Any Protestants?

[Ebor]

My Friend in a Greek Orthodox church in Melbourne referred to the old ladies (yayades) standing in line at the end for the antidoro as the scrum (rugby team) because of how strong they are at pushing to get to the end! Another incident the son of the priest told us was that people were in line for the antidoro and they were visually pushing people to get the the front and the priest got so angry he grabbed the antidoro ran to the front door of the church and yelled "he who is first shall be served last and he who is last shall be first" everyone was then solemnly quiet and acted orderly after that and the people at the front were last!

"the scrum" made me laugh.   But I feel for the priest who had to deal with such a group.  It surely wasn't 'decently and in order' for them to act that way. (the quote marks are an Anglican/Episcopalian catch phrase taken from the NT.)

Ebor

[Schultz]

I have often wondered during my visits to EO parishes what the priest is thinking of the umm less then attentive behaviour of his flock.  Do you have any theories of *why* this is so common?  I've seen it in mostly slavic parishes here and you've had it in Greek ones in Australia. 

Ebor

My wife refuses to visit the OCA cathedral in DC for vigil again because of all the "milling about", as she called it, by a group of women up near the front.  They spent most of the first half discussing their confession lists (at least, that's what it looked like) and then after confession started discussing their respective penances.  I was ready for it, but she wasn't and it really left a sour taste in her mouth, so to speak.

St. John Chrysostom wrote/spoke about the inattentiveness of people in his day.  Perhaps that's a main reason why "Wisdom!  Be attentive" is declared so many times during the DL. 

I love the way the Abbot at the monastery ozgeorge wrote about handled it!

[SeanGR]

I am Protestant. Nondenominational evangelical to be precise, though I attend Mars Hill Church which is "Emergent" or whatever we want to label it.

[authio]

I am Protestant. Nondenominational evangelical to be precise, though I attend Mars Hill Church which is "Emergent" or whatever we want to label it.

Mars Hill in Seattle???


EDIT: I looked at your profile, and saw that no, you're not in Seattle. 

[ozgeorge]

Do you have any theories of *why* this is so common?

Yes. The Devil.
This is the common understanding of this phenomenon in Orthodox Spirituality.
For example, this is from my the website of my Archdioscese:

In the fifth century, at the Mount of Olives, satan continuously attacked a desert father in his seventies. The monk told the devil, "You grew old with me, leave me alone". The devil replied, "If you do as I tell you, I will never try you again… Stop calling and honouring her" as he pointed to an icon of the Blessed Ever-Virgin Mary. This is why the heretics are peaceful and quiet, because the devil does not try them hoping to make us believe that they are doing well. The person who tries and battles is tempted and attacked by the devil. You may have noticed that the heterodox churches on Sundays are quiet, whilst Orthodox churches are always noisy. In the heretic environment, the devil does not need to disrupt the services, whereas he always tries to disrupt the Orthodox services. If you resolve to be more zealous in your worship and regularly pray, study the Bible and writings of the Church fathers, fast, go to confession, and save your money to give to the poor, you will discover that the devil will not leave you alone day or night. Alternatively, if you do not bother to make an effort to live an Orthodox life, the devil will not disturb you making you feel that he does not exist. Do you have courage?
source: http://home.it.net.au/~jgrapsas/pages/repented.htm

[lubeltri]

Yes. The Devil.
This is the common understanding of this phenomenon in Orthodox Spirituality.
For example, this is from my the website of my Archdioscese:

Hmm, then those of us afflicted with irreverent Novus Ordos must be coming under the greatest attack

[ozgeorge]

Hmm, then those of us afflicted with irreverent Novus Ordos must be coming under the greatest attack

They're not disrupted though, are they?

[lubeltri]

They're not disrupted though, are they?

You don't find this disruptive? 



Speaking of disruptive, I think the most disruptive thing I can recall during Mass is the time in 1989 when a homosexual AIDS activist group called ACT-UP stormed St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York by the hundreds, shouting slogans, lying down on the floor, chaining themselves to the pews, throwing cum-filled condoms at the altar, and desecrating the Eucharist (one member chewed the Host and spat Christ out all over the floor). Talk about diabolical, eh?

Seriously, though, I agree with your interpretation. The Devil is always on attack---and two of his weapons are confusion and distraction.

[ozgeorge]

You don't find this disruptive? 

Not at all. The service proceeds exactly as planned with everyone participating attentively. I don't see the Priest having to stop the Liturgy to drag two people to the front and make them stand in front of the Reader so they don't talk during the Epistle. I don't see people walking in late and talking to each other about the lousy weather during the Gospel or Consecration. I don't see old ladies loudly scolding people for kneeling in Church on Sundays or folding their arms.
The Novos Ordo is orderly (just a different order). Divine Liturgies are a trial by fire for clergy and laity.

[lubeltri]

Not at all. The service proceeds exactly as planned with everyone participating attentively. I don't see the Priest having to stop the Liturgy to drag two people to the front and make them stand in front of the Reader so they don't talk during the Epistle. I don't see people walking in late and talking to each other about the lousy weather during the Gospel or Consecration. I don't see old ladies loudly scolding people for kneeling in Church on Sundays or folding their arms.
The Novos Ordo is orderly (just a different order). Divine Liturgies are a trial by fire for clergy and laity.

But that is not the Novus Ordo, but a gross abuse. Abuses are a regular occurrence in many places, and every one of them serves to distract people from the proper vertically-orientated worship of God. It is certainly a trial by fire to remain focused on the Eucharist through such shenanigans, even without the late-comers, early leavers, frequent talking, inappropriately dressed communicants and screaming babies. Sigh. . .

The EO does not have a monopoly on diabolical distraction.

[ozgeorge]

The EO does not have a monopoly on diabolical distraction.

I think you've missed the point of the article and are turning this into a traditionalic vs. Novos Ordo Abuse thing.
What you consider "liturgical abuses" of the Novos Ordo are not "abuses" in the eyes of those who participate in them. They go according to plan (no matter how weird that plan is). My experiences of 40 years of Orthodox Divine Liturgies is that they never go to plan. Even in the Monastery where I have attended liturgy for the last 12 years, something always manages to cause a disturbance- people arguing, talking, being annoying, the wrong hymn being chanted by the choir, the Reader beicoming distracted and losing his place in the Prayers or Psalms. There is a diabolical attempt to disrupt the flow of the Service and People's participation in it.
In contrast, heterodox Services, no matter how whacky, flow nicely as planned. Everyone watches the Liturgical Dancers quietly, people are silent during reading/prayers/rubrics, people behave cordially with one another. In other words, there is little need for diabolical influence to disturb the Service.

[lubeltri]

I think you've missed the point of the article and are turning this into a traditionalic vs. Novos Ordo Abuse thing.
What you consider "liturgical abuses" of the Novos Ordo are not "abuses" in the eyes of those who participate in them. They go according to plan (no matter how weird that plan is). My experiences of 40 years of Orthodox Divine Liturgies is that they never go to plan. Even in the Monastery where I have attended liturgy for the last 12 years, something always manages to cause a disturbance- people arguing, talking, being annoying, the wrong hymn being chanted by the choir, the Reader beicoming distracted and losing his place in the Prayers or Psalms. There is a diabolical attempt to disrupt the flow of the Service and People's participation in it.
In contrast, heterodox Services, no matter how whacky, flow nicely as planned. Everyone watches the Liturgical Dancers quietly, people are silent during reading/prayers/rubrics, people behave cordially with one another. In other words, there is little need for diabolical influence to disturb the Service.

How do you know it just isn't boredom? An Evangelical friend of mine went to her first EO DL on Sunday. She was telling me about all the people there, and how bored they looked, swaying and twiddling. She herself was fidgeting endlessly and eventually left after an hour and a half. She told me she's not going back.

  To be honest, this sounds like a Frederica Mathews-Green idea: Orthodoxy is better than everything else because we've got more distracted communicants! lol

Really, you could make claims like that in a lot of other ways. I could claim Catholicism is true because of the sex-abuse scandal. The Devil didn't need to tempt and attack bishops of other communions. Protestants could claim they are true because of the fracturing they constantly experience. The Devil doesn't need, after all, to hit the Catholics and Orthodox with as much of that.

I would also point out that disruptive communicants are also found in abundance outside the EO Church.

This is really similar to other spurious arguments, like "My church is the true one because of its apparitions and miracles." Not very useful when other churches claim the same. Of course, like some articles on OC.net, you could always claim that "heterodox" miracles and apparitions are demonically influenced. But then you're back to presuming you know what is demonic and what is sheer human frailty.

[ozgeorge]

How do you know it just isn't boredom? An Evangelical friend of mine went to her first EO DL on Sunday. She was telling me about all the people there, and how bored they looked, swaying and twiddling. She herself was fidgeting endlessly and eventually left after an hour and a half. She told me she's not going back.

  To be honest, this sounds like a Frederica Mathews-Green idea: Orthodoxy is better than everything else because we've got more distracted communicants! lol

Really, you could make claims like that in a lot of other ways. I could claim Catholicism is true because of the sex-abuse scandal. The Devil didn't need to tempt and attack bishops of other communions. Protestants could claim they are true because of the fracturing they constantly experience. The Devil doesn't need, after all, to hit the Catholics and Orthodox with as much of that.

I would also point out that disruptive communicants are also found in abundance outside the EO Church.

This is really similar to other spurious arguments, like "My church is the true one because of its apparitions and miracles." Not very useful when other churches claim the same. Of course, like some articles on OC.net, you could always claim that "heterodox" miracles and apparitions are demonically influenced. But then you're back to presuming you know what is demonic and what is sheer human frailty.

Let's review what has happened here:
1) Ebor asked me if I had any idea why Orthodox services are so often disrupted by the behaviour of the faithful.
2) I replied with my opinion, reflected in an article on my Archdiocesan website.
3) You chime in and say that the liturgical abuses of the Novos Ordo Roman Catholic Mass is the same.
4) I explain to you that it is not the same because the article (and I) are talking about the order and flow of the Service being disrupted, whereas you are talking about an order of Service you disagree with and find disrespectful.

My opinion was asked, I gave it. You misunderstood what I was saying, I corrected you, now you tell me I am wrong.....sigh.....

[PeterTheAleut]

Let's review what has happened here:
1) Ebor asked me if I had any idea why Orthodox services are so often disrupted by the behaviour of the faithful.
2) I replied with my opinion, reflected in an article on my Archdiocesan website.
3) You chime in and say that the liturgical abuses of the Novos Ordo Roman Catholic Mass is the same.
4) I explain to you that it is not the same because the article (and I) are talking about the order and flow of the Service being disrupted, whereas you are talking about an order of Service you disagree with and find disrespectful.

My opinion was asked, I gave it. You misunderstood what I was saying, I corrected you, now you tell me I am wrong.....sigh.....

And on the Orthodox-Protestant Discussions board, to boot.

[Αριστοκλής]

I guess the RCC is Protestant after all 

[ozgeorge]

I guess the RCC is Protestant after all 

Told ya so.

[John of the North]

How do you know it just isn't boredom? An Evangelical friend of mine went to her first EO DL on Sunday. She was telling me about all the people there, and how bored they looked, swaying and twiddling. She herself was fidgeting endlessly and eventually left after an hour and a half. She told me she's not going back.

  To be honest, this sounds like a Frederica Mathews-Green idea: Orthodoxy is better than everything else because we've got more distracted communicants! lol

In her opinion they looked bored. That's because chances are liturgical worship is something she either a) is not used to or b) does not approve of as she prefers more spontaneity.

There could have been a myraid of other reasons including language that induced her reaction. My first 3 DLs were served entirely in Ukrainian, a language that at the time I knew nothing of. Yet I knew walking in the first time that whatever I found, Orthodoxy was home and the only option.

Unless you hit that point, where a person *intellectually* converts to Orthodoxy, then IMHO beauty of worship doesn't matter, because otherwise you will always remain Protestant, or Latin, or whatever.

[Keble]

Well, Orthodox liturgies heavily larded with ex-Episcopalians ARE done "decently and in order". Well, except when the bishop comes, which would appear to indicate that bishops are agents of the devil. 

[Schultz]

I gotta agree with ozgeorge on this one (hmm..that's twice this week...someone check and see if the Enemy is ice-skating to work ).

Badly done NO are proceeding exactly as planned, even if the planners are planning it completely in non-accordance with the directives of their own church.  Is it the Enemy at work?  As a Catholic, I believe so, but that's neither here nor there in this instance.

ozgeorge is referring to a priest literally stopping services because they're not going as planned.  When was the last time, lubeltri, you heard of a Catholic priest stopping the Mass because of, say, liturgical dancing?  The instance at St. Patrick's in 1989, as horrible as it was, is the exception that proves the rule (and yes, the Enemy was most certainly at work there!)

[DennyB]

Are there any Protestants on this forum?

I guess you can say I've come out of Protestantism at the moment,I haven't found a parish to attend,because of my current situation,I travel quite a bit,I hope within the next few months I can settle down a little bit,and start looking for a church.

[Ebor]

I apologize for asking the question I did.  I did not mean for any strife to happen and thinking back, perhaps it was a rather impertinent thing to ask. 

Thank you for your interesting answer to it, OzGeorge, though.  The Antiochian parish that I have visited several times, that was started by an Episcopal priest-converting, his family and some people from his former parish did not have much in the way of not paying attention and distractions though. 

My first 3 DLs were served entirely in Ukrainian, a language that at the time I knew nothing of. Yet I knew walking in the first time that whatever I found, Orthodoxy was home and the only option.

Well, this is something that I'm trying to get across. You and others found EO/Byzantine Liturgy the right place for you.  But others, such as I, did not.  That is where a degree of subjectivity would seem to come into play perhaps. Not any right/wrong but a matter of individuals and situations that do not affect all people the same.

Respectfully,

Ebor

[Cleopas]

I am considered protestant.

I am the chief elder/bishop of my local church. It is an independent non-denominational church. We consider ourselves a Bible church open to all Christians. As a church we are essentially an independent evangelical "bapticostal" church.

For an idea of our core beliefs ...

• We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.

• We believe that there is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

• We believe in the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles, in His vicarious and atoning death through His shed blood, in His bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, and in His personal return in power and glory.

• We believe that for the salvation of lost and sinful people, faith, repentance, and regeneration by the Holy Spirit are absolutely essential.

• We believe in the present ministry of the Holy Spirit by whose enabling and indwelling the Christian is empowered to live a godly life, to be an effective witness, and to work the supernatural works of Christ.

• We believe in the resurrection of both the saved and the lost; they that are saved unto the resurrection of eternal life and they that are lost unto the resurrection of damnation and everlasting punishment.

• We believe in the spiritual unity of believers in our Lord Jesus Christ.


Furthermore we practice immersion of believers in water in obedience to His command, a memorial meal (aka Communion, Lord's supper, Eucharist, Passover, etc.) consisting of unleavened bread and wine/grape juice in celebration and remembrance of Christ atoning sacrificial death and resurrection, and with anticipation for His coming again.


That should give you an idea where I am on the important and usual stuff.

I don't post here often. But occasionally pop in, and sometimes drop a few lines.


Yours in Him,

[ialmisry]

Chrismated Orthodox just 1 1/2 years ago.  I am an ex-Lutheran, LCMS. How may I be of service to you?

LCA ex-Lutheran, but now it's been so long, I can barely remember Protestantism as a personal experience, just the intellectual arguments.

[ytterbiumanalyst]

That should give you an idea where I am on the important and usual stuff.

I don't post here often. But occasionally pop in, and sometimes drop a few lines.

Christopher,

Good to see you! We tend not to get very many evangelicals on this site, and having someone of your standing in an evangelical church posting here would be much appreciated. Many of us (myself included) are from a "Bapticostal" background, so don't feel like you're talking to strangers. Been there, done that--and indeed, I have a whole closet full of T-shirts from Bapticostal churches. Post as much as you like, and feel free to start topics. You may be able to bring up things that the rest of us would never think of.

God bless.

[GreekChef]

I am considered protestant.

I am the chief elder/bishop of my local church. It is an independent non-denominational church. We consider ourselves a Bible church open to all Christians. As a church we are essentially an independent evangelical "bapticostal" church.

Please pardon my ignorance (and I mean that sincerely, not sarcastically), but could you please define (or anyone, really) "bapticostal?"  I see the obvious roots of baptist and pentecostal, but is there something significant about this confession?  Or does it mean that the church is a mix of baptist and pentecostal ideals?  I'm a little confused...

Thanks!

[lubeltri]

Please pardon my ignorance (and I mean that sincerely, not sarcastically), but could you please define (or anyone, really) "bapticostal?"  I see the obvious roots of baptist and pentecostal, but is there something significant about this confession?  Or does it mean that the church is a mix of baptist and pentecostal ideals?  I'm a little confused...

Charismatic Baptists. In other words, Baptists who shout, wave their hands and speak in tongues instead of sit on their hands (the usual Baptist position). The services are much more contemporary Evangelical than the usually staid "standard" Baptist service.

If you think that's a strange combo, you should meet a friend of mine, who calls herself Angli-geli-matic.

[ytterbiumanalyst]

The term "bapticostal" usually refers to people who believe similarly to the Baptists and Pentecostals. They may, for example, believe that in order to be saved you must speak in tongues (Pentecostal), but that once you are saved, you cannot lose that salvation (Baptist). Such people are generally unfulfilled in either denomination.

Therefore, a new group of independent churches has arisen, with no ties to either (or in some cases any) denomination. They are a haven for these "Bapticostal" folks who cannot otherwise find a church that believes as they do.

[Ebor]

Another name in jest for main line Churches of a Protestant leaning is "Baptodisterian". 

Episcopalians (at least in some parts such as the Chesapeake Bay area may be called "Soft Shell Catholics" 

Ebor

[Cleopas]

Christopher,

Good to see you! We tend not to get very many evangelicals on this site, and having someone of your standing in an evangelical church posting here would be much appreciated. Many of us (myself included) are from a "Bapticostal" background, so don't feel like you're talking to strangers. Been there, done that--and indeed, I have a whole closet full of T-shirts from Bapticostal churches. Post as much as you like, and feel free to start topics. You may be able to bring up things that the rest of us would never think of.

God bless.

Thank you for the cordial welcome.

[Cleopas]

does it mean that the church is a mix of baptist and pentecostal ideals?  I'm a little confused...

Essentially, yes.

[Cleopas]

Charismatic Baptists. In other words, Baptists who shout, wave their hands and speak in tongues instead of sit on their hands (the usual Baptist position). The services are much more contemporary Evangelical than the usually staid "standard" Baptist service.

Dead on.  Although in our case we are a congregation of varied backgrounds, mostly (Freewill) Baptist and Pentecostal backgrounds. So we are quite literally a combination of Baptists and Pentecostals. However, we do have some with a Methodist influence and one from the Church of Christ.

[lubeltri]

Dead on.  Although in our case we are a congregation of varied backgrounds, mostly (Freewill) Baptist and Pentecostal backgrounds. So we are quite literally a combination of Baptists and Pentecostals. However, we do have some with a Methodist influence and one from the Church of Christ.

My father left Catholicism when I was 3 and became a Baptist. I grew up going to Baptist services. I've probably been to more Baptist services than any other in my life. 

[GreekChef]

The term "bapticostal" usually refers to people who believe similarly to the Baptists and Pentecostals. They may, for example, believe that in order to be saved you must speak in tongues (Pentecostal), but that once you are saved, you cannot lose that salvation (Baptist). Such people are generally unfulfilled in either denomination.

Therefore, a new group of independent churches has arisen, with no ties to either (or in some cases any) denomination. They are a haven for these "Bapticostal" folks who cannot otherwise find a church that believes as they do.

I have always found the topic of speaking in tongues interesting.  For us Orthodox, it is quite clear that "speaking in tongues" in Acts referred to known languages, and that this was a gift given to the Apostles by the Holy Spirit for the specific purpose of speaking to those that were gathered with them who were from other lands.  I have never understood the overemphasis on the speaking of gibberish tongues.  It just seems so logical to me, academically, theologically, and spiritually.  I am always shocked that people believe in speaking gibberish.  

I often credit these types of things to misinterpretations of the scriptures, as a result of either:
1) not belonging to a church that holds a tradition and context in which to interpret the Bible properly (such as Orthodoxy or Catholocism), and thus interpreting it according to their own interpretations/beliefs/worldview/will/what-have-you; or
2) mistranslations of the original Greek.  

I would be very interested to hear why these churches participate in tongue speaking and what the belief is about it.

*NOTE* None of this is not meant offensively.  It's just my opinion on the topic.

[Cleopas]

The term "bapticostal" usually refers to people who believe similarly to the Baptists and Pentecostals. They may, for example, believe that in order to be saved you must speak in tongues (Pentecostal), but that once you are saved, you cannot lose that salvation (Baptist). Such people are generally unfulfilled in either denomination.

Woah! Wait a second. Bad example. We do not, and in fact most Pentecostals do not believe one has to speak in tongues to be saved.
2ndly, though some baptist believe in eternal security (once saved always saved) and some who attend my congregation do, I do not. Also most of our baptist influence is freewill baptist. These also do not believe in eternal security.

As far as being unfulfilled in either denomination for most that is probably less the case than expediency or other local issues -- not the denomination itself, at least as far as beliefs go.

[John of the North]

Well, this is something that I'm trying to get across. You and others found EO/Byzantine Liturgy the right place for you.  But others, such as I, did not.  That is where a degree of subjectivity would seem to come into play perhaps. Not any right/wrong but a matter of individuals and situations that do not affect all people the same.

Respectfully,

Ebor

My point kinda was, as to whether the service affected my final status as a convert, that the socalled "smells and bells" of Orthodox worship did not influence my final decision. As so many others have commented, I realized that I was not in the Church of Christ, which is where I needed to be. My .02.

In Christ
Ivan

[ytterbiumanalyst]

Woah! Wait a second. Bad example. We do not,

It should be said that Bapticostals, as a cross-breed and not a real denomination, differ greatly as to which beliefs they choose from either side. The issues I chose are but two among many and are not intended to be representative of all Pentecostal, all Baptist, or certainly all Bapticostal churches. Finding any belief held in common by all churches in these three groups is nigh impossible.

and in fact most Pentecostals do not believe one has to speak in tongues to be saved.

They'll never admit to believing it. In fact, within the realm of Pentecostalism (especially the Assemblies of God), there is the idea that a person receives the Holy Spirit at Baptism yet does not have the fullness of Christ until they receive the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, which they define as being able to speak in tongues. In effect, the salvation is begun at baptism but is not completed until the person speaks in tongues. Therefore, a person who has been baptized but does not speak in tongues is either not fully saved or not saved at all.

2ndly, though some baptist believe in eternal security (once saved always saved) and some who attend my congregation do, I do not. Also most of our baptist influence is freewill baptist. These also do not believe in eternal security.

There is indeed a wide variety of beliefs on this issue among the various Baptist churches, but the ones that I had contact with held eternal security as a core belief.

As far as being unfulfilled in either denomination for most that is probably less the case than expediency or other local issues -- not the denomination itself, at least as far as beliefs go.

The being unfulfilled part is, I admit, autobiographical. There are of course many reasons people choose a church or choose not to attend church at all. I have, however, spoken with many people from the Bapticostal background, both while I was attending such churches and afterwards, and many have expressed disapproval of at least one aspect of their church.

I in no way attempted to speak for your personal beliefs or those of your church; if you want to do so, please do. I merely wanted to give a general explanation of this informal group to those who have not been a part of it.

[BrotherAidan]

Episcopalians (at least in some parts such as the Chesapeake Bay area may be called "Soft Shell Catholics" 

Ebor

that is hilarious!   

[BrotherAidan]

Woah! Wait a second. Bad example. We do not, and in fact most Pentecostals do not believe one has to speak in tongues to be saved.
2ndly, though some baptist believe in eternal security (once saved always saved) and some who attend my congregation do, I do not. Also most of our baptist influence is freewill baptist. These also do not believe in eternal security.

then you are already half way there on the journey to Orthodoxy! 

[Cleopas]

then you are already half way there on the journey to Orthodoxy! 

Ahhhh, but then I am not on the journey to Orthodoxy, but rather towards orthodoxy. Just ask Y-man. He can vouch that I must be a tremendous mental gymnast. 

Seriously, in spite of the lack of effective communication our traditions lack one towards another, I am not here to become Orthodox. I am here to build bridges, to network and fellowship with Orthodox believers, and maybe knock down some of the walls that separate us as Christians from one another as individual believers. I doing so we may come to have more respect and understanding for one another, and hopefully be all the more knit together in love.

In other words I aim to be your friendly neighborhood resident "Evangesleyian Holicostalrationsist" protestant Christian.

Evangesleyian Holicostalrationsist = Evangelical + Wesleyian^Arminian . Holiness + Pentecostal / Restorationist
 

[ytterbiumanalyst]

Ahhhh, but then I am not on the journey to Orthodoxy, but rather towards orthodoxy. Just ask Y-man. He can vouch that I must be a tremendous mental gymnast. 

I've seen better on the theological pummel horse, and your Middle Way balance beam needs work, but the floor routine is fantastic! 

[lubeltri]

Seriously, in spite of the lack of effective communication our traditions lack one towards another, I am not here to become Orthodox. I am here to build bridges, to network and fellowship with Orthodox believers, and maybe knock down some of the walls that separate us as Christians from one another as individual believers. I doing so we may come to have more respect and understanding for one another, and hopefully be all the more knit together in love.
[/size]
 

Very well said!

[Ebor]

My point kinda was, as to whether the service affected my final status as a convert, that the socalled "smells and bells" of Orthodox worship did not influence my final decision. As so many others have commented, I realized that I was not in the Church of Christ, which is where I needed to be. My .02.

In Christ
Ivan

Thank you for the clarification. 

I believe that I *am* in the Church of Christ, that is in the "blessed company of all faithful people" as it says in the BCP, and that Anglicans are part of His Church/Christendom.  Yes, it's the "Branch Theory".  But with Our Lord as the Vine, all people are 'the branches. 


Please forgive my tardiness.  Welcome to the forum, Cleopas. 

Ebor

[FrancisA]

Are there any Protestants on this forum?

Is this question serious or is it just rhetorical?

Let me see.  The majority of the forum appears to be Orthodox Brothers and sisters arguing, fighting and acting in derisive behavior towards each other.  That doesn't really interest me too much.

The protestant relations part appears to be others telling me what I believe or why I am too apprehensive too become Orthodox.  Like everyone personally knows me.  This doesn't interest me all that much either. 

The real question is why would a protestant want to hang around here?  I apologize for offending but the forum doesn't appear to have anything too edifying.  Too an outsider, it looks like an Orthodox family squabble.

Please forgive if my words offend.

[GabrieltheCelt]

Is this question serious or is it just rhetorical?

I think Podromas was simply curious.

Let me see.  The majority of the forum appears to be Orthodox Brothers and sisters arguing, fighting and acting in derisive behavior towards each other.  That doesn't really interest me too much.

The anonymity of the internet allows people to behave in ways they otherwise wouldn't in a face to face setting.  It's just the way it is; take it with a grain of salt and look for the good.  Plus, a lot of posters have been here awhile and have become very good friends (at least as good as you can get in an artificial setting) and like to tease each other. 

In Christ,
Gabriel

[FrancisA]

OK.  yes I'm still here.  Some folks did a good job and convinced me to hang around awhile.

Methodist by weekend.  Anglican by weekday.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Protestant Discussion (Moderator: PeterTheAleut) > Topic: Any Protestants?