Apostasy from true Christianity

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

11.09.2020 10:35PM

3

4

7

11.09.2020 10:35PM

-->

@Tradesecret

thankfully, many within the OC have removed the shackles of their dead traditions and embraced Jesus and in doing so have been able to embrace his people where ever they are

All the evidence I need that you talk out of both sides of your mouth when you call us Christians.

As I said before, you protestants claim our martyrs, claim we are brothers, but teach ecclessiology that would destroy the church, prosletyze towards us, and when pressed make it clear that you don't really see us as Christian.

At least I can be up front about my belief that protestant churches are all heretical.

Topic's author

#122

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

11.09.2020 10:51PM

3

4

7

11.09.2020 10:51PM

Both the East and the West thought that they were right and that the other was wrong. Both acted in the spirit of Anti-Christ and not out of love for each other. Even almost 1000 years later neither are able to work through reconciliation because both seek the other to repent. And the fact is - because both are arrogant they will never repent because they think it is the other church at fault.

We will never accept papal supremacy, which from the start was the main issue. We saw from the get go that to elevate one man into being supreme head of the church was a forerunner to The anti-christ.

Their errors lead to protestantism. The errors of protestantism created the modern atheistic and anti-christ worldview. You protestants who have not learned your lesson are using the same reasonings that created the modern atheistic worldview to begin with. You are using these arguments against atheists!

You, who are wishing to gloss over all these various major and significant differences in order to achieve a false unity do not understand how this type of thinking is a threat to the church itself.

I point to all the protestant churches in Austin, with their rainbow flags and "we stand with muslims" signs. That is where your ecclessiology leads.

Topic's author

#123

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

http://www.crivoice.org/creeddositheus.html

11.09.2020 11:55PM

3

4

7

11.09.2020 11:55PM

-->

@Tradesecret

The Synod of Jerusalem that took place in 1672, having pan-orthodox acceptence, in no ambigious terms identifies the reformist doctrines of Calvin to be heretical.

This might be informative reading for you.

#124

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

3

2

6

11.10.2020 03:23AM

3

2

6

11.10.2020 03:23AM

-->

@Mopac

Calvin was trained in theology by the Roman Catholic Church. His teachings reflect the Bible as understood by the great doctor of the Church, Augustine.

When we read Augustine' view on predestination and Calvin's they are identical. And both I would argue flow from Paul's teaching in Ephesians and Romans, which themselves flowed from the teachings in the Psalms in the OT and Isaiah.

#125

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,499

3

2

3

11.10.2020 03:33AM

3

2

3

11.10.2020 03:33AM

-->

@Tradesecret

what is your view of the early church, where they identified the church by those who practiced apostolic succession? how do you feel given your church doesn't have apostolic succession?

Topic's author

#126

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

11.10.2020 03:42AM

3

4

7

11.10.2020 03:42AM

-->

@Tradesecret

The Roman Catholic Church itself does not accept Calvin's doctrines.

#127

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

3

2

6

11.10.2020 03:47AM

3

2

6

11.10.2020 03:47AM

-->

@Mopac

Both the East and the West thought that they were right and that the other was wrong. Both acted in the spirit of Anti-Christ and not out of love for each other. Even almost 1000 years later neither are able to work through reconciliation because both seek the other to repent. And the fact is - because both are arrogant they will never repent because they think it is the other church at fault.

We will never accept papal supremacy, which from the start was the main issue. We saw from the get go that to elevate one man into being supreme head of the church was a forerunner to The anti-christ.

Their errors lead to protestantism. The errors of protestantism created the modern atheistic and anti-christ worldview. You protestants who have not learned your lesson are using the same reasonings that created the modern atheistic worldview to begin with. You are using these arguments against atheists!

You, who are wishing to gloss over all these various major and significant differences in order to achieve a false unity do not understand how this type of thinking is a threat to the church itself.

I point to all the protestant churches in Austin, with their rainbow flags and "we stand with muslims" signs. That is where your ecclessiology leads.

If your argument is sound then no Orthodox Priest would ever fall into sin - nor would such members - but there are those who have left https://orthodoxandgay.com/

I agree with the Orthodox position in relation to Papal Supremacy. But having said that, I also disagree with dissention and division.

I think it is inaccurate to say that Catholicism lead to Protestantism. I think this omits to remember that since the Church has begun it has always been reforming. And will always continue to do so until the Lord Jesus Christ returns for his bride. Protestantism did not lead to atheism and the modern world. The Renaissance - and a dead church with a fixation on greed, and power, and a lack of transparency led to the modern worldview. This movement actually looked back to the Greek philosophies for illumination and was in direct conflict with the Reformation on many fronts.

The Reformation did not lead to an anti-biblical or anti-church movement. The Reformation was directed towards reform of the church and the clear errors within its halls, and in particular papal supremacy.

You should clarify what you mean by the protestants using similar arguments against the atheist.

America has a culture of anti-authoritarian sentiment. It is truly a Baptism generation - and if you knew your history - you would know that Baptists are not and never were Protestants - they are dissidents. They were our original Nestorians and have lived in the world since the time of Paul.

Topic's author

#128

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

11.10.2020 03:49AM

3

4

7

11.10.2020 03:49AM

-->

@Tradesecret

We do not teach that priests don't fall in to sin.

If you want to know how the currents that lead Rome into falling away naturally lead to protestantism, and then naturally lead to the modern atheistic worldview, I direct you to The Orthodox Survival Course playlist in the OP.

Topic's author

#129

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

11.10.2020 03:52AM

3

4

7

11.10.2020 03:52AM

-->

@Tradesecret

Unity for unity zake is not Christianity. Our unity is in faith. If we don't share the faith, there can be no unity. Such a unity is false.

According to the ecumenical councils, when Rome altered the creed without church consensus, it was an act of schism.

#130

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

3

2

6

11.10.2020 03:56AM

3

2

6

11.10.2020 03:56AM

-->

@Mopac

We don't agree with unity for the sake of unity. But nor do we agree with schism because someone did not agree with us.

I think unity requires truth. But in Christ, it primarily requires us to be his children.

Topic's author

#131

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

11.10.2020 04:04AM

3

4

7

11.10.2020 04:04AM

-->

@Tradesecret

The schism happened because the Latin church fell into heresy.

Their push for papal supremacy kind of made reconciliation impossible. It made resolving anything else infeasible.

We really tried, but their actions towards us during the crusades really fudged all that up.

Topic's author

#132

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

11.10.2020 04:22AM

3

4

7

11.10.2020 04:22AM

-->

@Tradesecret

You should clarify what you mean by the protestants using similar arguments against the atheist.

It is the scholastic approach. As exemplified in figures such as Thomas Aquinus.

The playlist in the OP would be worth listening to.

#133

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

3

2

6

11.10.2020 05:18AM

3

2

6

11.10.2020 05:18AM

-->

@n8nrgmi

I never said my church does not have apostolic succession.

I take the view that apostolic succession is superstitious.

It is distinct from the apostolic teaching and records.

The church if it maintains the apostolic teaching will ensure it is safeguarded. Yet there is no safeguard simply by laying hands on someone.

What is important is the apostolic teaching which is handed down in the NT. Although there is benefit in the laying on of hands- it is not in the safeguard of the doctrine.

#134

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

3

2

6

11.10.2020 05:21AM

3

2

6

11.10.2020 05:21AM

-->

@Mopac

The Catholic Church accepts the teachings of Augustine. As does the Orthodox Church.

Calvin's teachings are Augustine's teaching. If Calvin is a heretic, then so is Augustine. And if Augustine is not a heretic but is only in error in some parts of his teaching, then this is consistently the same for Calvin. Calvin did not go beyond Augustine's teaching.

#135

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

3

2

6

11.10.2020 05:44AM

3

2

6

11.10.2020 05:44AM

-->

@Mopac

I would think that the Roman Catholics practice such style of thought. Yet the Protestant Church has never been into the Scholastic thinking of Acquinan. Yes a brilliant man - but not a biblical man. He was caught in the greek thinking vein - of Aristotle and Plato.

Sometimes Presbyterians are accused of Scottish common logic of Hume et al. But the fact is - this misrepresents our thinking patterns as well.

I think the best way to understand the Reformed view is by understanding the covenants of the Bible. Reformed thinkers use what is called covenant theology - which incidentally is the way the Christians understood the bible and God's relationship not just with himself - but with humans. God covenanted with his people. And God used the framework of the covenant to form his relationships. State, Church, Family, individual.

Back in the early days of the church, the covenant played a larger part in their understanding of the church and the scriptures. Nowadays, and in most denominations - people have little understanding of the framework of covenants - let alone the fact that God relates to us via covenant.

I have started listening to your podcast - survival course - I have not found it helpful yet. It repeats itself - and is unable to look at its own faults. It is also very patronizing - the computer voice does not help of course - and it is also very long.

#136

Stephen

Debates: 0

Posts: 8,324

3

2

Stephen

11.10.2020 10:52AM

3

2

11.10.2020 10:52AM

-->

@Tradesecret

I do understand Orthodoxy. I studied and was tutored by academics, scholars, and priests and fathers from the Orthodox Church.

Which ones?

Topic's author

#137

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

11.10.2020 01:50PM

3

4

7

11.10.2020 01:50PM

-->

@Tradesecret

@n8nrgmi

I take the view that apostolic succession is superstitious.

It is distinct from the apostolic teaching and records.

The church if it maintains the apostolic teaching will ensure it is safeguarded. Yet there is no safeguard simply by laying hands on someone.

What is important is the apostolic teaching which is handed down in the NT. Although there is benefit in the laying on of hands- it is not in the safeguard of the doctrine.

"Apostolic succession is the tracing of a direct line of apostolic ordination, Orthodox doctrine, and full communion from the Apostles to the current episcopacy of the Orthodox Church. All three elements are constitutive of apostolic succession."

Topic's author

#138

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

11.10.2020 02:03PM

3

4

7

11.10.2020 02:03PM

-->

@Tradesecret

The Catholic Church accepts the teachings of Augustine. As does the Orthodox Church.

Calvin's teachings are Augustine's teaching. If Calvin is a heretic, then so is Augustine. And if Augustine is not a heretic but is only in error in some parts of his teaching, then this is consistently the same for Calvin. Calvin did not go beyond Augustine's teaching.

St Augustine didn't start his own church.

But besides, no church father is accepted without qualifications or considered infallible. St Augustine himself wrote retractions.

St Augustine had very little influence in the East. In fact, no one church father dominates in the east quite like how st. Augustine dominates in the west. St. John Cassian would be a healthy balance to St Augustine in the west.

I'd also like to note that when I first took it on myself to read Augustine's great volume of work, I was not orthodox. One of the first things that came as a revelation to me while reading st Augustine is that he believed in free will, and certainly didn't teach double predestination as I was taught(I hung out with a lot of Calvinists who certainly believed in double predestination and rejected free will). Rather, st Augustine's viewpoint was closer to "there is a way that is predestined to salvation and a way predestined to damnnation" rather than "people are predestined to salvation or predestined to damnnation". This is closer to what orthodoxy accepts.

Not really interested in getting into a debate on Augustine, I had not read him in years. But what is important to note is that I do know what the church teaches, and St Augustine is not the ultimate authority.

But the Roman Catholics who did elevate st Augustine to a very high authority during the middle ages even then never accepted these doctrinal innovations of Calvin. What does that say? It is not unlikely that Calvin misinterpreted st Augustine.

Topic's author

#139

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

11.10.2020 02:12PM

3

4

7

11.10.2020 02:12PM

-->

@Tradesecret

The problem with this covenant theology is that you have no problem acting apart from The Church(and you know I mean the Orthodox Church), which is New Israel.

You should listen to the playlist in the OP, not the computer voice one.

You should get over your being offended, because this is a polemical work. Being defensive will only serve to get in the way of hearing what is said.

I suggest you start on lecture 2, which confirms some points you have made and bridges the gap between your understanding and ours.

#140

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,499

3

2

3

11.10.2020 04:55PM

3

2

3

11.10.2020 04:55PM

-->

@Mopac

i read a protestant who said laying on of hands leads to apostolic succession, but that doesn't imply there aren't other ways to have apostolic succession. thoughts?

#141

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

3

2

6

11.11.2020 02:15AM

3

2

6

11.11.2020 02:15AM

-->

@Mopac

St Augustine didn't start his own church.

Calvin did not start his own church either.

But besides, no church father is accepted without qualifications or considered infallible. St Augustine himself wrote retractions.

And that is correct because all humans, are infallible and make mistakes. And no council is infallible either. Nor is any church.

St Augustine had very little influence in the East. In fact, no one church father dominates in the east quite like how st. Augustine dominates in the west. St. John Cassian would be a healthy balance to St Augustine in the west.

is that the case? And did he retract his work in respect of predestination? Augustine does not dominate in the West. He is one of the early church fathers. A recognized leader in the church. As is Athanasius. And as are many others. John Cassius seems to be semi-Pelagian. And his students even more so.

I'd also like to note that when I first took it on myself to read Augustine's great volume of work, I was not orthodox. One of the first things that came as a revelation to me while reading st Augustine is that he believed in free will, and certainly didn't teach double predestination as I was taught(I hung out with a lot of Calvinists who certainly believed in double predestination and rejected free will). Rather, st Augustine's viewpoint was closer to "there is a way that is predestined to salvation and a way predestined to damnnation" rather than "people are predestined to salvation or predestined to damnnation". This is closer to what orthodoxy accepts.

Calvinists do not believe in double predestination. Yes, there are some people called "hyper-Calvinists" but these are not Calvinists as understood in the nature of Augustine of Calvin. And Calvinists DO NOT reject free will. I am a Calvinist and I believe in Free will. It seems you were misinformed or rather simply did not understand what you were being taught.

Not really interested in getting into a debate on Augustine, I had not read him in years. But what is important to note is that I do know what the church teaches, and St Augustine is not the ultimate authority.

Yes. Probably not wise to do so since you are uniformed. I agree Augustine is not the final authority - God is through his Word, the Bible.

But the Roman Catholics who did elevate st Augustine to a very high authority during the middle ages even then never accepted these doctrinal innovations of Calvin. What does that say? It is not unlikely that Calvin misinterpreted st Augustine.

The Roman Catholics rejected Calvin because Calvin rightly called them to account and denied Papal Authority. He legitimately, through the teachings of Scripture was able to demonstrate that the pope was not infallible. And that the Roman Catholic Church had fallen into error. The Roman Church attempted to elevate Augustine's position in respect of church government - and it never denied Augustine's teaching. Calvin was not an innovator. His teachings flow from Paul through Augustine. It is incorrect to say he was an innovator.

#142

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

3

2

6

11.11.2020 02:59AM

3

2

6

11.11.2020 02:59AM

-->

@Mopac

The Orthodox Church believes "in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, the Giver of life" (Nicene Creed). The Holy Spirit is the Third Person of the Holy Trinity, Who proceeds from the Father only (cf. John 15:26). The Church firmly opposed the opinion that the Holy Spirit was created by the Son, and it pronounced the correct belief in the Nicene Creed at the Second Ecumenical Synod. The Orthodox Church does not use the phrase filioque, "and of the Son." According to the Scriptures, the Son Jesus Christ only sends the Holy Spirit in time, saying: "I will send unto you from the Father even the Spirit of truth which proceedeth from the Father" (John 15:26). https://www.goarch.org/-/the-fundamental-teachings-of-the-eastern-orthodox-church

Do you agree with this statement?

If so, do you take the view that the Western Church believes that the Son "created" the Holy Spirit? And if so do you also believe the West Church believes that the Father "created" the Son? And also is that the view of the Orthodox, given that they don't seem to have an issue with the Son proceeding from the Father? And moreover, does the Orthodox church believe that the Father created the Holy Spirit, given that the Spirit proceeds from the Father?

#143

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

3

2

6

11.11.2020 05:16AM

3

2

6

11.11.2020 05:16AM

-->

@Mopac

in 1965, Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I of Constantinople removed the mutual excommunications.

Is this true or not?

#144

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

3

2

6

11.11.2020 05:49AM

3

2

6

11.11.2020 05:49AM

-->

@Mopac

Here is an interesting depiction from one who had left Orthodoxy. https://www.abc.net.au/religion/why-i-am-not-orthodox/10097536

#145

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

3

2

6

11.11.2020 06:43AM

3

2

6

11.11.2020 06:43AM

-->

@Mopac

http://old.melkite.com/mle.html - well worth a read.

This document by the Catholics and Orthodox - clearly puts the situation as one whereby neither is excommunicated from the church anymore. This may not be enough to reconcile the church. Yet, it MUST mean that the Orthodox no longer means that the Roman Catholic Church to be a heretical church. The two churches may not be be able to worship together - yet both ADMIT that the other is a true church of Christ. Otherwise, the words and document is a lie. And when the heads of either church make such a document recognizing the other - but then just says it is a lie - and not true - well then they are obviously not trustworthy in anything.

what do you say Mopac? Do you accept what the Patriarch of Constantinople as the first among equals declared and affirmed or do you reject his authority over you?

#146

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

3

2

6

11.11.2020 06:48AM

3

2

6

11.11.2020 06:48AM

-->

@Mopac

https://www.apostolicpilgrimage.org/historicmeeting and another great article by an Orthodox profession as well, declaring at least in his opinion that the Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches are sister churches.

Isn't this contrary to your notion that the Catholic church is not a true church?

#147

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

3

2

6

11.11.2020 06:54AM

3

2

6

11.11.2020 06:54AM

-->

@Mopac

And another meeting - 50 years after the first one. https://catholicphilly.com/2014/05/news/world-news/fifty-years-later-pope-and-patriarch-meet-again-in-jerusalem/ and this time the two pray together - shocking really if they are not from the same true church. And note further in the article, it appears that not only the Catholics and the Orthodox met, but this prayer service included protestants. Lutherans and Anglicans.

Whatever is going on when the leader of the Orthodox church can meet and have a prayer service with other Christians from other Churches?

But then again the Orthodox Church is ecumenical despite some opinions. It has been a member of the World Council of Churches - in bed with every other Christian church in the world. Now unless it is being deceptive, it is accepting and acknowledging that it is not the only true church.

Topic's author

#148

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

11.11.2020 01:13PM

3

4

7

11.11.2020 01:13PM

-->

@Tradesecret

in 1965, Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I of Constantinople removed the mutual excommunications.
Is this true or not?

This has not received church wide acceptence. In fact, the Patriarch of Constantinople hasn't really had much respect from the church at large ever since. In the playlist I posted in the OP, the author outright says the Patriarch of Constantinople is not Orthodox!

what do you say Mopac? Do you accept what the Patriarch of Constantinople as the first among equals declared and affirmed or do you reject his authority over you?

We are not papists. That isn't what first among equals means to us. All that means is that when the bishops meet, he gets the chair at the end of the table.

Besides that, I am not in the church of Constantinople. It is a completely different jurisdiction.

Roman Catholics are obviously still excommunicated, because we won't give them communion.

Believe me, all of these things the Bishop of Constantinople has been doing is incredibly controversial in the church. There are even rumors that in a few years he is planning on ending the schism beteeen Constantinople and Rome permanently. I heard from a Russian Archimandrite that he knows a lot of Greek priests who intend on moving to the Russian Church if he does.

The Patriarch of Constantinople is really not respected much these days. The entire Orthodox world is against his meddling in Ukraine, because it is not his jurisdiction, and his actions have created a great deal of confusion. I know Abbots under his own jurisdiction that oppose him.

The Patriarch of Constantinople is not the leader of The Orthodox Church. He is the bishop of maybe 3.5 million Christians. To compare, the patriarch of Georgia is bishop over around that same number, 3.5 million. The patriarch of Bulgaria is the bishop of maybe 6.5 million Christians. The patriarch of Serbia is the bishop of maybe 15 million Christians. The patriarch of Romania is the bishop of maybe 19 million Christians. The Russian Patriarch, our big elephant in the room is bishop over 90 million Christians.

The Roman Catholics would like to believe the patriarch of Constantinople is the head of our church, because if they can compromise him, they can theoretically get the rest of us to submit to the pope of Rome!

No, the Roman Catholic Church is a heretical church. They are not simply excommunicated, they are anathema. The bishop of Rome is a forerunner to the anti-Christ.

the Orthodox Church is ecumenical despite some opinions. It has been a member of the World Council of Churches - in bed with every other Christian church in the world. Now unless it is being deceptive, it is accepting and acknowledging that it is not the only true church.

Some jurisdictions do take part in the World Council of Churches, but that innitself is very controversial. There are many who call modern ecumenism the "pan-heresy", and for good reason. The more optimistic see it as a way to give witness to the true church. There is no possibilityof union with these other churches, not unless they became orthodox. From our understanding, proper ecumenism is only done in the Orthodox Church. It is certainly improper to pray and hold services with these churches, but not to talk to them.

My priest has been tasked with having dialog in a modern ecumenical context. He says it is mostly a waste of time, but the good that comes out of it is that we get reports of people suffering in other countries that we otherwise might not get. It is not a wrong thing of us to do what we can to help alleviate the sufferings of those people if we can.

Topic's author

#149

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

11.11.2020 01:33PM

3

4

7

11.11.2020 01:33PM

-->

@n8nrgmi

i read a protestant who said laying on of hands leads to apostolic succession, but that doesn't imply there aren't other ways to have apostolic succession. thoughts?

"Apostolic succession is the tracing of a direct line of apostolic ordination, Orthodox doctrine, and full communion from the Apostles to the current episcopacy of the Orthodox Church. All three elements are constitutive of apostolic succession."

The laying on of hands is not what gives apostolic succession, otherwise any layman could claim to be a successor to the apostles!

The gift and seal of The Holy Spirit has historically been done through the laying on of hands and the annointing with chrism. In fact, this is how Christians first got their name. In Antioch, the pagans would mock those in the church for the sacrament of chrismation, calling them "Christians". The church in response said, "Yeah, ok then, we are Christians."

#150

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

3

2

6