Denominationalism

Author: Mopac ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 30
  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 8,050
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    Denominationalism is strictly a protestant/"evangelical" Christianity phenomena.


    What does it really mean?

    That the entirety of the church is not present here, it is not truly catholic.

    Some say they are "nondenominational", but do any so called "nondenominational " churches have the entire faith? No, they like all the other denominations only contain a piece of the pie.

    The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is truly nondenominational, not nondenominational in pretense. That is, the fullness of the faith is there. It is complete. It is universal. It is catholic.

    The Orthodox Catholic Church is the complete church. 


  • Zaradi
    Zaradi avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 705
    2
    3
    7
    Zaradi avatar
    Zaradi
    What happened to becoming a monk?
  • Salixes
    Salixes avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 494
    1
    1
    4
    Salixes avatar
    Salixes
    --> @Zaradi
    What happened to becoming a monk?
    He needs to evolve past the monkey stage first.

  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 8,050
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    --> @Zaradi
    Lent doesn't start until the end of the month. I am visiting family right now.





  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 8,050
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    A churchless Christianity is no Christianity. Likewise, the idea that all the varying "churches" constitute branches to one tree of the church is an ahistorical concept of the church.

    There is one church, and the solution to the reformation is reunion with The Orthodox Catholic Church.


    The Roman church itself is unreconcilable with Orthodoxy so long as it maintains its doctrine of papal supremacy, and its alteration of the Nicean-Constantinople creed.

    The Orthodox Catholic Church is the very church that holds the torch of Truth passed down from the apostles.




  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 8,050
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    --> @Tradesecret
    Yes it is. just because the Orthodox church denies it(being a denomination), does not change the fact. In fact according to the True Church, the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox church was excommunicated from the table of Christ. The orthodox church still needs to repent of its schismatic ways and return to the Church for forgiveness. 


    You argue disingenuously, because you do not belong to the church of Rome.

    The Orthodox is the Catholic Church. The doctrine of Papal Supremacy was never accepted by the church, the bishop of Rome was one of five patriarchs. What makes more sense, that four of the five patriarchs broke away, or that one patrairchate became corrupt and rebelled against the church?

    The ecumenical councils also made it clear that altering the creed of the church without church consensus is an act of schism. The Roman church demonstrably did just that.

    The Roman church since the schism has slain many saints, and has oppressed many. The Orthodox Church on the other hand has been persecuted since the time of Christ.


    Catholic means universal, complete, and whole. It is not a denomination. A denomination is a church that is not catholic.


    The doctrinal formulations of the church were all originally written in Greek. All the ecumenical councils before the schism of Rome took place in the east. 
    So what? It was the Eastern Church who was judged by God with the Islamic hordes.  They were decimated. The orthodox church turned its back on the truth. 

    By that reasoning, all persecution of the church is the result of God punishing the church for turning away from the truth.



    Is it really so hard to believe that western Christianity is corrupt? 
    LOL! All humanity is corrupt. All people are corrupt. And all churches are corrupt.  Are you really saying that you think there is no corruptness in the Orthodox church? Why then are there numerous denominations within its fold - and why do their views differ across the various countries - including even some denying others the table of the Lord. 

    There are no denominations within the Orthodox Church, we all share the same doctrine. Your accusation is false.

    Are their differences of opinion on more questionable things? Certainly among the persons that make up the church, but this is permitted. What is important is that we are all still in the churcj.




    God bless you all for trying, but the historical church never ceased to be, and we certainly pray for reunion. The ecclesiastical anarchy of western Christianity is a legitimite threat to keeping the integrity of the faith. 
    Although it is true that often forces come from both outside and inside, it is those who abandon the Word of God in favour of their non-biblical traditions who are the primary threat to the Church
    The bible is in itself a part of The Holy Tradition of the church. The Church wrote The New Testament and determined its canon. We have not abandoned The Word of God, such is a baseless accusation. You would also be hard pressed to find a church that reads as much scripture as The Orthodox Church. We have an understanding of scripture that is more in line with what The Church has always believed. 

    Ours is not simply the ancient faith, but the eternal faith.
  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,488
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @Mopac
    Denominationalism is strictly a protestant/"evangelical" Christianity phenomena.
    No that is incorrect. Denominationalism is just acknowledging that there are differences within the church that reflect culture, geography,  and history. These sometimes intensify into factions. Originally, the Church was in Jerusalem. But soon because of the movement of the Spirit of God it began to stretch into different places. The epistle to the Romans written by Paul revealed there were different factions in that church, both Jewish and Gentile.  In each of Paul's various letters these factions arise - but so do different things in different locations and cultures.  He took aim at those different factions which were trying to change the gospel, but he embraced the liberty of others that took a strictly legalistic approach to the law. Denominationalism in its current form is really the development of this idea. As the Church moved West, and East, it encountered different cultures and it needed to learn whether to embrace or not embrace particular ideas. The rise of denominations in one sense started with Paul and the Jewish Church - it developed further with the division of East and West. It developed even further around the time of the Reformation and the protestant movement. Yet its roots are from the beginning. It is no small thing that God gave Jacob 12 sons who all had different agendas yet formed the one nation. And it is no small thing that Israel divided later on into two separate divisions of the same nation. 

    Denominationalism allows for differences in culture, geography, history, and non-essential doctrines while at the same time remaining true to those things which are true and essential to be Christian. There are certain non-negotiables in Christianity.  One of the great strengths of denominationalism is its safeguards against heresy and cults.  

    What does it really mean?

    That the entirety of the church is not present here, it is not truly catholic.
    That is a nonsense to me.  The church is present on earth and in heaven. It is one Catholic church. On earth we have the visible local churches - and we have the invisible church as a whole - making up of past and present and even future Christians. That is the true Catholic Church. As Hebrews puts it - the testimony of the Saints and as John puts it in Revelation - "a number which cannot be counted. 

    The church is a family. Families do not always live in the same house - but they do share the same values.  And they do share the same ancestry. 


    Some say they are "nondenominational", but do any so called "nondenominational " churches have the entire faith? No, they like all the other denominations only contain a piece of the pie.
    I agree that the term non-denominational is a furphy. It is like saying "we have no liturgy". It is a nonsense. As for whether they have the entire faith that is a different question. I would take the view that all churches have the entire faith. Yes, even the Eastern Orthodox church. Even the Catholic Church. But what is the entire faith? That is the bigger question. For a church to be a church it must have the entire faith. This is why I would say that the LDS and the JW are not part of the church because they do not have the entire faith. Yet entire in this context is not saying everything about every doctrine in relation to God and everything because then no church would have the entire faith - for we are all sinful, and we are not God. Only God has the entire faith - if that entire means absolutely everything. 

    Entire therefore must relate to the faith as handed down by the Apostles from Jesus and which is recorded in the Scriptures according to Hebrews 1:1-3. This is why the Church universal accepts there are certain non-negotiables in relation to doctrine relating to the Trinity, Christ's death and resurrection, Christ's divinity, and the teaching on the atonement. The Creeds are the benchmark. Fall away from this and you fall away from the entire faith. 

    Yet "entire" does not relate to the negotiables that very often arise from culture, geography, and other means including how to interpret. Issues relating to baptism mode, wearing of robes, married priests, holy communion, music, forms of church government, the role of woman in the church, etc al tend to be tied to culture, geography and local customs.  Yes, some are more important than others, but none are of a non-negotiable form. If people are not baptised or not do take communion even though they are sacraments, they do not risk salvation, otherwise the thief on the cross was fooled by Jesus. And for the record, I think that the bible does provide much insight into mode and use of each of the above. Yet, although each is obviously communicated in faith and understood by faith, there usage or misusage are not the unforgiveable sin. Whereas each of the doctrines of essentiality about God - relate directly to the unforgiveable sin of denying Christ in his person, his deity, and his work on this world. 


    The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is truly nondenominational, not nondenominational in pretense. That is, the fullness of the faith is there. It is complete. It is universal. It is catholic.
    When we talk of the invisible church in history and eternity - this is absolutely correct. Yet there is the now and the hereafter. On earth sin still exists. And while sin exists, humanity will continue to err, including the church. It is only in the Next Life that the church will truly be universal and without denomination. 


    The Orthodox Catholic Church is the complete church. 
    If you are referring to the Eastern Church you only reveal your arrogance. You seem to lack one of the essentials - humility. 
  • Deb-8-a-bull
    Deb-8-a-bull avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,102
    2
    2
    3
    Deb-8-a-bull avatar
    Deb-8-a-bull
    Lol ,  Who said SPLINTER ? 
  • BrotherDThomas
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,594
    3
    3
    7
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    BrotherDThomas
    --> @Mopac



    Mopac,

    Why don't you call it for what it truly represents, and that is a "DIVISION" of the faith and not the insidious word "DENOMINATION!"
    This is because, what our serial killer Jesus, as Yahweh God incarnate, said once within the scriptures, He did not mean for His HEBREW creation to take in many different and contradicting ways with a plethora of different DIVISIONS of the faith. GET IT?  Sure you do at your embarrassing expense again.

    Its truly hard to believe that within DEBATEART'S Religion forum, there contains a bastion of so many different pseudo-christian DIVISIONS, where each DIVISION of the faith is the only true example of Christianity!  Laughable at best.


    .

     
  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 8,050
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    Denominationalism is just acknowledging that there are differences within the church that reflect culture, geography,  and history. These sometimes intensify into factions. Originally, the Church was in Jerusalem. But soon because of the movement of the Spirit of God it began to stretch into different places. The epistle to the Romans written by Paul revealed there were different factions in that church, both Jewish and Gentile.  In each of Paul's various letters these factions arise - but so do different things in different locations and cultures.  He took aim at those different factions which were trying to change the gospel, but he embraced the liberty of others that took a strictly legalistic approach to the law. Denominationalism in its current form is really the development of this idea. As the Church moved West, and East, it encountered different cultures and it needed to learn whether to embrace or not embrace particular ideas. The rise of denominations in one sense started with Paul and the Jewish Church - it developed further with the division of East and West. It developed even further around the time of the Reformation and the protestant movement. Yet its roots are from the beginning. It is no small thing that God gave Jacob 12 sons who all had different agendas yet formed the one nation. And it is no small thing that Israel divided later on into two separate divisions of the same nation.

    Denominationalism allows for differences in culture, geography, history, and non-essential doctrines while at the same time remaining true to those things which are true and essential to be Christian. There are certain non-negotiables in Christianity.  One of the great strengths of denominationalism is its safeguards against heresy and cults. 


    This is a false narrative that serves only to unequally yoke heretics with the church. The various autocephalus and local  churches are not denominations.

    Protestant churches can't even agree on whether or not the eucharist is truly the body and blood of Christ. To deny that it is to deny the very incarnation itself.

    The Orthodox Catholic Church knows the difference between Holy Tradition and cultural custom. 

    The church is present on earth and in heaven. It is one Catholic church. On earth we have the visible local churches - and we have the invisible church as a whole - making up of past and present and even future Christians. That is the true Catholic Church. As Hebrews puts it - the testimony of the Saints and as John puts it in Revelation - "a number which cannot be counted.

    The church is a family. Families do not always live in the same house - but they do share the same values.  And they do share the same ancestry.

    I agree with you here.

    I agree that the term non-denominational is a furphy. It is like saying "we have no liturgy". It is a nonsense. As for whether they have the entire faith that is a different question. I would take the view that all churches have the entire faith. Yes, even the Eastern Orthodox church. Even the Catholic Church. But what is the entire faith? That is the bigger question. For a church to be a church it must have the entire faith. This is why I would say that the LDS and the JW are not part of the church because they do not have the entire faith. Yet entire in this context is not saying everything about every doctrine in relation to God and everything because then no church would have the entire faith - for we are all sinful, and we are not God. Only God has the entire faith - if that entire means absolutely everything.


    Since even the earliest days of the church, it was well understood the importance of apostolic succession as a means to distinguish the true church from the heretics who would claim Christ but preach a different Jesus.



    Entire therefore must relate to the faith as handed down by the Apostles from Jesus and which is recorded in the Scriptures according to Hebrews 1:1-3. This is why the Church universal accepts there are certain non-negotiables in relation to doctrine relating to the Trinity, Christ's death and resurrection, Christ's divinity, and the teaching on the atonement. The Creeds are the benchmark. Fall away from this and you fall away from the entire faith.


    The Orthodox Church is the very church that abides by the ecumenical councils. The ecumenical councils define our faith. Ecumenical councils  which Rome demonstrably violated, and protestant churches inherited, as evident in the fact that where you find the creed recited, it is always the altered creed of Rome.

    That is if the church even recites the creed at all. 

    Many martyrs and confessors came out of defending the creed of the church.


    Yet "entire" does not relate to the negotiables that very often arise from culture, geography, and other means including how to interpret. Issues relating to baptism mode, wearing of robes, married priests, holy communion, music, forms of church government, the role of woman in the church, etc al tend to be tied to culture, geography and local customs.  Yes, some are more important than others, but none are of a non-negotiable form.


    Your understanding is simply not in line with what the church has always believed.




    If people are not baptised or not do take communion even though they are sacraments, they do not risk salvation, otherwise the thief on the cross was fooled by Jesus. And for the record, I think that the bible does provide much insight into mode and use of each of the above. Yet, although each is obviously communicated in faith and understood by faith, there usage or misusage are not the unforgiveable sin. Whereas each of the doctrines of essentiality about God - relate directly to the unforgiveable sin of denying Christ in his person, his deity, and his work on this world.

    You are not speaking to anything the church teaches.


    When we talk of the invisible church in history and eternity - this is absolutely correct. Yet there is the now and the hereafter. On earth sin still exists. And while sin exists, humanity will continue to err, including the church. It is only in the Next Life that the church will truly be universal and without denomination.

    The visible church on Earth is as the human nature in Christ. The church in heaven is as the divine nature of Christ. They are One Church.

    The view you are expressing is an ahistorical understanding of the church.



    The Orthodox Catholic Church is the complete church. 
    If you are referring to the Eastern Church you only reveal your arrogance. You seem to lack one of the essentials - humility
    There is no "eastern" church, there is simply the church. There is nothing arrogant about submitting to the apostolic church. If I was truly arrogant, I would start my own church and add to the list of 30,000+ denominations that constitute the churches of rebellion that go under the umbrella of protestantism.


  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 8,050
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    --> @BrotherDThomas
    There are no denominations in the church. Denominationalism is a problem for the heterodox, not the Orthodox Catholic Church.
  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,488
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @Mopac
    Denominationalism allows for differences in culture, geography, history, and non-essential doctrines while at the same time remaining true to those things which are true and essential to be Christian. There are certain non-negotiables in Christianity.  One of the great strengths of denominationalism is its safeguards against heresy and cults. 
    This is a false narrative that serves only to unequally yoke heretics with the church. The various autocephalus and local  churches are not denominations.

    Protestant churches can't even agree on whether or not the eucharist is truly the body and blood of Christ. To deny that it is to deny the very incarnation itself.

    The Orthodox Catholic Church knows the difference between Holy Tradition and cultural custom. 
    It is not a false narrative just because you say so. We use denominationalism because that it what it is. The Eastern Orthodox church has various national churches - each which considers themselves the supreme church of God. They are denominations in the same way that there are 160 different denominations of the Episcopalian church. The Episcopalian church however does not have its head in the sand like those in the Eastern Orthodox Churches when it comes to denominations. The Episcopalian church still acknowledges where its authority is derived - indeed as all members / congregations of the true church. 

    I reject your assertion that this narrative serves to unequally yoke heretics with the church. We reject any who are heretics, hence why the LDS and the JW do not worship with the Churches of Christ. 

    Protestant Churches hold various views on holy communion. None would deny its represents truly the body and blood of Christ. It clearly is not THE blood and body of Christ as when it was instituted by Jesus was very much still alive and all of his own body and blood was present in  his own physical body. You can dispute this if you like, as you would probably will, but that is irrational and not faith. In fact it is one of the superstitions that the Orthodox is unable to differentiate from the reality of God. It is a custom and one that follows the mysticism traits of the pagan eastern religions. 


    Entire therefore must relate to the faith as handed down by the Apostles from Jesus and which is recorded in the Scriptures according to Hebrews 1:1-3. This is why the Church universal accepts there are certain non-negotiables in relation to doctrine relating to the Trinity, Christ's death and resurrection, Christ's divinity, and the teaching on the atonement. The Creeds are the benchmark. Fall away from this and you fall away from the entire faith.


    The Orthodox Church is the very church that abides by the ecumenical councils. The ecumenical councils define our faith. Ecumenical councils  which Rome demonstrably violated, and protestant churches inherited, as evident in the fact that where you find the creed recited, it is always the altered creed of Rome.

    That is if the church even recites the creed at all. 
    Many churches recite the creeds. We frequently recite the creeds in our church. 

    I reject your lies and misconceptions about protestant churches.  Church history has always debated about the one council your church rejects. history as I said above is full of bias. This is one of these parts. The West rejects the East as heretics and the East were excommunicated from the True Church. And on the other hand, the East did the same to the West. I hold to the position of the West and reject the East's position as weak and ill conceived. 

    Many martyrs and confessors came out of defending the creed of the church.
    Yes, and this includes many protestants. 

    Yet "entire" does not relate to the negotiables that very often arise from culture, geography, and other means including how to interpret. Issues relating to baptism mode, wearing of robes, married priests, holy communion, music, forms of church government, the role of woman in the church, etc al tend to be tied to culture, geography and local customs.  Yes, some are more important than others, but none are of a non-negotiable form.

    Your understanding is simply not in line with what the church has always believed.
    It is not in line with your understanding - and possibly because your church refuses to provide the reasoning which is found in the West. 

    If people are not baptised or not do take communion even though they are sacraments, they do not risk salvation, otherwise the thief on the cross was fooled by Jesus. And for the record, I think that the bible does provide much insight into mode and use of each of the above. Yet, although each is obviously communicated in faith and understood by faith, there usage or misusage are not the unforgiveable sin. Whereas each of the doctrines of essentiality about God - relate directly to the unforgiveable sin of denying Christ in his person, his deity, and his work on this world.

    You are not speaking to anything the church teaches.
    Your lack of knowledge is astounding. 

    When we talk of the invisible church in history and eternity - this is absolutely correct. Yet there is the now and the hereafter. On earth sin still exists. And while sin exists, humanity will continue to err, including the church. It is only in the Next Life that the church will truly be universal and without denomination.

    The visible church on Earth is as the human nature in Christ. The church in heaven is as the divine nature of Christ. They are One Church.

    The view you are expressing is an ahistorical understanding of the church.
    They are historical. They might not agree with your position but that is because your church is prejudiced against what the West taught from the beginning. 


    The Orthodox Catholic Church is the complete church. 
    If you are referring to the Eastern Church you only reveal your arrogance. You seem to lack one of the essentials - humility


    There is no "eastern" church, there is simply the church. There is nothing arrogant about submitting to the apostolic church. If I was truly arrogant, I would start my own church and add to the list of 30,000+ denominations that constitute the churches of rebellion that go under the umbrella of protestantism.

    you are right - there is only the Eastern denominations.  There are not 30,000 protestant denominations in any event.  And many of the so called denominations today are not under the umbrella of Protestantism.  The Baptists, the churches of Christ, the Salvation Army, the brethrens are not protestant churches. The only churches which actually fall under the protestant banner are Episcopalian, Luthran, Presbyterian, and the Reformed churches. the others you refer to along with the Charismatic movement and Pentecostal churches are what is known as dissidents. Your ignorance misses the point that Protestant Churches are Confessional churches. 
  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 8,050
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    --> @Tradesecret
    It is not a false narrative just because you say so. We use denominationalism because that it what it is. The Eastern Orthodox church has various national churches - each which considers themselves the supreme church of God. They are denominations in the same way that there are 160 different denominations of the Episcopalian church. The Episcopalian church however does not have its head in the sand like those in the Eastern Orthodox Churches when it comes to denominations. The Episcopalian church still acknowledges where its authority is derived - indeed as all members / congregations of the true church.

    I reject your assertion that this narrative serves to unequally yoke heretics with the church. We reject any who are heretics, hence why the LDS and the JW do not worship with the Churches of Christ.

    Protestant Churches hold various views on holy communion. None would deny its represents truly the body and blood of Christ. It clearly is not THE blood and body of Christ as when it was instituted by Jesus was very much still alive and all of his own body and blood was present in  his own physical body. You can dispute this if you like, as you would probably will, but that is irrational and not faith. In fact it is one of the superstitions that the Orthodox is unable to differentiate from the reality of God. It is a custom and one that follows the mysticism traits of the pagan eastern religions.

    The self governing Orthodox Churches are not denominations, we are all in communion with eachother and recognize eachother as Orthodox and Catholic.

    I don't need to dispute the eucharist with you, it is unnecessary. All I will say concerning that is we see things very differently, and it is irreconcilable with what we accept as reality.

    Remember, Christ Himself said this was a hard teaching.

    The church teaches Christianity, not eastern paganism. 

    The Anglican or Episcopalian church invented the branch theory of the church to justify the existence of a church that broke communion with Rome for the pettiest reason. Martin Luther at least had some good reasons. The Anglican Church exists because some king didn't like being told how to conduct his married life!



    Many churches recite the creeds. We frequently recite the creeds in our church.

    I reject your lies and misconceptions about protestant churches.  Church history has always debated about the one council your church rejects. history as I said above is full of bias. This is one of these parts. The West rejects the East as heretics and the East were excommunicated from the True Church. And on the other hand, the East did the same to the West. I hold to the position of the West and reject the East's position as weak and ill conceived.

    There is no "protestant church", so making broad ststements about it is difficult. What can I say? They are all denominations, not catholic.

    So you believe in papal supremacy? You think it was right of Rome to alter the creed of the church that it had no right to alter?

    If Rome was on the right side of the issue, I might not be Orthodox. I accidently found the Orthodox Church. I had never given it.much thought before. Studying Church history and the writings of the saints is what lead me to Orthodoxy. When it comes to the great schism, it is irrefutable to me that Rome is on the wrong side of history.

    The history of the Latin church only gets more blood thirsty and political after the schism. How can you, a self declared protestant even defend the church you claim to be the true church when you yourself are not even a part of it? Of you believe in Rome so much, why don't you join their church?

    The Latin Church is heterodox for no arbitrary reason. They demonstrably corrupted the faith.


    The Nicean-Constantinople creed is the creed of the church. What does it say? The Holy Spirit proceeds, that is, originates from The Father. The Father is the fountainhead of divinity. To say that the spirit originates in The Father and The Son is an alteration of the creed, and it totally confuses The Trinity. Double procession is a corruption of the faith.


    Yes, and this includes many protestants.(died for the creed of the church)

    If this is true at all, it was no doubt the corrupted Latin creed, because protestants did not inherit the creed that to this day is used by every Orthodox Church.

    May God bless the martyrs who were killed to translate the bible into common vernacular! Something The Orthodox Church has ALWAYS done. Rome on the other hand insisted that everything be done in Latin up until the 1950s. 


    It is not in line with your understanding - and possibly because your church refuses to provide the reasoning which is found in the West.
    As you know, I do not acknowledge the reasonings of the west to be the reasoningsnof the church because the west broke away from the church precisely because they perverted the faith. In no small part due to their reasonings! 


    They are historical. They might not agree with your position but that is because your church is prejudiced against what the West taught from the beginning.
    Most of the church fathers spoke Greek. Very few spoke Latin. That is why the west has disproportionate influence from Augustine of Hippo. Augustine, while undoubtedly a church father, was not right about everything. In the west, he was taken as the authoritative church father. 

    The fact of the matter is, Church history before the great schism shows very clearly that everything important happened in the east. All the councils were held in the east. Rome was one of many patriarchates, never ruler over all the others.


    There are not 30,000 protestant denominations in any event.  And many of the so called denominations today are not under the umbrella of Protestantism.  The Baptists, the churches of Christ, the Salvation Army, the brethrens are not protestant churches. The only churches which actually fall under the protestant banner are Episcopalian, Luthran, Presbyterian, and the Reformed churches. the others you refer to along with the Charismatic movement and Pentecostal churches are what is known as dissidents. Your ignorance misses the point that Protestant Churches are Confessional churches.
    Evangelical, protestant, whatever label they go by, they are not catholic.

    Actually, the Anglican(Episcopalian) church likes to say it is catholic. I don't think they like the protestant label that much. The Lutheran Church here in America is so liberalized and wishy washy it hardly stands for anything any more. If Martin Luther were alive to see the church that goes by his name today, he would be hopping mad, I guarantee it. John Calvin was a straight up heretic, and his influence in protestantism is toxic at best. His teachings are definitely not in.line with what the church has always taught, and the presbytarian and reformed churches are his legacy.

    What about the methodists? I actually like the Wesleys. They seemed like they were really trying for orthodoxy.



  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,488
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @Mopac
    The self governing Orthodox Churches are not denominations, we are all in communion with eachother and recognize eachother as Orthodox and Catholic.
    But this is not true is it? Consider the current lack of communion with the Oriental Orthodox churches. Consider the current lack of Communion between the Orthodox church in Ukraine and in Russia. Consider the lack of communion with other Orthodox churches. Why is it that you consider the Episcopalian church in England a different denomination than the Episcopalian church in Scotland? It is the same church, run by the same rules and the same God. You need to do some more research in relation to how the Orthodox denominations relate to each other. Oh by the way, when 30,000 different denominations are mentioned in lump sums, there appears to be many orthodox churches which are given as separate denominations. 

    I don't need to dispute the eucharist with you, it is unnecessary. All I will say concerning that is we see things very differently, and it is irreconcilable with what we accept as reality.
    Really? Do you deny that it is one of the sacraments of our Lord. 

    Remember, Christ Himself said this was a hard teaching.
    With respect, saying it is a hard teaching does not mean that you are correct and that I am wrong. In fact every non-believer I talk to about holy communion says that what I say about it is "hard" as well. 

    The church teaches Christianity, not eastern paganism. 
    I agree that the Church should teach Christianity, but very often as in the case of your church's mysticism, it teaches things that are not Christian. 


    The Anglican or Episcopalian church invented the branch theory of the church to justify the existence of a church that broke communion with Rome for the pettiest reason. Martin Luther at least had some good reasons. The Anglican Church exists because some king didn't like being told how to conduct his married life!
    You speak so much nonsense. What history books do you read? It sounds very much like the papal history books. The Anglican Church existed prior to Henry the 8th. It races it lineage back to St John. Repeating lies does not do your church any service.  The Anglican Church existed well before the Roman Catholic Church ever came to England. Go on go and read your church histories. Read who attended at the earlier councils. Well back in the first few centuries - well before the papacy ever got hold of the truth, there were English Bishops attending. It is strange that someone who purports to be so anti-pope continues to use the lies of the papacy to support his assertions. Henry the 8th in his time rejected the Papacy. Do you think this a good thing or not? 

    There is no "protestant church", so making broad ststements about it is difficult. What can I say? They are all denominations, not catholic.
    Of course there is a protestant church. Just because you deny it, does not make it so.  Protestants protest for the truth of the Word of God above the false traditions and customs of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox denominations. 

    So you believe in papal supremacy? You think it was right of Rome to alter the creed of the church that it had no right to alter?
    LOL! You are getting yourself tied into knots.  It is you who continue to rely on Roman Catholicism to support your views. The Protestant Church rejected papal authority. The creed was not altered, so far as to clarify what was causing division within the church at the time.  The East rejected not just Rome's position but also the majority of elders and bishops at the council. It's failure to attend was its deliberate attempt to sabotage the council and to try and attach notoriety to it. And obviously the East achieved its purpose. This I submit is a very Un Christian characteristic - and as such its position ought to be ex-communication until it repents. I would think that truth - no matter where it comes from - ought to be considered and debated properly.  For the East to refuse to debate the matter in a proper forum, because it did not like the numbers is an indictment on it, not on those who bothered to attend. 

    If Rome was on the right side of the issue, I might not be Orthodox. I accidently found the Orthodox Church. I had never given it.much thought before. Studying Church history and the writings of the saints is what lead me to Orthodoxy. When it comes to the great schism, it is irrefutable to me that Rome is on the wrong side of history.
    Whether Rome is on the right of history altogether is one matter. But in relation to this particular issue - it was in the right. Your concession that you accidently found the Orthodox church does not mean a lot in the scheme of things. Given your conclusion that you believe it is irrefutable, again displays prejudice not reason. 

    The history of the Latin church only gets more blood thirsty and political after the schism. How can you, a self declared protestant even defend the church you claim to be the true church when you yourself are not even a part of it? Of you believe in Rome so much, why don't you join their church?
    The history of the Latin church demonstrates only that when the leaders in the church accepted as "ordained by God" because they follow some kind of apostolic succession rather than by faith that there will be corruption. It also demonstrates that all people this side of glory will continue to sin even when they are Christians or in places of importance in the church. The Orthodox church is not clean of blood on its hands either as a cursory look of its involvement over the era of the soviet union will demonstrate. 

    As a believer by faith in the almighty God who never leaves himself without a witness - it is a given that when the authority of the church supercedes its brief that individuals within that organisation may well appeal to those outside of the church but whose authority has been invested by God. You seem to think that there is no corruption in the Orthodox church, that no orthodox person ever commits sin and can never make an error. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but that worse than papal authority. 

    As for supporting the Roman Catholic church, I have no reason not to support it when it acts in faith according to the will of God - yet when it is in error and against the sound teachings of the bible, then I will trust God not the church. And the same remains so with the Orthodox church. 

    The Latin Church is heterodox for no arbitrary reason. They demonstrably corrupted the faith.
    As does the Orthodox denominations.  

    The Nicean-Constantinople creed is the creed of the church. What does it say? The Holy Spirit proceeds, that is, originates from The Father. The Father is the fountainhead of divinity. To say that the spirit originates in The Father and The Son is an alteration of the creed, and it totally confuses The Trinity. Double procession is a corruption of the faith.
    Well I say it clarifies the position. You are only following what you have been told. No independent thinking for yourself. After all you cannot remain an orthodox and hold to the correct position as articulated by the Creed. You MUST consider it heresy. You Must consider it a corruption. 

    Yes, and this includes many protestants.(died for the creed of the church)

    If this is true at all, it was no doubt the corrupted Latin creed, because protestants did not inherit the creed that to this day is used by every Orthodox Church.
    Why would you doubt it? I have no reason to lie about it. At least you recognise those who were martyred for translating it into the common vernacular. Which I would submit is a strange thing for so called non-Christians to do as you suggest. You are so inconsistent. 


    May God bless the martyrs who were killed to translate the bible into common vernacular! Something The Orthodox Church has ALWAYS done. Rome on the other hand insisted that everything be done in Latin up until the 1950s. 
    It is not in line with your understanding - and possibly because your church refuses to provide the reasoning which is found in the West.


    As you know, I do not acknowledge the reasonings of the west to be the reasonings of the church because the west broke away from the church precisely because they perverted the faith. In no small part due to their reasonings! 
    Yes, I know you do. I accept that these are your prejudices. 

    They are historical. They might not agree with your position but that is because your church is prejudiced against what the West taught from the beginning.

    Most of the church fathers spoke Greek. Very few spoke Latin. That is why the west has disproportionate influence from Augustine of Hippo. Augustine, while undoubtedly a church father, was not right about everything. In the west, he was taken as the authoritative church father. 
    Speaking Greek or Latin is an irrelevancy. It is only relevant to show the lack of scholarship in the East. Augustine is a doctor in the church. Interestingly, the Roman Catholic Church does not make as much of it as you might think. I am reasonably sure that the Eastern church despite its assertion that he is ok, only takes the part it likes. Ironically, Calvin who you seem to dislike, is in almost total agreement with Augustine in his doctrines, hence to reject Calvin is to reject Augustine. I wonder if you have taken the time to read either Augustine or Calvin. 


    The fact of the matter is, Church history before the great schism shows very clearly that everything important happened in the east. All the councils were held in the east. Rome was one of many patriarchates, never ruler over all the others.
    Well that settles it then doesn't? But wait there is more. Everything in the OT that was important happened in Israel, therefore everything else is unimportant. similarly, anything that was important in the NT happened in Jerusalem. It is not an argument of any substance to say that everything important happened in the East therefore the West is wrong. Far out Mopac, surely your brain does not work that way. Remember the gospel was first in Jerusalem, then in Samaria and then to the ends of the earth. As the gospel grows its kingdom extends to all the nations of the world and to all cultures. Only a Jew would say - everything important happened in Israel. You need to get a grasp of the grace of God. 


    Evangelical, protestant, whatever label they go by, they are not catholic.
    All churches I know claim to be catholic. We all claim to be part of the Church universal, visible and invisible. 

    Actually, the Anglican(Episcopalian) church likes to say it is catholic. I don't think they like the protestant label that much. The Lutheran Church here in America is so liberalized and wishy washy it hardly stands for anything any more. If Martin Luther were alive to see the church that goes by his name today, he would be hopping mad, I guarantee it. John Calvin was a straight up heretic, and his influence in protestantism is toxic at best. His teachings are definitely not in.line with what the church has always taught, and the presbytarian and reformed churches are his legacy.
    So much nonsense. It is difficult to know where to start. Protestantism arose from the notion of protesting for the Scriptures not as a protest against the Roman Church. The Episcopalian church is a broad church. Much like the Orthodox it has its true believers and it has its traditional believers and it has its academic believers. And it has its atheists. And for the record I have met atheistic Orthodox believers. 


    What about the methodists? I actually like the Wesleys. They seemed like they were really trying for orthodoxy.
    Yes, some of them are very nice. My wife's grandfather was a very famous Methodist preacher. 
  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 8,050
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    --> @Tradesecret
    But this is not true is it? Consider the current lack of communion with the Oriental Orthodox churches. Consider the current lack of Communion between the Orthodox church in Ukraine and in Russia. Consider the lack of communion with other Orthodox churches. Why is it that you consider the Episcopalian church in England a different denomination than the Episcopalian church in Scotland? It is the same church, run by the same rules and the same God. You need to do some more research in relation to how the Orthodox denominations relate to each other. Oh by the way, when 30,000 different denominations are mentioned in lump sums, there appears to be many orthodox churches which are given as separate denominations.


    The "Oriental Orthodox" churches as they are confusingly called in the west did not accept the 4th ecumenical council and have not been in communion with us since. In recent times, there has been much work towards reconciliation between our churches. The Eritrean church and the Armenian church habe been granted use of our facilities by our bishop. Our Bishop has even confessed that the Indian church has the faith. The schism is in the process of mending.

    There is currently a conflict between Russia and Constantinople because the current Patriarch of Constantinople meddled in affairs that were properly under the Jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate. Every othery other Orthodox Church is in communion with both Moscow and Constantinople.


    I don't respect your empty boasting about how much more educated than me you are. I would appreciate it if you dropped this pretense. It doesn't help your argument.

    Really? Do you deny that it is one of the sacraments of our Lord. (The Eucharist)

    This is a stupid question considering how irreverent protestant churches tend to be toward the body and blood of Christ. I've been to churches where they pour the blood down the drain after service. Those little plastic communion cups you see in some churches? Offensively irreverent to us.

    When we partake of the body, we treat every crumb with the reverence due to the body of Christ.


    I agree that the Church should teach Christianity, but very often as in the case of your church's mysticism, it teaches things that are not Christian
    Like what?

    Whether Rome is on the right of history altogether is one matter. But in relation to this particular issue - it was in the right. Your concession that you accidently found the Orthodox church does not mean a lot in the scheme of things. Given your conclusion that you believe it is irrefutable, again displays prejudice not reason.
    It's not prejudice, it's accepting what the evidence says. There is nothing ambiguous about it, Rome altered the creed of the church, and the historical chur h has NEVER accwpted the doctrine of the supremacy of Rome. The Pope of Rome has no jurisdictional authority over the other patriarchates, which are self governing.



    Speaking Greek or Latin is an irrelevancy. It is only relevant to show the lack of scholarship in the East. Augustine is a doctor in the church. Interestingly, the Roman Catholic Church does not make as much of it as you might think. I am reasonably sure that the Eastern church despite its assertion that he is ok, only takes the part it likes. Ironically, Calvin who you seem to dislike, is in almost total agreement with Augustine in his doctrines, hence to reject Calvin is to reject Augustine. I wonder if you have taken the time to read either Augustine or Calvin.


    The first Saint I ever read thoroughly was Augustine, and I am convinced that Calvin falsely interpreted him!

    Lack of scholarship, what a load of nonsense. Western Europe was in the dark ages when Rome  flourished in the east. After the fourth crusade, when the Latins sacked and looted the eastern  churches, the loot they brought back sparked the Italian renaissance.


    It isn't irrelevent either. The  scriptures are written in Greek. The ecumenical councils are scribed in Greek. 


    Well that settles it then doesn't? But wait there is more. Everything in the OT that was important happened in Israel, therefore everything else is unimportant. similarly, anything that was important in the NT happened in Jerusalem. It is not an argument of any substance to say that everything important happened in the East therefore the West is wrong. Far out Mopac, surely your brain does not work that way. Remember the gospel was first in Jerusalem, then in Samaria and then to the ends of the earth. As the gospel grows its kingdom extends to all the nations of the world and to all cultures. Only a Jew would say - everything important happened in Israel. You need to get a grasp of the grace of God.
    The patriarch of Jerusalem, The patriarch of Antioch, The patriarch of Alexandria, the patriarch of Constantinople ALL denounced the patriarch of Rome. They all sided with eachother!


     
    for the record I have met atheistic Orthodox believers
    There is no such thing as an atheist who is orthodox. They are a bad fish that got in the net.



  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 8,050
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    --> @Tradesecret
    The history of the Latin church demonstrates only that when the leaders in the church accepted as "ordained by God" because they follow some kind of apostolic succession rather than by faith that there will be corruption. It also demonstrates that all people this side of glory will continue to sin even when they are Christians or in places of importance in the church. The Orthodox church is not clean of blood on its hands either as a cursory look of its involvement over the era of the soviet union will demonstrate

    The Orthodox Church which suffered more under Soviet rule than anyone. You should be ashamed of yourself. The Soviet Union is responsible for dozens of millions of martyrs, and they did everything tbey could get away with to destroy our church.

    You don't know the real story AT ALL. 

    Obviously, apostolic succession is not valid with heretics, because they don't keep the faith of the apostles.


    The Orthodox Catholic Church IS the apostolic church.
  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 8,050
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    It should be obvious that the devil wants to destroy the true church, but it won't happen because Christ Himself said that the gates of hell will not overcome the church!


  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,488
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @Mopac
    It should be obvious that the devil wants to destroy the true church, but it won't happen because Christ Himself said that the gates of hell will not overcome the church!
    Do you even read what our Lord says? Just stop and think for a moment? Where are the gates of Hell? What are gates used for? This is a picture of Our Lord proclaiming the ever reaching and ever extending kingdom of God, even to the very realm of Hell which itself will be taken over by the Kingdom of God.  It is not about Satan attacking the church - it is about the destruction of the devil. 

    Ours is an advancing kingdom. It is an extending kingdom - because it is empowered by the Spirit of God, it has the glorious Word of God, and the beautiful church of Christ, not to mention the amazing gospel. You seem to be stuck in an age where you still the church being beaten up by Satan. 

    I say it is time for you to embrace the truth of the Gospel and the outpouring of the Spirit of God, letting go of the false traditions and philosophies that keep you locked in the dark. 

  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 8,050
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    --> @Tradesecret
    By all means, abandon your traditions first and I will still hold to the Holy Tradition of the church, as saint Paul wrote to saint Timothy, bishop of Ephesus...
    "we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."





  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 8,050
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    Advancing Kingdom, as if God already doesn't reign over all, even death! You don't know what you are saying!

    As st Paul wrote, "the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven"

    And surely it is written on the hearts of all that The Truth is God, and The Truth is what sets free. What do we do but confirm what is written on the hearts of all?

    We train the heart in righteousness. Because we understand that faith without works is no faith at all, and the first and foremost act of faith is to align the heart to God in order to be cleansed and perfected by The Holy Spirit. This is built into everyrhing we do. Something you can't discern, because in your zealous and misguided iconoclasm, you would crucify Christ here on Earth, the church itself!

    You protestants take for granted the napkin of peter you hold, the scraps off the table that fell into your laps. You try in vain to recreate the church which never went away. 


    There is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, and a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. The heterodox are united in their rejection of The Orthodox Catholic Church, the very Apostolic Church. The historical church.

    What do we say about the heterodox? That they have a piece of the pie, they are denominations. The grace of God extends through all of creation, but the faith of the apostles is preserved in the church that Christ himself left to the apostles. 

    And our apostolic succession is not valid simply because we can trace our ordinations back to Jesus and the apostles, but because we have the pearl of great price, and we do not trample over it like swine.
  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,488
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @Mopac
    By all means, abandon your traditions first and I will still hold to the Holy Tradition of the church, as saint Paul wrote to saint Timothy, bishop of Ephesus...
    "we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."


    Hi Mopac, I am not in a habit of abandoning traditions for the sake of abandoning traditions.  Nor do I expect anyone else to do the same. I do take the view that all traditions however are not the Scriptures per se nor necessarily good per se.  Hence, I am prepared to give up any tradition that is not in line with the Word of God even if it is a tradition of the church. For instance, when persuaded by the Scriptures that the tradition of rejecting of infant baptism was incorrect, I gave up that tradition which remains an essential doctrine of the church I grew up in. Similarly, their tradition that holy communion was only to serve as a reminder of Christ's death has now been abandoned by me as I grow in faith and the Word of God. Furthermore, the tradition that Scripture is to be interpreted literally was another tradition I abandoned upon becoming aware firstly, that it was a tradition only and secondly, that it was not in accord with the whole teaching of the bible. 

    My position is to test all of the traditions of the church I am in against the sound teaching of the Scripture and in accordance with the creeds. Paul in his teaching did not want anyone to abandon sound teaching or the traditions of the Apostles for the sake of abandoning them. With him, I am in agreement. Nevertheless, Paul is not suggesting that every tradition in the church should be kept. He clearly limits it to the Word and Epistle. I do not agree that every tradition in the OC accords with sound teaching of the Scriptures, but that many remain which are nor from the Word or the Epistle. For example, the retention of priests to be celibate. The retention of the tradition to baptise by full immersion 3 x of infants. The rejection of the Western Church as not being a member of the true church. And there are many more. 
  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,488
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @Mopac
    Advancing Kingdom, as if God already doesn't reign over all, even death! You don't know what you are saying!

    As st Paul wrote, "the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven"
    With respect, it was you who suggested that Satan was attacking the church. I love Paul's words there. It is the fulfilment of Mark 13. 


    And surely it is written on the hearts of all that The Truth is God, and The Truth is what sets free. What do we do but confirm what is written on the hearts of all?
    Yes, I agree - but what is written on our hearts?  This by the Spirit of God. 


    We train the heart in righteousness. Because we understand that faith without works is no faith at all, and the first and foremost act of faith is to align the heart to God in order to be cleansed and perfected by The Holy Spirit. This is built into everyrhing we do. Something you can't discern, because in your zealous and misguided iconoclasm, you would crucify Christ here on Earth, the church itself!
    Christ was crucified here on earth. Do you deny he was crucified? We take the view that until we are born from above, that our hearts and minds cannot understand the spiritual things of God. Do you think otherwise? Our hearts must be reconciled to God or all else is nought. Do you reject this thinking?


    You protestants take for granted the napkin of peter you hold, the scraps off the table that fell into your laps. You try in vain to recreate the church which never went away. 
    Whatever do you mean? It is not our church to recreate. It is the church where the Lord Jesus is the head of it. Do you understand grace? DO you think that you deserve grace? Do you think that your church deserves Grace? Do you think that the protestants don't deserve Grace? Do you think that we think we deserve grace? The Lord Jesus is transforming his people into the people he wants them to be - more and more like himself. He is our head, we are his body.  It is he who transforms us - not we ourselves. It is by his Spirit that we have life and it is by Jesus that we upheld by his word. Don't you believe this? We abide in him and love him because he first loved us. He holds us in the palm of his hands. We know his voice because we belong to him. He has made us part of his family by faith in Christ Jesus through the atoning work of his blood. He commands us to come boldly into his presence because Jesus is our great high priest.  We could not do so unless his Spirit draws us to him. 

    There is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, and a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. The heterodox are united in their rejection of The Orthodox Catholic Church, the very Apostolic Church. The historical church.
    Yes totally agree.  So why do you seek to divide the church? It is you who call us divided. It is you who think you are right and we are wrong. I have said on numerous occasions that I see us as one church. I see the denominations as a good thing. You choose to see it as wrong and in error and subsequently, you then say it is divided. I say that the church is one body - made up of many parts. Do you recall the disciples saying to Jesus - "do you want us to call down fire on those others?"  Jesus said, "they who are not against us are with us."  Why do you reject Jesus' words? Why do you act in accordance with the disciples in this picture?  

    What do we say about the heterodox? That they have a piece of the pie, they are denominations. The grace of God extends through all of creation, but the faith of the apostles is preserved in the church that Christ himself left to the apostles. 
    I say you are making a mess of things by acting against the Lord Jesus. Despite his commands to not be divisive - and despite Peter's words that provide a test of those who belong to God, you and it appears your church, are spreading misconceptions and trying to divide the body of Christ. I am pleased however that the Lord Jesus is bigger than your church and that his kingdom is extending to cover all the world embracing all cultures, tongues, and peoples. Praise Jesus.

    And our apostolic succession is not valid simply because we can trace our ordinations back to Jesus and the apostles, but because we have the pearl of great price, and we do not trample over it like swine.
    I am not persuaded by apostolic succession because firstly, it is not in the Scriptures, and secondly, the papacy and indeed the OC have both used it to prove their authority. Both churches have sought authority in tradition and superstition and not the Word of God which explicitly tells us that authority is found in Christ and in faithful men - full of the Spirit. You and the Roman Catholic Church make your apostolic succession the basis of authority - not faith, not Christ but a tradition. This is probably one of the primary reasons both the OC and the Catholic church have fallen into liberalism and become irrelevant to the world. They rely on their tradition; not the Holy Spirit. 
  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 8,050
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    --> @Tradesecret
    Orthodox priests are more often than not married.

    Jews were circumcised on the 8th day. Infants are baptized with the understanding that they will be raised in the faith.

    The western church rebelled against Orthodoxy, which is why it is in schism. The ecumenical councils are very clear that altering the creed of the church is an act of schism. The Latin speaking church demonstrably did this in the addition of the filoque. In addition to this, the church has never accepted the authority of Rome to interfere in the affairs of other self governing churches, and even before the schism there are examples of the bishop of Rome being rebuked for attempying this. Even examples of the Alexandrian Patriarch being rebuked for this! 

    There is a difference between rejecting a church as being a legitimate, and rejecting sincere Christians who are in these heterodox churches. We do the former, not the later. In fact, writings of our church have plenty examples of us acknowledging the good we see in western saints. We even recognize as saints some who were technically in heretical churches. For example, Saint Isaac of Nineva was a monastic who for a brief time was even a bishop in the nestorian church.


    It is important also to note that we understand the difference between Holy Tradition and custom. We have customs, and these we recognize as being cultural things that are not integral to the faith. However, that does not make customs bad. It is only harmful when these customs are taken for something other than what they are.





  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 8,050
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    what is written on our hearts?  This by the Spirit of God.

    Christ was crucified here on earth. Do you deny he was crucified? We take the view that until we are born from above, that our hearts and minds cannot understand the spiritual things of God. Do you think otherwise? Our hearts must be reconciled to God or all else is nought. Do you reject this thinking?

    No, I am sure we agree on these things.


    Whatever do you mean? It is not our church to recreate. It is the church where the Lord Jesus is the head of it. Do you understand grace? DO you think that you deserve grace? Do you think that your church deserves Grace? Do you think that the protestants don't deserve Grace? Do you think that we think we deserve grace? The Lord Jesus is transforming his people into the people he wants them to be - more and more like himself. He is our head, we are his body.  It is he who transforms us - not we ourselves. It is by his Spirit that we have life and it is by Jesus that we upheld by his word. Don't you believe this? We abide in him and love him because he first loved us. He holds us in the palm of his hands. We know his voice because we belong to him. He has made us part of his family by faith in Christ Jesus through the atoning work of his blood. He commands us to come boldly into his presence because Jesus is our great high priest.  We could not do so unless his Spirit draws us to him.

    There are a lot of questions here, but we understand that The Holy Spirit is everywhere present and fills all things. Does that answer your questions?

    We don't disagree with you here at all.


    Yes totally agree.  So why do you seek to divide the church? It is you who call us divided. It is you who think you are right and we are wrong. I have said on numerous occasions that I see us as one church. I see the denominations as a good thing. You choose to see it as wrong and in error and subsequently, you then say it is divided. I say that the church is one body - made up of many parts. Do you recall the disciples saying to Jesus - "do you want us to call down fire on those others?"  Jesus said, "they who are not against us are with us."  Why do you reject Jesus' words? Why do you act in accordance with the disciples in this picture?


    I say you are making a mess of things by acting against the Lord Jesus. Despite his commands to not be divisive - and despite Peter's words that provide a test of those who belong to God, you and it appears your church, are spreading misconceptions and trying to divide the body of Christ. I am pleased however that the Lord Jesus is bigger than your church and that his kingdom is extending to cover all the world embracing all cultures, tongues, and peoples. Praise Jesus.

    We are not dividing the church at all. Remember, Rome broke away from us. The protestants broke away from Rome. Until the protestants return to the mother church, they are the ones in schism. It can't be said that the church is divided, but protestants, as I have stated, are denominations. That is, incomplete churches. They are not catholic in the historical understanding of the term. This is why I say, the proper conclusion of the reformation is reunion with The Orthodox Church.


    I am not persuaded by apostolic succession because firstly, it is not in the Scriptures, and secondly, the papacy and indeed the OC have both used it to prove their authority. Both churches have sought authority in tradition and superstition and not the Word of God which explicitly tells us that authority is found in Christ and in faithful men - full of the Spirit. You and the Roman Catholic Church make your apostolic succession the basis of authority - not faith, not Christ but a tradition. This is probably one of the primary reasons both the OC and the Catholic church have fallen into liberalism and become irrelevant to the world. They rely on their tradition; not the Holy Spirit.


     Accusing tge Orthodox Chur h of liberalism is really quite silly. We are easily the most conservative of churches. We have been practicing the same liturgy for well over a millennium and a half.

    Apostolic succession is certainly in the scriptures, as the bishops themselves were appiinted by the apostles. Besides that, the early church writings testify that not only was apostolic succession an acknowledged reality, but that it was one way to distinguish the true church from the many that would try to exploit the power they saw in Christ's name to preach abominable heresies that undermine the faith itself.

    From the very beginning, apostolic succession was seen as important. This only ceased to be the case when protestant churches saught to justify their existence apart from The Apostolic Church.




  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 8,050
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    If Orthodoxy was truly irrelevant, why am I convert? Why is my home church almost entirely composed of converts?

    But this is a bad argument to begin with. It is to be expected that in a world that is drifting away from God in favor of self deification, the allure of the many idolatries that tempt in our age, and the societal abandonment of absolute truth in favor of relatvism... Christianity in general is increasingly irrelevent to the world.

    I'm sorry, but I can't be a protestant. If I am not an Orthodox Christian, I can never be a protestant. This is the only form of Christianity that speaks to me. I lived in protestant land far longer than I have been Orthodox, and it was not a good place for me. I could always tell something was missing. How can I explain this to you? I can't. You don't know what you are missing. In fact, you have already dismissed The Church. The protestant mentality finds the very existence of The Orthodox Catholic Church to be obnoxious.


    That is why protestantism is subversive to the faith itself, and the fruit of protestantism is the current age of nihilism that we live in. Protestant scholasticism is what sparked the secularization of the world, and the abandonment of faith.


    I can't ever be protestant. I tried very hard. After becoming Orthodox, I know why. If The Holy Spirit isn't with The Orthodox Church, it isn't anywhere.