reply #8 “you have not dealt with any of the issues involved or any of the arguments. You simply keep repeating the same things without argument or evidence.”
not so Chris I was merely responding to your own comments and asking questions myself for proof of ancient Protestants/non-Orthodox.
Comment by Kevin — February 11, 2009 @ 7:04 am |
Kevin,
The verses I referenced in Romans were not taken out of context. If you study James, it is clear that the works by which Abraham was “justified” occurred after his conversion. Even the works of the law which “Gentiles” did without the knowledge of the law did not save them. Rom. 2:14. After considering carefully the words of Paul in 3:10-18, what righteous works do you think you could perform acceptable to God? Paul addresses the absolute ineffectiveness of the works of the law in 3:20. The law is not condemned because by it our sin is documented, but no works of the law justify us.
In James 2:24, the apostle clearly states, “You see that a man is justified by works,, and not by faith alone.” So contrary to what you stated, he does indeed speak to “justifying” works. But as I stated this is in a different context to what Paul is teaching. Paul teaches that even works of righteousness cannot be a means of conversion; James is teaching that works is a necessary result of conversion.
Paul’s first obedience on the Damascus road was to Christ Himself. He was not told to start a ‘church’, neither is there a record that Ananias was told to start a ‘church’. Acts 9:6 In verse 10 and 11 Ananias, a disciple, obeyed Christ. He was baptized in obedience to Christ. At the time of Paul’s conversion there is no evidence in scripture indicating that he was an elder. Some believe he became a bishop sometime after this event. You said, “initial conversion”. How many conversions do you think the apostle had?
I’ll leave it at that for now,
Rejoicing in Christ,
Howard
Comment by Howard — February 11, 2009 @ 9:03 pm |
Hey there Howard,
You wrote, “In Rom. 9:30-33 the Gentiles attained righteousness by faith, not by works of law combined with faith. As soon as works are included as a means of conversion, we have something for which to take credit, therefore salvation must be solely based on the Person and work of Christ.”
Am I missing something here? Works cannot be included as a means of conversion, but “salvation must be solely based on … the work of Christ?”
Whether the work is committed by us or Christ, it still remains a work so, in some sense, everyone relies upon a work for salvation.
James does say some sticky things that make people given to overanalytic tendencies to freak-out. But this is the point, isn’t it? The Bible can’t be classified and verses cannot be pinned down and studied like butterflies under glass. Fact is, there’s a whole lot that we can’t understand — the apparent tension between Sts. Paul and James is one of them. Remember, “logic” is just “cigol” spelled backwards.
I’m not trying to be trite or cutesy here, but often what happens in Protestantism (and what I saw specifically at my wife and mine’s previous church) is a blind faith in logic and intellect. The idea of explaining God used to be an obsession of mine. Now I laugh at its absurdity. Truth is ultimately personal because it resides in a Person — a Person who, by the way, defies logic because He is three in one, one in three. That’s part of the brilliance of St. John’s use of the word logos in reference to Christ. Truth has rooted itself in a Person, according to John, contrary to Hellenistic thought which believed truth to be an abstract concept. Truth now lives and breathes, laughs and drinks, bathes and walks. It is not an ethereal Form to be studied but a Person to be known.
It is this embrace of mystery that attracted me to the Orthodox faith. The dark corners, the candlelight, incense, apophatic theology, and so forth. This is not merely an aesthetic choice alone (though, if it were so I don’t think I’d have a problem with it), but these are things that result from a specific sort of faith in God — one that understands the finitude of the creature. There are things that we don’t know and can’t know and the lack of sensory responses, beauty, mystery, and gothic dusk in Protestant churches shows what they believe about God, that Protestant worship is largely an intellectual exercise shows that God is more of a science experiment than a loving Father. The way to understand what Orthodoxy teaches is not to read books but to attend the service, sing the hymns and psalms, and absorb the prayers. Like Blaise Pascal wrote, “People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive … Bless yourself with holy water, have Masses said, and so on; by a simple and natural process this will make you believe, and will dull you – will quiet your proudly critical intellect … Make religion attractive, make good men wish it were true, and then show that it is. Worthy of reverence because it really understands human nature. Attractive because it promises true good.”
Arguments about syntax and original languages and the exact time of justification in the ordo salutis can have their purposes (though I’m not really sure what they are at the moment) but they mean nothing if one doesn’t pray. As Saint Evagrius of Pontus has written, “A theologian is one who prays truly, and one who prays truly is a theologian.” In the Protestant church, there was no form of prayer, of taming the passions, of reliance upon Christ — or if there were I certainly never knew or felt them. Within Orthodoxy I have found such things: concrete methods and examples of how to do so. All the books on prayer that I read while Protestant (and by Protestants) were concerned with what prayer is, what prayer does, and if God already knows the future why pray at all? Within Orthodoxy the books on prayer are not expositions but examples. Like all good faith, it shows and doesn’t tell.
Comment by Matt Clement — February 12, 2009 @ 1:22 pm |
Howard,
Not sure why you’ve jumped to a conclusion of “starting a Church” this has not been alluded to, and contrary to your portrayal, Paul was in fact obedient to Ananias the Church official guided to him. The Church in Damascus was already in existence once Paul stumbled into town.
Why do you assume an indication of Ananias not coopearating with Christ? Answer, to deny any hierarchal authority in Christ’s Church, to deny obedience to that authority on matters of faith.
I was not explaining the Church starts with Ananias nor was I explaining his authority operated outside of the Holy Spirit. Clearly Ananias was a Church authority already in existence. Ananias was guided to Paul (because his reputation was well known as anti-Christian) and Paul obeyed the instructs of Ananias.
“How many conversions do you think the apostle had?” daily conversion Howard for Paul indicates elsewhere in scripture, (I hesitate to verse-sling) “But I chastise my body, and bring it into subjection: lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway.” 1Cor 9:27
Bearing our cross daily is conversion.
Comment by Kevin — February 12, 2009 @ 1:55 pm |
Kevin,
Paul was obedient because Christ specifically told Paul what to do. He did not instruct him to be obedient to just anybody. Paul was primarily obedient to Christ. The divine imperative contains no reference to a “church official”.
Ananias was a disciple of Christ which means he was a learner or a pupil of Christ. He was obedient not a cooperator. I have no quarrel with various portions of scripture which give us details on the orderly adiministration of the affairs concerning the body of Christ. My dispute in this regard centers on EO’s claim that they themselves are the true church. The convincing guidance Paul received to seek Ananias came directly from the Lord himself. Today there are all kinds of self-professed teachers and prophets and priests and pastors who claim false authority for themselves. Orthodoxy is no exception. Therefore, the credibility of any church leadership cannot violate propositionally revealed truth.
I Cor. 9:27 has nothing to do with conversion. Paul here is not recommending self-flaggelation. For some the neglect of the body is lust and the foundation of spirtual pride as it was for the fasting Pharisee. Verses 19-27 gives us additional context. Paul expresses his concern that he might win Jew and Gentile. He loved to serve by heralding (preaching) the gospel to other potential participants in the race. In verse 26 he is certain, not uncertain, that as herald (preacher) he is also a successful combatant. Paul has not stated here that he had ever become disqualified in any way at any time.
You said, “Bearing our cross daily is conversion”. You have not shown this to be true. It certainly can’t be derived from the verse you provided. What if your cross falls off for a few hours? Would you go to hell then?
Rejoicing in Christ,
Howard
Comment by Howard — February 12, 2009 @ 5:04 pm |
Hi Matt,
Of course, it takes work to save us! But it can’t be our work. Our filthy rag righteousness is not acceptable to God. Isa. 64:6 Therefore it must be the work God in Christ alone. Titus 3:5 We therefore must rely upon the work of Christ not our own work. When James is read in context, the meaning is exceedingly clear. There is absolutely no tension between Paul and James as you suggest.
The Christ who said, “I am the way the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father except by Me.” also said to the woman taken in adultery, “Go and sin no more”. Do you get a happy sensation or feeling when you read that? You might be interested in a group of people in John 6 which started with their ‘truth’ but when it conflicted with The Truth, they no longer followed Him.
You said, “The way to understand what Orthodoxy teaches is not to read books but to attend the service, sing the hymns and psalms, and absorb the prayers.” Joel Osteen would say the same thing. Every cult will say the same thing. The way to understand Orthodoxy or any other church which advertises themselves as the church is to read the Bible. Psa.119:105 In fact the whole chapter relates to the matter of reading and being familiar with the Bible. Singing the Psalms is great as long as it doesn’t become ritualistic. But the Bible will expose the errors of claims to being the church, eucharist, praying to Mary, iconography, confessional, purgatory, man becoming gods, and other patristic falsehoods absorbed by Orthodoxy.
You said, “It is not an ethereal Form to be studied but a Person to be known.” True believers always consider Christ to be a Person. To know Christ you must study and observe the documents He has given. To be a Christian you must be logical and intellectual. Peter instructs us to “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.” 2Pe.3:18 The true believer however cannot have a blind faith because Christ has opened his spiritual eyes.
You said, “Truth has rooted itself in a Person, according to John, contrary to Hellenistic thought which believed truth to be an abstract concept.” Beginning with Adam and Eve, we know that truth was revealed to man from the beginning by God as concrete not abstract. It was always clear, ‘You do the crime; you do the time’! Truth did not root itself in anybody. The Christ was always in possession of that truth! John 14:6
You decry intellect and knowledge on the one hand, then advise people to attend a service to sing hymns, Psalms and “absorb prayers”. To some extent I saw Pascal describing you and Orthodoxy. Obviously, you find Orthodoxy attractive, so you believe it to be true. Anyway, it is not really so important to know what Pascal said as it is to know what the Bible says. Know this that the Bible is an extreme book. It is extremely positive and it is also extremely positive. Does the Bible paint a positive or negative picture of Orthodoxy?
It sounds like you are promoting ignorance. The world is full of people who want sensation to be their truth. They want liturgy and the feel of religion through imagination.
Mankind generally want to make God at least a little bit ignorant. Certainly, our Sovereign God knows what is going to happen! So why pray? Because we are commanded to do so. It is a divinely appointed means by which God’s will is accomplished whether the prayer is answered to our liking or not. Praying for forgiveness for our sins is of no avail, if we first do not know with absolute certainty that when we call upon God with a contrite heart to forgive us that our sins will actually be forgiven. True prayer is according to knowledge and intellect. Finally, the true believer with an increasing knowledge of the the word of God can’t help but pray. And rejoice.
Regarding your use of the word ‘Protestant’. Most ‘evangelical’ churches today do not really know what protestant means, neither do they understand the old apostolic doctrines that resurfaced during the reformation that gave rise to the Reformation. So whatever books you had been reading on prayer, I would suggest read the Bible first.
May God bless you with His Word,
Rejoicing in Christ,
Howard
Comment by Howard — February 12, 2009 @ 11:03 pm |
Howard,
“You have not shown this to be true. It certainly can’t be derived from the verse you provided. What if your cross falls off for a few hours? Would you go to hell then?”
First Christianity never professed Once Saved Always Saved doctrine which I assume you now hold to. The father of this believe is Calvin not Christ, I point you back to Christ. Can someone who comes to know the Lord fall away? It is a possibility my friend.
I think you are attempting to question the issue of assurance for those who don’t hold to this very recent creation known as “Once Saved” and that will have to be for another day.
Returning to the original post, I think it a good idea for you to read from this Protestant publication, The Future Lies in the Past Why evangelicals are connecting with the early church as they move into the 21st century.
Kevin
Comment by Kevin — February 13, 2009 @ 5:31 am |
Hi Kevin,
Christianity Today is protestant in name only. Secondly, it provided no biblical support. How many times do you think you have been re-saved?
Calvin was instrumental in bringing to light the doctrines as taught by the prophets, Christ and the apostles. Please read the whole context of this verse in John 6:39 “And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.”
Show me where God’s predestination has failed. Rom.8:29 is certain that it will not. Please read the whole chapter and also see Eph. 1:4,5.
Show me a verse which shows that it is possible to pass from eternal life unto death. See John 5:24
The confidence that Paul expresses in Phil. 1:6 is interesting. Those who mock the doctrines of election and the security of the believer should expect Paul to say, ‘I am not so confident about you because you might destroy the good work God started in you and maybe lose your faith.’ –But he didn’t.
Are there people that believe for awhile. Certainly! Luke 8:13. The crop failure on the rocky soil is 100%. The crop success on the good soil is also 100%. Read the whole parable. There are a lot of people who make a profession of faith but are not truly saved! “They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, in order that it might be shown that they all are not of us.” 1Jn.2:19 Those who come to know the Lord will not fall away. These are just a few scripture. May God bless you with His word.
Rejoicing in Christ,
Howard
Comment by Howard — February 13, 2009 @ 11:58 am |
Howard,
this is not a matter of “resaved” also have you ever considered we are not at odds with verse but traditions of interpretation? You realize you have a tradition of interpretation.
“show me a verse” simply doesn’t cut it when the argument is not over text but the orthodox interpretation of the written revelation.
“Calvin was instrumental in bringing to light the doctrines as taught by the prophets, Christ and the apostles” that pronouncement is simply laughable and even rings of Jehovah Witness-ism.
Comment by Kevin — February 13, 2009 @ 2:25 pm |
Hi Kevin,
If you are not at odds with the biblical verse, then of course, you should have no problem bringing to light your interpretation since you believe it to be the correct one. My “tradition” of interpretation precludes the “private” one which Orthodoxy uses. 2 Pe.1:20
Rejoicing in Christ,
Howard
Comment by Howard — February 13, 2009 @ 10:29 pm |
I cannot believe I’m actually going to do this, but I had to respond briefly to this one comment by the OP,
>>>>>>That Bible is the product of the authentic church is something that we agree upon. That yours is the authentic church is something for which you seem to have handy rhetoric but no actual argument other than that you think it to be so.<<<<<<>>>>> How would you know that your denomination, because that’s really all that it is, one more denomination, is the authentic one? Because it is old? Every heretical sect and unorthodox opinion was born in the life of the early church<<<<<
***All except modern Protestant theology which simply didn’t exist until 200-300 years ago. Modern Protestantism cannot even date back to Luther….which surprises many Protestants. That’s the biggest problem for me…did all Christians have it wrong for 1700 years? (that’s what Mormon’s teach) Or did the Church die out after the death of the Apostle John? (that’s what JW’s teach) Both arguments do not hold up for me because both disprove Christ’s teachings…..if Christ was wrong, then why should I follow him? and it’s funny, that Protestants regularly accept the Gospel of matthew was written by a guy named Matthew for no reason other than WE, the Orthodox/Roman Catholic Church says that’s who wrote it. I
Orthodoxy is wrought with problems, but as you pointed out, so was the early Church. There never was a “golden age” of Christianity when everything was perfect….the closest it ever came to that was during the persecutions when only the most devout believers even dared become Christian….(and I mean real persecution, not being called bad names by comedians) Orthodoxy is full of politics, and all the bad things that it always has been….(St. Athanasius was deposed about 5 times), St. John Chrysostom a couple, St. Maximus went into exile and had his tongue cut out so he couldn’t preach) the list goes on….so the Church always was full of sinful men doing sinful things, and yes it is difficult, but we must seperate the sins of men in the Church, from the mystical body of Christ. That doesn’t mean the Church is “invisible” as in, “I’m ok you’re ok”, what it does mean is that being a member of the true Church doesn’t get anyone an automatic ticket to heaven. Jesus can save anyone He wants to…..and Im not going to do “proof texting” but I just had to answer these 2 statements from an historical perspective. ultimately Christianity’s claim is an historical one, and if it cannot hold up to history, then it’s worthless IMO. However in my studies, it does hold up to history better than any other…..if you want to read about it do so…it’s an interesting topic, but do it with an honest open mind and heart, and from the original sources or from respected historians like Duffy who actually do real history….(forget these Jesus seminar guys, as much fun as they are to read, they more for entertainment than anything else)
Anyways, this will not convince you I know…..but I felt I should post this anyways…..
Peace, in Christ…
Comment by Tom — February 14, 2009 @ 9:56 am |
Very interesting reading. I was raised in the Orthodox Church and left it at 19 years old when I determined I knew everything. I have spent the last twenty years as an Evangelical American. I now know that I know very little, therfore I will not tip my hand, however I do have a question. Did Christians in , let’s say, um, 721 AD, have the ability to reasearch and collect knowledge from the scriptures as we do today?
Comment by G-Man — February 18, 2009 @ 3:54 am |
Access to the Bible over the centuries has been very limited. However, Bible translation was a concern to a few even in the 700’s. Bede, a historian of the Middle Ages, had a concern for the less educated clergy that they might have access to the study of the scripture. He translated some of the Gospel of John but death prevented him from finishing. Even before Luther nailed the 95 thesis to the church door in Wittenberg in 1517, John Wycliff and Jan Hus had already been awakened to the fallacies of the Church at large. Their limited access to the Bible, no doubt also limited their research, but God did raise up men who opposed the fallacious teachings of the Church. They were able access enough information to know that what they were being taught was heresy and by vocalizing their concerns, the “Church” killed them. Wycliff died because he was translating the Bible.
While I sincerely believe that Eastern Orthodoxy is a cult, there are many churches which are masquarading under the banner of “evangelical” which are also cults.
Comment by Howard — February 19, 2009 @ 10:51 am |
John Wycliff died of old age. Morning-star of the Reformation, they called him. Still, many have died of Bible-translation-into-the-vulgar-tougue related causes.
Neiswonger
Comment by Neiswonger — February 19, 2009 @ 11:06 am |
Thanks for the correction, Neiswonger.
Comment by Howard — February 19, 2009 @ 11:50 am |
Thanx Howard. While I have no reason to argue against your anwser, I believe it is correct, it still does not answer my original question on whether Christians in 721 AD had the access to the scriptures in the same way we do today. A couple of factors I think need to be taken into account. How many christians in western europe had the ability to read in the post classical Roman world? What was the state of academia in the general poulation in the Holy Roman Empire during the riegn of Charlamagne? Could Christians who could not read, let alone have access to the scriptures determine what was heretical and what was correct according to the Holy Writ, when they could niether read it or even possess it. I understand that the argument is given that God enlightened men like Luther, Zwignli, Calvin and Wycliffe in the truth of scripture; however, this occured centuries after 721 AD (just picked a random date) at atime when it seems that the ability to read and possess the truth may have been extremeley limited. Can people unable to search the scriptures for truth have attained Eternal Life beleiving what the trinitarian Church was teaching at the time. I guess what I am saying is prior to the raising of these men, who you state exposed the fallacious teachings of the church, could anyone be saved beleiving the standard Roman/Orthodox (somewhat still a unified group) church doctrine?
Comment by G Man — February 19, 2009 @ 8:02 pm |
G Man,
No, people in 721 AD did not have access to scriptures in the same way they do today. Neither did the people in Elijah’s day have access to the scriptures in the same way as we do today. Yet, there were 7000 who had not bowed the knee to Baal that Elijah had no idea existed. Even today in many countries gospel access is not much different than 1300 years ago.
Despite the heresies and deviations from truth in every age, God is able to impress His people with the truth and He loses none of them. In an age where the truth was intentionally obscured, academics like Luther, Calvin, Hus and others were divinely enabled to see the truth. Today we are loaded with Christian academics, yet the truth is ignored not because we are externally prevented from it but because we don’t want it. It is amazing to me that people in our Western society are saved given that ‘protestant’ christendom has also conformed to the spirit of the age and introduced traditions and philosohies as Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism had done over centuries. For any of us to apprehend the truth of the gospel at any time and in any age, God has to do the work, regardless of our access to truth. Access or not, “they are without excuse”. Rom. 1:20
Comment by Howard — February 20, 2009 @ 9:55 am |
Thanx Howard, you are very engaging. You stated tht they are “without excuse” and I agree with what you are saying. However the question I m asking is whether, given the apparent norm of the church in 721, is there anyone that you know of that was not in thew state of ” conformed to the spirit of the age and introduced traditions and philisophies as Eastern Orhtodoxy/Romanism/and Protestantism” in 721 AD.
I am not speaking of single Individuals, rather at least somewhat developed church systems that effected the masses or at least some measurable group. Do you know of a remnant in 721 IE,. some person or group wich practiced Christianity in the same way you do. ( I am supposing you beleive you follow scripture in it’s correct from and practice the faith in the like manner of the Apostle’s in the 1 st centuruy.)
I am not trying to be critical of your answer, I have no reason to beleive you are nothing other than a sincere Christian, however I am still trying to find out who, if there even was, the Christians were in the 6th century that did practice correctly in you opinion. And if you have them could you please give reference. In many cases I don’t even think the Modern Anabaptist Fundumentalist American Evangelical ( I am not saying you are) could even come to agreement with Major Reformers and some of their beleifs. Luther infant Baptism, Priesthood, rrealse Presence in the Eucharist, No salvation oustide the Lutheran Church, Ever Virginity of Mary all located in the Bondage of the Will. Calvin the same on several of the above points. I cannot imagine who, and I have done extensive searching, these people in 721 were who practiced what we in 2009 consider to be the truth of practice in 55 AD by the Apostle’s.
Do you know who these persons/groups/sects/ were? And if the old testament can identify at least 7,000 in the distant past of history can we at least discover some in the 5th,6th,7th,8th,9th centuries. and if we cannot did the gates of hell prevail for at least one day. Did the Church as Mormons,Jehovah’s, Seventh Day Adventist’s and these other modern day restorationist groups claim, fail, become apostate and utterly miss the mark until the reformation. Did the infant Baptizers such as Luther, Calvin,Wycliffe even get it right. Unless you are somewhat Reformed/Calvinist you probaly are not a Peado Baptist. So did they even get it right. Bottom line, did anyone identifiable get it right in 721 AD, or were they the one’s ” without excuse” in Romans. Thank you for your responce in advance, Yor brother in Christ G Man.
Comment by G Man — February 20, 2009 @ 9:05 pm |
G Man, I see you never got an answer to your questions, and that’s a shame because I too would like to hear what the answer is to this question. The truth is, apart from Sacramental type Protestants (Lutherans, Anglicans, etc) I don’t think you’ll ever get an answer. Because there is not historically verifiable answer to who these “real Christians” were in the 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th centuries. Sacramental Protestants don’t have that big a problem answering it, but Restorationists, and Protestants who are almost restorationists, Anabaptist traditionalists etc, cannot answer it. Not because they don’t know, but Because there are no historical documents to support such a theory. The closest you’ll come to an answer from that Christian POV, is the “trail of blood” or “church of blood” theory, which suggests that all the “true Christians” were the ones the historical (ie: Catholic/Orthodox) Church persecuted. The problem with that is we know exactly what those people believed too, and it wasn’t modern day Anabaptist or Calvinist theology. The ones that do realize that, will say the “true Christians” were living up in the Alps for 1000 years living out of the wilderness, hunting and fishing and secretly following Christ, yet there is no historical evidence to even remotely suggest that. So in the end, you’re left with no answer to your question or an answer that is uncomfortable, and that is the only Christians that existed on planet earth in the 7th century adhered to orthodoxy/historical Christian dogma, more or less. (some held erroneuous beliefs, but ZERO were say, southern baptists) And no Christian in the 7th century ever believed anything like the modern day Fundamentalists. If they did, SHOW ME their writings…show me their beliefs….they can’t be shown, because they don’t exist. And they didn’t exist, until roughly the period of the enlightenment.
That’s not to say I think you should or you must return to Orthodoxy, because that’s not me to decide, that’s between you and God, but as Christians we must be honest with history because our faith claims to be an historical faith that took place in real historical time. And not a “mythical past” like the pagan gods of ancient Greece. Christ walked on planet earth, was crucified died and was buried in real history, and so we must use real history (IMO) to understand and strengthen our faith. It does no good when Christians of what ever tradition, start talking crazy and saying “well there were true Christians but there is not a single shred of evidence for them”….we don’t, nor should we say that about the Resurrection, so why should say that in regards to Church history?
Anyways, I’m not here to bash my Protestant brethren, and in fact I think we Orthodox have MUCH to learn (or rediscover perhaps) from our Protestant brethren. I’ve learned or relearned much from my protestant friends as of late, and my faith is increased for it. And indeed, the Reformation wasn’t ALL bad. There were some good points, especially with the early Reformers, but REFORM is the word, not RESTORE. I could simply never be a Restorationist Christian because it would force me to ignore historical facts, which is something, (as a lover of history) that I simply cannot do.
In the end though, all that matters is Christ. Follow Him where He leads you, and trust in Him, and not men, whether they be Luther, Calvin, or even Schmemman. (whom I have a great respect for)
Comment by Tom — July 25, 2009 @ 12:48 pm |
Neiswonger-
“The Protestant churches are the true church. This does not mean that we believe we are alone in that. The invisible church is the true church. Visible churches, like yours, have a passing value but only as a manifestation of a larger whole passing through history.”
I have not looked at this entire thread, but I was just wondering whether you believe Eastern Orthodox are also fellow believers. If not, why?
http://www.bywhoseauthority.blogspot.com
Comment by catz206 — March 27, 2009 @ 11:29 pm |
Here is a point of interest that no Orthodox that I know is taught to think about in their Orthodox indoctrination. Orthodoxy, unfortunately, is a park your brain outside the doors of the church religion and not a Christianity that encourages you to think, look, talk, feel and ask hard questions outside of its Orthodox closed box. It wants you to think about it, look at it, feel about it and reverence it like it tells you too. If it tells you it is the one true church then believe that it is based upon its assumptions of what that means. Don’t think outside of its assumptions and ask hard questions.
Here are two hard questions posed to the Orthodox:
Did Jesus Christ come to us as a Sanhedrin Pharisee hierarchical religion of top down power and control?
Did Jesus Christ come to us as a royal Roman instutionalized hierarchical church/state religion of top down power and control?
When I read the Gospels I see Christ coming to us out of no where and from the bottom up walking with the laity at the bottom and as their CENTER. With judgement and sarcasm He confronted the hierarchical one true church of His day and called it corrupt and not our salvation. It too saw itself as the ALONE RIGHT ONE TRUE CHURCH.
The Sanhedrin structure and system of corrupt legalistic religion gone cult is a power structure.
The Eastern Orthodox structure and system is for all intents and purposes is a dead hierarchical church/state religion power structure gone cult. It is totally corrupt.
Jesus Christ is a humility structure as found in Phillipians chapter 2. Those are structure and system verses describing the structure and system by which He came to us in humility. He came to us as a bottom up structure that walks with those at the bottom and as our center.
John 8:31-59 reveals Christ confronting the system of church in His day. Those are system verses. Anyone who knows anything about systems knows that a system flows out of a structure. In other words those are both structure and system verses. The Orthodox have never viewed these verses in a structure and system context and it is EXACTLY what Christ was doing in this confrontation. He was pointing out how HOLLOW their structure and system really is. He replaced every argument they gave Him with Himself. He in particular went after their dead century after century piled on top of piled on legalistic traditions that they held us as SACRED TRUTH and as the only way to do their one true church and right belief and right worship religion. Oh, yes, they too also believed they were right worship and right religion. In fact, they were LEGALISTIC about it.
The counter arguments made by those Christ confronted in John 8 are the EXACT same arguments the EOC make in defense of their one true church. Look at how and what they used to defend their DEAD religion witrh. Sound at all familiar Orthodox??? I would suggest anyone interested in one true church thinking conduct a Google search on ‘One true churches’. You might also want to do a search on ‘cult organization structure’ or ‘cult hierarchical structures’. All cults have a hierarchical structure of power. Christ is a structure of humility.
Christ was telling them in John 8 that He is their salvation and not a structure and system. He was telling them you can have the right theology, right fathers, right worship and right belief, the right history, the right traditions, etc. etc. and still be WRONG. He was telling them those things kept them from seeing Him as who He really is. He was telling them those things are idol gods that are lying to you.
Christ was telling them if you to put those things in front of ME you will end up without ME. If those things are your faith then your faith is corrupted. If those things are your IDENTITY your identity is in the wrong things. Christ is to be our indentity and He only can be if He is our Lord. Christ told them that believing in what they believed in made Satan their lord. He was telling them that their structure and system was of Satan! Orthodox Christians tell me what kind of a structure and system was Christ talking about?
The bottom line is this:
Did Jesus come to us as a power structure or did He come to us as humility structure?
Did Jesus walk among the laity at the bottom as their center or did He come to them as the Sanhedrin Pharisee power structure?
Which model did He model to us? To the EOC it is obvious which Jesus they believe in. They model the Jesus they believe in by their power structure model of royal Roman instutionalized top down authoritarian hierarchical church/state religion. It is either dying, dead or gone cult in most places you find it today.
Orthodoxy is a closed top down hiearchical power structure and system. Jesus Christ is a bottom up in our center humility structure. The two could not be more far apart in thinking or structure that forms your thinking by indoctrination into a particular structure of thinking based upon the structure. One structure believes it is the ONLY one true church and the other believes it is a part of Christs true church. One is self centered, self focused and self protective of itself by structure and system and the other is open system, outward focused and self critical of itself. The two structures and systems could not be more different. Ever wonder why Orthodoxy is is so hiding, keeping of secrets, covering up, denying and blaming? Well, it is because of how it is structured and how the structure is really only a structure of self centered self protection. Orthodoxy is based in self centered self protection and not in outward outreach risk taking. It would rather protect itself than reach out of itself. Jesus confronted the same kind of attitude and mind set of structure and leaders when He walked among us at the bottom and as our center.
What is closed by structure and system cannot open itself. Christ confronting the Pharisee’s is proof of this. Only what is open can open what is closed. The closed cannot open themselves, their closed! A closed structure and sysem is limited to the six sides of its closed box in its ability to outreach. It can only really see itself from its inside the closed box definition of itself. An open system has no such limitations. Jesus a open system. He came to us as an open system. Either Christ is your defining identity or a structure and system of religion is your identity when comparing the two structures and systems. What is open frees what is closed and it does this by coming to what is closed from outside the closed structure and system as the radical dimateric opposite of the closed structure and system. This is totally lost on the Orthodox who turned Christianity into a closed structure and system of church/state institutionalized religion.
A closed structure and system is closed to change. So were the Pharisee’s in their one true church of closed top down hierarchical power and control corrupt religion. They were dead in their rigidity religion in comparison to Jesus who is life. Jesus is RELEVANCE and He is CHANGE TO RELEVANCE. The religionists of Christs day were really only RELEVANT to themselves. They refused to change. They wanted their TRADITIONS over salavation in Jesus. They made their tradition on par with God. Is Orthodoxy today dying or dead? Is it really only relevant to itself? Does it change to relevance?
The attitude and behavior of most Orthodox hierarchs reflects the same attitude and behavior reflected by the religion leaders that Jesus confronted. They were spiritually abusive, corrupt and self righteous alone right. They are one true church leaders and boy does it show that they are!
Jesus is change to relevance. Orthodoxy like the Pharisee’s will not change. It must not change or if it did that would mean a change of structure and system and those in power and control over the structure and system would lose power and control over the structure and system. Jesus is a humility structure and therefore can change. Orthodoxy is a power structure and therefore refuses to change. The structure of Orthodoxy is the Orthodox IDOL.
The Orthodox when motivated can remove a corrupt bishop. However, they do not remove the structure that sets up the corruption everytime. In WW 2 when America and its allies defeated Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan we not only destroyed their dicatatorships we also destroyed their dictatorship structures. We replaced them with BOTTOM UP democracies. Had we not we would hhave only ended up fighting another dictator again. This makes real world rational and logical sense to replace a dictatorship structure when you destroy the dictator. Jesus when He came destroyed the dictatorship structure of His day. He replaced it with a BOTTOM UP Jesus come to us at the bottom, wwalking with us at the bottom and leading us as our CENTER at the bottom. What is Orthodoxy in comparison to this? Is it a change back to what Christ contronted or is it who Christ came to us as?
A good book written about the Protestants to the Protestants and that in-between the lines reveals Orthodoxy is called PAGAN CHRISTIANITY. Now, remember, this is a book written to Protestants about Protestants. It is not an Orthodox book. The Orthodox can’t write books like this. They are a control milieu structure and system and not free to do so, not really. Closed systems of dead religion are not really that self critical of themselves. Were the ones Christ confronted in the Gospels self critical? Another good book is the Subtle Power of Spiitual Abuse. This is another Protestant book written to Protestants, but boy does it reveal what is really going on in closed Orthodoxy that can’t write books like this.
Orthodoxy today looks like a church on it death bed and only alive because of the religious codependency life support its followers provide it to keep it alive. It is brain dead in a coma. Pull the codependent life support plug and in 24 hours the whole thing implodes in onto itself. It already is imploding. It is dying a slow, ugly and painful death of its own legalistic religion corruptions making. Orthodoxy is what Steve Auterburns book called TOXIC FAITH is all about. Don’t believe me? Read it and see how off base I am. All Orthodox are play a particular role in the dysfunctional and shaming system.
Orthodoxy is a dying and/or dead religion based in religious addiction and religious codenpendency. Anyone who understands what I am talking about here also understands then that the basis of Orthodoxy is SHAME. All power structures of religion shame. It is one of the key tools they use to keep power and control. All shame based church structures and systems make you either a religious addict or religious codependent from the structure and system SHAME basis. The Orthodox do not understand what a shame basis is and how a power structure utlizes shame to keep all under corrupt modern day Pharisee like power and control.
Top down church suppresses the laity and hold it down with the power structure in the center. Bottom up church comes under the laity and raises it up with Christ in the center. One structure makes Christ Lord and the other structure makes itself God. Jesus is bottom up and Orthodoxy is top down. Top down church, like Christ confronted in John 8:31-59, makes itself your salvation by structure and system of royal Roman institutionalized church/state religion. Christ confronted exactly that among the Pharisee’s.
There is NO real priesthood of the laity believer in Orthodoxy. There is really only a priesthood of the bishops, priests and monastics. The laity has no real authority in the structure. Look at how corruption is handled in this church and tell me different. The laity has to go outside the structure to confront corruption. Most of the time the laity is too apathetic and indifferent to do that or it FEARS doing that. Church fear is created by the shame basis of a church if you understand shame. The priesthood of the bishops, priests and monastics are not in transparent accountability to the laity in the structure. The structure of power and control does not want them to hold that kind of authority or it will lose authority. It’s all about POWER in Orthodoxy. It’s all about CONTROL in Orthodoxy. Jesus is all about himility. He is Christianity come to us. What then is Orthodoxy come to us?
Presupposition of structure and system is determined by how a church views who Christ is come to us. It is obvious who the Orthodox think Christ come to us is. He came to us a a power structure of top down control. The truth of the one true historical Christian church is that it is not the true church. It is a royal Roman institutionalized top down hierarchical church/state religion that by that basis claims to be the one true church. Anyone not of it and who knows what it is really based upon can see this.
If Jesus Christ is a abusive, shaming, corrupt and dead top down suppressive religion going cult then Orthodoxy is the one true church. I do not see the Gospels dipicting Him come to us as that. Obviously, the Orthodox do or they would change their church, but they can’t change their church. It’s structure and system will not let them change to relevance, but Jesus did come to us as the change to relevence, but why then if the Orthodox church is the one true church is it basically only relevant to itself?
The Orthodox church must be the one true church. After all it says so and if the one true says so it is so. All one true churches say this. The very things that the Orthodox base that upon are the very things Jesus Christ confronted in John 8:31-59. Their power structure is the opposite structure that humble Christ came to us as. No where in the Gospels do you see Jesus advocating for this kind of power structure. NO WHERE.
Go be right Orthodox. Go be the ONE TRUE CHURCH and see where that Orthodox Mind takes you. Look at the state of Orthodoxy and see where your Orthodox Mind is taking you as the one true church.
Comment by ashley nevins — August 28, 2009 @ 1:58 pm |
Did Jesus establish a “Top Down” shame system when he told his disciple’s that if anyone rejected them they rejected him? Why would anyone have to accept his disciple’s? Could not anyone simply say “I love and beleive in Christ, you guys can just keep walking, I don’t need you.” Did he establish a”Top Down” system when he explicitly gave them the power to forgive sins, unless “whoevers sins you retain will be retained, and whoevers sins you forgive will be forgiven “, does not mean that. Did he establish a shame system when he struck down a couple who were basically lying about thier finances to the Apostles? Did he establish a “Top Down” shame system when Paul instructed a church to “Obey those appointed over them”. I don’t know. What I do know is that Orthodoxy teaches that there are very many admirable qualities in the Protestant Churches. Orthodoxy can learn much from the Protestant appraoch to textual critisism, world missionsand other things. I know very litte about you; however you remind me of myself when I was 19 and had figured everything out. Your raving crtisism of Orthodoxy is what I generally encounter when I speak to Christians who are young and immature in the faith.
Comment by Peter — October 28, 2009 @ 11:41 pm |
@Ashley Nevins,
Firstly, your post is too long for the few points you’re making.
Secondly, as an Orthodox Christian, I’ve never experienced any sort of intellectual deadness, and certainly never any kind of intellectual closed-mindedness.
Thirdly, a knowledge of history would tell you that the hierarchies thrust upon the Church during the Ottoman Empire were thrust upon because it was alien to the Church. It’s a system of hierarchy that is dying precisely because of this alien-ness (for lack of a better word) to the current world. However, dictatorial governance a la Leviathan is not something that you can find in Orthodox theology or ecclesiology. The irony that you do not see this as an ability to change/adapt to conditions is striking.
Fourth, the whole problem was the legalism. We can’t get anywhere by rules and ethics alone – Christ will tell us that we did not know him. That is just as true for the right amount of fasting/prostrations as it does for thinking that, say, a sinner’s prayer (on it’s own) will get you saved.
Fifth, you will find no evidence in Church history that Christ established a bottom-up democracy. From the earliest days of the first century, there were bishops and priests and deacons and laity, serving as a hierarchy in love. The two are not mutually exclusive just because we’re used to a democracy.
Finally, I honestly don’t know what you’re describing. It’s certainly not the Orthodox Church. Come along one Sunday, with an open mind, and see what we’re like in real life.
Comment by Andrew K. D. Smith — September 8, 2009 @ 2:45 pm |
Congratulations, folks…you have brilliantly demonstrated the attitudes which have steered many not only away from your particular church, but from God entirely. If your intent was to confuse the faithful, plant the seed of doubt in God, and feed those who depend on such intolerance to mock and ridicule any faith, then you have succeeded.
Like the British Parliament, where politicians politely address their counterpart before ripping them a “new one”, you have all reduced an opportunity of understanding to a verbal sling fest which further enhanced your ignorance.
To those reading the mindless bickering showcased on this thread, know this: The one true church lives only in the hearts of His children who accept Him and submit themselves to His mercy.
Comment by Perry — October 21, 2009 @ 5:10 am |