Author Topic: Orthodox Church is only true Church founded by Jesus and His disciple in A.D 33?  (Read 8570 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Azul

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 988
The Orthodox argument for being the Church is the unchanged doctrine from the councils, conservatism and stability.
Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,069
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Since when does Rome own Peter?Peter ≠ the Pope of Rome.

The Bible says "by their fruits you will know them" . The Crusades and the Inquisition.. hmm.. nice fruits..
Before you get too carried away by your triumphalism, Azul, we do have the murderous Russian pogroms against the Jews and the persecution of the Old Believers to our credit. Not exactly nice fruits, either.

that is children`s play in comparison with the catholic crimes.
So you're going to compare the murderous acts of the Orthodox against the murderous acts of the Latins as if it were some kind of game? The point I'm trying to make is that we've had rotten fruit fall off both the Orthodox and the Roman trees.

They are both retarded.And yes you might be having a point here.We might not be the Church, but the Old Believers.Or chances are that there might not be a church at all and that Christianity is false.
I have a point, yes, but you're totally not getting it.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline David Young

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,911
  • 2015, Baptist chapel, Llay
    • Some of my sermons preached at Bradley Road
  • Faith: Baptist
  • Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham
the church is the pillar and ground of truth. How do you reconcile this with your view that the Church is composed of many from different denominations

I didn't write that the Church is composed of many from different denominations; I wrote that it consists of people who are united to Christ by the Holy Spirit, and that these people are found in many denominations. It is the people that constitute the church, not denominations.

In re your other about Baptists and Orthodox assigning different meanings to the term saved, you are correct, but the discrepancy lies in this - that the Chistian's salvation consists of its beginning (when he is born again), its continuation (as we are sanctified), and it end (when we will be 'just men made perfect', as Hebrews has it). We Evangelicals tend to use the word "saved" to refer to the first, whilst Orthodox tend to use it of the entire process. One could say, with truth, "I have been saved from the guilt of sin; I am being saved from the power of sin; I shall be saved from the presence of sin." All three are true, but in common, and admittedly rather inaccurate but commonly understood parlance, we Baptists tend to use the word with the first meaning: but of course we believe the others too, but might more probably use the words "sanctified" and "glorified".

I hope this helps.
"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15

Offline Clemente

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 358
the church is the pillar and ground of truth. How do you reconcile this with your view that the Church is composed of many from different denominations

I didn't write that the Church is composed of many from different denominations; I wrote that it consists of people who are united to Christ by the Holy Spirit, and that these people are found in many denominations. It is the people that constitute the church, not denominations.

Which all sounds quite lovely and tolerant, but in fact was never the view of the Church during the time of the New Testament Church. When they had a dispute, they did not split into a new denomination. Instead, they held a Council, as demonstrated in Acts 15.

The Early Church Fathers expound greatly on the true Church and differentiate it not just by belief but also by communion with the Church that traced its linage to the apostles. There was never a time in the Early Church when Christians believed in the "invisible Church".

Quote
"It is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth" (St Ireneaus, Against Heresies, 4:26:2).

Offline Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,376
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
the church is the pillar and ground of truth. How do you reconcile this with your view that the Church is composed of many from different denominations

I didn't write that the Church is composed of many from different denominations; I wrote that it consists of people who are united to Christ by the Holy Spirit, and that these people are found in many denominations. It is the people that constitute the church, not denominations.

Not meaning to be critical, but isn't that also what "the Church is composed of many [people] from different denominations" would mean?
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline David Young

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,911
  • 2015, Baptist chapel, Llay
    • Some of my sermons preached at Bradley Road
  • Faith: Baptist
  • Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham
isn't that also what "the Church is composed of many [people] from different denominations" would mean?

It could mean that, or it could mean that the denominations per se are part of His church. I just want to clarify, so that we understand what each is saying.
"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15

Offline katherineofdixie

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,717
So the Church consists of people who are united to Christ by the Holy Spirit but who all believe and teach different (and in many cases totally opposite) things about Him.
"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom

Offline Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,376
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
isn't that also what "the Church is composed of many [people] from different denominations" would mean?

It could mean that, or it could mean that the denominations per se are part of His church. I just want to clarify, so that we understand what each is saying.

Fair enough. :)
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline David Young

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,911
  • 2015, Baptist chapel, Llay
    • Some of my sermons preached at Bradley Road
  • Faith: Baptist
  • Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham
teach different (and in many cases totally opposite) things about Him.

Do I detect a faint whiff of sarcasm here? I hope not. Anyway, it is our very faith in him that saves, so I do not think people who teach different (and in many cases totally opposite) things about what, say, the Nicene Creed teaches about Him are really the ones we are talking about.
"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15

Offline Ashman618

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 504
It's not about our faith in Him is about His faith given to us, it's not about getting Him into your life by your faith it's about getting into His life by the way He constructed while incarnate here on earth, so if your not teaching His way or your not on His path then no your not part of The Church. Just like in the genesis story when God spoke and created reality when the Logos was incarnated he created a new reality and NOT living by the reality that HE constructs is the original sin.

Offline HabteSelassie

  • Ises and I-ity
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,332
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!


In re your other about Baptists and Orthodox assigning different meanings to the term saved, you are correct, but the discrepancy lies in this - that the Chistian's salvation consists of its beginning (when he is born again), its continuation (as we are sanctified), and it end (when we will be 'just men made perfect', as Hebrews has it). We Evangelicals tend to use the word "saved" to refer to the first, whilst Orthodox tend to use it of the entire process. One could say, with truth, "I have been saved from the guilt of sin; I am being saved from the power of sin; I shall be saved from the presence of sin." All three are true, but in common, and admittedly rather inaccurate but commonly understood parlance, we Baptists tend to use the word with the first meaning: but of course we believe the others too, but might more probably use the words "sanctified" and "glorified".

I hope this helps.

Yes but Baptists have an entirely different ontological approach towards the concept of how and why folks are saved in the first step of the process.  You are correct, Orthodox believe Salvation is a gradual process over a human lifetime, indeed an eternity.  However, where there is a concrete difference between Baptists and Orthodox is the why and how aspects of Salvation.  Baptists folks on a penal God and Salvation to avoid punishment for sins, and further with this exclusionary sense.  To be "saved" is almost a condescending judgment against those who are not.  In Orthodox Baptism is the first step in this process of Salvation, but that begins in infancy for many and most folks there.  It is hard for Orthodox to speak of having been "saved" in any real sense then in comparison to a time when they weren't saved.  We live a life in this process of Confession/Reconciliation and Holy Communion, so often and frequently we are indeed being saved when we confess our sins.  However, we are not really comparing it to a time when we weren't saved.  Rather, we are healed.  Sin wounds, it doesn't kill immediately.  Just like a poor diet and abusive life-style will inevitably kill a person, a lifestyle of sin will spiritually wound a person towards death!  So the process of Salvation is like the biological processes of healing and recovery.  This is why we can't speak of being saved or not saved, because we are always in the process of healing.


stay blessed,
habte selassie
"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

Offline Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,376
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
Hi Ashman618. Always nice to see another Eastern Catholic here.
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline katherineofdixie

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,717
teach different (and in many cases totally opposite) things about Him.

Do I detect a faint whiff of sarcasm here? I hope not. Anyway, it is our very faith in him that saves, so I do not think people who teach different (and in many cases totally opposite) things about what, say, the Nicene Creed teaches about Him are really the ones we are talking about.

No sarcasm, I assure you. Just trying to understand how people who believe in such different Jesuses can be members of the same church?
"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom

Offline Ashman618

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 504
You to Peter J, And may the Lord bless and have mercy on are inquiry into Orthodoxy! :)

Offline David Young

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,911
  • 2015, Baptist chapel, Llay
    • Some of my sermons preached at Bradley Road
  • Faith: Baptist
  • Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham
people who believe in such different Jesuses

What do Orthodox believe about Jesus that Evangelicals don't believe about him? We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

Is this a different Jesus from yours?
"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15

Offline dzheremi

  • No longer posting here.
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,383
The Creed is a statement of Orthodoxy (read: the statement itself is Orthodox), David Young, not a guarantor that everyone who professes it has the right faith. I hope you understand the distinction.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2012, 05:28:45 PM by dzheremi »

Offline Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,376
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
people who believe in such different Jesuses

What do Orthodox believe about Jesus that Evangelicals don't believe about him? We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

Is this a different Jesus from yours?

I'm sure they wouldn't disagree with any of that. (Although I think it would make a greater impression on them if you had quoted the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, which is an ecumenical creed, rather than the Apostles' Creed. But we don't need to get into that.) It's other matters ...
« Last Edit: October 22, 2012, 05:28:15 PM by Peter J »
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,376
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
The Nicene Creed is a statement of Orthodoxy (read: the statement itself is Orthodox), David Young, not a guarantor that everyone who professes it has the right faith. I hope you understand the distinction.

Good post.
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline NicholasMyra

  • Avowed denominationalist
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,529
  • Nepsis or Sepsis™
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian+Greek
of one Being with the Father.
That's not what homoousios means.  ;)
Πάντα μὲν καθαρὰ τοῖς καθαροῖς
Τοῖς δὲ μεμιασμένοις καὶ ἀπίστοις οὐδὲν καθαρόν

http://hyperdoxherman.tumblr.com/

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,736
of one Being with the Father.
That's not what homoousios means.  ;)

The more I study the Cappadocians, the more I am convinced that most people have misread them. In this  case, the most vague translation (i.e., 'of one being') is the most appropriate.
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline jmbejdl

  • Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,480
  • Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava
of one Being with the Father.
That's not what homoousios means.  ;)

The more I study the Cappadocians, the more I am convinced that most people have misread them. In this  case, the most vague translation (i.e., 'of one being') is the most appropriate.

That's what the Romanian literally says in the Creed where we write 'consubstantial'. However, I think that in English capitalising 'Being' makes it read slightly differently and I'm not sure for the better. To me it reads almost as though the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all God because they share in this same Being rather than that the Son and the Holy Spirit are God because they are of one being with the Father - but that might just be my personal reaction. Anyway, I think I prefer it uncapitalised but otherwise it seems perfectly correct.

James
We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

Offline katherineofdixie

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,717
people who believe in such different Jesuses

What do Orthodox believe about Jesus that Evangelicals don't believe about him? We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

Is this a different Jesus from yours?

Do all evangelicals profess and believe the Nicene Creed? Because there are many non-denoms (evangelicals) around these parts who wouldn't know the Creed if it came up and bit them.
"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom

Offline genesisone

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,702
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antioch

Do all evangelicals profess and believe the Nicene Creed? Because there are many non-denoms (evangelicals) around these parts who wouldn't know the Creed if it came up and bit them.
I think most of them would agree with the points of the Creed even though they probably haven't heard of it, and many would insist that they "have no Creed except the Bible". If you were to go through the Creed point by point, you'd probably find acceptance, though not necessarily mutual interpretation on all points.

Offline Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,376
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic

Do all evangelicals profess and believe the Nicene Creed? Because there are many non-denoms (evangelicals) around these parts who wouldn't know the Creed if it came up and bit them.
I think most of them would agree with the points of the Creed even though they probably haven't heard of it, and many would insist that they "have no Creed except the Bible".

Why creeds are bad
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline katherineofdixie

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,717

Do all evangelicals profess and believe the Nicene Creed? Because there are many non-denoms (evangelicals) around these parts who wouldn't know the Creed if it came up and bit them.
I think most of them would agree with the points of the Creed even though they probably haven't heard of it, and many would insist that they "have no Creed except the Bible".

Why creeds are bad

Love it! (I've actually had similar conversations with non-denoms, btw.) :laugh:
"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom

Offline David Young

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,911
  • 2015, Baptist chapel, Llay
    • Some of my sermons preached at Bradley Road
  • Faith: Baptist
  • Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham
I think most of them would agree with the points of the Creed even though they probably haven't heard of it, and many would insist that they "have no Creed except the Bible". If you were to go through the Creed point by point, you'd probably find acceptance, though not necessarily mutual interpretation on all points.

I think this is true. They might well think that the creeds are tainted by a Roman provenance, but would probably never have read them. They would in fact agree with everything in them, except for putting a different meaning on the preposition 'eis' (as discussed at immense length with the regrettably now absent GreekChef) in "one baptism for (eis) the remission of sins."
"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15

Offline NicholasMyra

  • Avowed denominationalist
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,529
  • Nepsis or Sepsis™
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian+Greek

The more I study the Cappadocians, the more I am convinced that most people have misread them.

Shh, Cavaradossi.

We know, we're doing this on purpose. Don't mess this up for us Neo-Orthodox ok?

(i.e., 'of one being')

How about we compromise with "same being" (homoousios) or "with-being" (consubstantialem)?

We must begin interpreting classical prefixes and suffixes according to how we use them in modern English. It's totally phenomenological and will sell like crazy.

« Last Edit: October 23, 2012, 11:56:02 AM by NicholasMyra »
Πάντα μὲν καθαρὰ τοῖς καθαροῖς
Τοῖς δὲ μεμιασμένοις καὶ ἀπίστοις οὐδὲν καθαρόν

http://hyperdoxherman.tumblr.com/