Mopac

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

for the record I have met atheistic Orthodox believers

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.

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.

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

It is not in line with your understanding - and possibly because your church refuses to provide the reasoning which is found in the West.

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.

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.

Is this a permanent "career"? Because I heard that sometimes Orthodox faithful spend like maybe two or three weeks living in a monastery for the sake of the experience and drawing closer to God. Is that what this is?

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. 

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 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.

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

Mopac, you are picking at straws.  It is well known that the Eastern approach resorted to mysticism following the gods of the Far East. It also known that the written Word was too difficult for them to interpret so they invented an entirely unreasonable form of interpretation. In the West, the Church followed the Word as it was written and attempted to understand it from that point of view. This is not scholasticism, it is practical.

And again I reiterate, the Western Church understands that faith is of greater value than pure reason or education or tradition. And we do not equate tradition with faith. All traditions must be firmly based in the Scriptures, or else they nothing more than superstition. Hence, the creeds are based Scripturally in the Word of God.

in the East superstitions, traditions, and experientialism is elevated higher than it ought. This devalues the Word of God and faith in it. Hence it is incorrect for you to say that the East understands that the pure in heart see God because by implication you suggest that the West is neither pure in heart nor see God.

The Eastern church is clearly corrupt, just like the Roman Catholic Church.  This is evidenced in one sense by the billions of dollars they have salted away despite the obvious poverty of many of their members and the communities they live in. The Eastern Church also has the ring of arrogance about it, never conceding any wrong doing, always expecting others to concede to it, and always failing to bring itself under the Lordship of Christ and his written Word. One example of this is its clear hatred of the bible, calling those who take it seriously as idolaters. It would rather rely upon its superstitions, mysticism, and own wisdom than hear the clear word of God. The Catholic church is no different, taking its source of wisdom not from the Bible, but from its clerics, traditions, and reason. Even the current pope is influenced by the voices in the world attempting to change its doctrines.

The Protestant Church is not immune to corruption either. It has over the years since God birthed it fallen back into listening to the voices of the world and not to the Word of God. Yes, like each of the Eastern Orthodox, and the Catholic church, there are pockets, and sometimes large pockets which remain faithful to God and His Word

Mopac, while I do not dislike the Orthodox Church, and indeed have much time for its history and teachings, when it maintains like you do that it is the ONLY true church then it reeks of being a cult.  Not only that, it is an inaccurate assessment of history and teachings. History is never neutral. I accept that the Western history books will be biased - but so will the Eastern history books. It is therefore incumbent on those who do read the history that we do not allow our biased and prejudices to overwhelm the truth.

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. 

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. 

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. 

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