Patrisitic Christianity

[Uphill Battle]

Not if it claimed to the the on true church since the time of the apostles. And, BTW, the jews DID consider Christianity a cult.

a good point.

 

[simonthezealot]

Not if it claimed to the the on true church since the time of the apostles. .

Wise choice of words.

 

[Knowledge3]

Agreed, forgive me!

Forgive and you will be forgiven.

 

[simonthezealot]

Forgive and you will be forgiven.

Amen!

 

[DanielRB]

No.

The Orthodox Holy Fathers were God's spiritual champions who exegeted the Scripture with real knowledge and a sense of patristic understanding.

They were the bearers of the apostolic traditions we still keep today.

Keep in mind that this is going back to the 1st century.

Peace, Knowledge

This seems like a tautology. If a Patristic source is in harmony with what we call Orthodoxy today, then he is an Orthodox Church Father. If it is at variance, then he was Hetrodox.

What IS obvious is that not all writing dating back to the 1st Century are in agreement with each other or with what we currently call "Orthodoxy." (Witness Paul's frequent battles with early heretics recorded within his letters.) Now, we may agree that some of them were obvious heretics (like Marcion); but we are making a judgment (informed, perhpas, but nevertheless a judgment) on what was truly "Orthodox" and what was not.

In Christ,
Daniel

 

[Rightglory]

DanielRB,

This seems like a tautology. If a Patristic source is in harmony with what we call Orthodoxy today, then he is an Orthodox Church Father. If it is at variance, then he was Hetrodox.

Orthodoxy is what the Church has always believed. A Church Father does not make or determine orthodoxy. the Church determines who is a Church Father. A Church Father becomes such because he was faithful to the once given Gospel. The Church is not determined by what or how a particular individual stated or wrote or taught. If this were true, then it would be man-made doctrine, man-made gospel, individual interpretation. They were instead, defining, explaining in light of that ONCE Gospel given and always believed and understood. It is the Church that does not fail, it is the Church that maintains Orthodoxy, not a person, or even a group of persons.

 

[DanielRB]

DanielRB,
Orthodoxy is what the Church has always believed. A Church Father does not make or determine orthodoxy. the Church determines who is a Church Father. A Church Father becomes such because he was faithful to the once given Gospel. The Church is not determined by what or how a particular individual stated or wrote or taught. If this were true, then it would be man-made doctrine, man-made gospel, individual interpretation. They were instead, defining, explaining in light of that ONCE Gospel given and always believed and understood. It is the Church that does not fail, it is the Church that maintains Orthodoxy, not a person, or even a group of persons.

Peace, Rightglory

Again, this seems tautological. We all know there there were groups in the past--even the first century--that called themselves the Church but are what we would call hetrodox now. Sometimes these groups were quite large--consider "Athanasius against the world". Now, we say "these groups were never really the Church"--but that's the "no true Scotsman" argument. It may be true, but it's fallicious reasoning.

Sure, I believe that the true gospel exists outside of man's definitions. But we are men (well, and women, too), and we choose to recognize a particular point of view as being that one true gospel. Others, who disagree, we call heretics...and they in turn call us heretics. It's a judgment--informed and correct perhaps, but still a judgment.

In Christ,
Daniel

 

[Rightglory]

DanielRB,

Sure, I believe that the true gospel exists outside of man's definitions. But we are men (well, and women, too), and we choose to recognize a particular point of view as being that one true gospel. Others, who disagree, we call heretics...and they in turn call us heretics. It's a judgment--informed and correct perhaps, but still a judgment.

Yes, it has never existed in any mans definition(s). It is what was once delievered by the Apostles, the only men involved, respective of the Gospel once given. It is they that taught, instilled, set up the practice of the early Church. That truth is guarded within the Church. The Church is Christ. Therefore it is He and He alone that not only gave it, but preserves it within His own Body through the work of the Holy Spirit. Thus, it is that which the Church has always believed, that which has been preserved within that Body that constitutes Truth.
Church Fathers are simply those that maintained, wrote, taught in light of that "rule of faith". They did not establish the "rule of faith". That is why the Church does not rely upon men, upon even small groups of men, not even Ecumenical Councils to have ultimate authority. It is the Body of Christ in which the "rule of Faith" is held and preserved with as Christ as Head.
That is far from a tautology.
It is very true that anyone can choose of himself to believe any truth they wish. That is why Arius when he was declared a heretic, set out to establish his own church. Nestorious did the same thing. Many, over the centuries have followed those particular faiths. Many have followed them in many more faiths. But none of them reach back to the Truth Once Given, none can claim the original Truth, since they all start many years, decades and for most, centuries after the Gospel was given.
But that Truth as preserved, unchanged from the Beginning is ONLY found in Christ's Body, His Church, the ONCE given ALL TRUTH, the "Rule of faith". It is there because He promised that is where it will be found because He will and has preserved it in His Body. After all He is the Head of that Body.
If one believed in Christ, would one doubt what He says and has promised?

 

[DanielRB]

DanielRB,

Yes, it has never existed in any mans definition(s). It is what was once delievered by the Apostles, the only men involved, respective of the Gospel once given. It is they that taught, instilled, set up the practice of the early Church. That truth is guarded within the Church. The Church is Christ. Therefore it is He and He alone that not only gave it, but preserves it within His own Body through the work of the Holy Spirit. Thus, it is that which the Church has always believed, that which has been preserved within that Body that constitutes Truth.
Church Fathers are simply those that maintained, wrote, taught in light of that "rule of faith". They did not establish the "rule of faith". That is why the Church does not rely upon men, upon even small groups of men, not even Ecumenical Councils to have ultimate authority. It is the Body of Christ in which the "rule of Faith" is held and preserved with as Christ as Head.
That is far from a tautology.
It is very true that anyone can choose of himself to believe any truth they wish. That is why Arius when he was declared a heretic, set out to establish his own church. Nestorious did the same thing. Many, over the centuries have followed those particular faiths. Many have followed them in many more faiths. But none of them reach back to the Truth Once Given, none can claim the original Truth, since they all start many years, decades and for most, centuries after the Gospel was given.
But that Truth as preserved, unchanged from the Beginning is ONLY found in Christ's Body, His Church, the ONCE given ALL TRUTH, the "Rule of faith". It is there because He promised that is where it will be found because He will and has preserved it in His Body. After all He is the Head of that Body.
If one believed in Christ, would one doubt what He says and has promised?

Peace, Rightglory

I think we might keep going around in circles on this one. The real question is this: which Church has best preserved the original apostolic deposit?

In order to decide this, we have to have a conception of the original apostolic deposit. Where do we get that from? There are many ancient writings, and they do not all speak from one voice. But how do we decide which writings are true, and which ones are false? They all claim to be true, yet many of them contradict each other. They all claim to be reflecting the "faith once delivered for all the saints", but they do not all speak with one voice.

You might say "this group of writings is true, this group of writings is false"--but based upon what criteria?

You claim Nestorius went out to form his own church. Well, Nestorius believed he was preserving the original Church. The Assyrian Church, which many people call "Nestorian" existed long before Nestorius (dating back to apostolic times) and still exists today. The Roman Catholic Church goes back to apostolic times, but it teaches things that the Orthodox Church rejects. Who's right? Who's wrong? Both can claim early Church fathers on their side; but one persons Church father (for example, Nestorius) is another's heretic.

So if your criteria is "what was always taught in all the church at all times" has to recognize that certain bodies--large bodies--who have called themselves "the Church" have taught and continue to teach things contrary to the particular Church that you believe is true. So it's a tautology to say "Church A has taught the truth, Church B teaches falsehood" if you don't have the criteria for what that truth is, other than the initial assumption that Church A is correct.

I don't know if this clarifies what I'm trying to say or not. Yes, I believe Christ has preserved his Church. An Assyrian might say he believes Christ preserved it in his Church; a Catholic might say he believes Christ preserved it in his Church; an Orthodox would say his Church is the one Christ preserved.

How do you tell which one is correct, other than in a tautological way?

In Christ,
Daniel

 

[a_ntv]

Peace, Rightglory

I think we might keep going around in circles on this one. The real question is this: which Church has best preserved the original apostolic deposit?
..
You claim Nestorius went out to form his own church. Well, Nestorius believed he was preserving the original Church. The Assyrian Church, which many people call "Nestorian" existed long before Nestorius (dating back to apostolic times) and still exists today. The Roman Catholic Church goes back to apostolic times, but it teaches things that the Orthodox Church rejects. Who's right? Who's wrong? Both can claim early Church fathers on their side; but one persons Church father (for example, Nestorius) is another's heretic..

As first step we can ask a simpler question: which Church has preserved (yes/not) the original apostolic succession by the sacrament of Holy Orders (laying of the hands on bishop)?

The answer is : the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriantal Orthodox,, the Assirian Church of the East (Nestorian), and some others

In fact it is not a case that nowaday a catholic is allowed to take the communion in a Assirian Church (Nestorian) and a vice versa

Probably you are giving to much importance to the faith despite the practice

 

[Rightglory]

DanielRB,

I think we might keep going around in circles on this one. The real question is this: which Church has best preserved the original apostolic deposit?

The Body of Christ as established by the Apostles at Pentacost. It has existed ever since as ONE Body. Christ as Head. There is ONLY one Church. Christ is that Church. He is Head of the Body, His Body, of which believers are members. That is the ONLY Church that has ever existed.

In order to decide this, we have to have a conception of the original apostolic deposit. Where do we get that from? There are many ancient writings, and they do not all speak from one voice. But how do we decide which writings are true, and which ones are false? They all claim to be true, yet many of them contradict each other. They all claim to be reflecting the "faith once delivered for all the saints", but they do not all speak with one voice.

That is because you are still looking at Church Fathers as the basis of Truth. They are not the Truth. The Church, Christ, is that Truth. It is the Holy Spirit working within that Body, ONLY that Body, within the Believers who make up that Body. It is that Rule of Faith that was deposited and guarded and preserved by the Church. It is not guarded and preserved by Church Fathers.

You might say "this group of writings is true, this group of writings is false"--but based upon what criteria?

the Rule of Faith, as guided by the Body of Christ. That is how the Canon was determined. It was not decided on by one man, a group of men, but by an Ecumenical Council which was approved by the believers, through the Rule of faith.

You claim Nestorius went out to form his own church. Well, Nestorius believed he was preserving the original Church. The Assyrian Church, which many people call "Nestorian" existed long before Nestorius (dating back to apostolic times) and still exists today. The Roman Catholic Church goes back to apostolic times, but it teaches things that the Orthodox Church rejects. Who's right? Who's wrong? Both can claim early Church fathers on their side; but one persons Church father (for example, Nestorius) is another's heretic

Again, going back to the above. It is not a particular person, or groups of persons. It is the Rule of Faith within the Body of Christ that has maintained, unbroken, unchanged the same faith, the same deposit of Truth from the beginning. It is quite easy, actually, to follow false teachings. They just do not last the test of time. They arrive, they stay for a while, then fall away. Yet, the original teachings, the Rule of Faith, has always existed, unchanged from the beginning. You mention the RCC which is probably the most familiar, and how many changes have they made since they were instituted. This includes the Papacy. A concept unheard of in the early Church and still has not been instituted in that original Church. Then add all the others. Can you trace them all the way back as doctrine?

So if your criteria is "what was always taught in all the church at all times" has to recognize that certain bodies--large bodies--who have called themselves "the Church" have taught and continue to teach things contrary to the particular Church that you believe is true. So it's a tautology to say "Church A has taught the truth, Church B teaches falsehood" if you don't have the criteria for what that truth is, other than the initial assumption that Church A is correct.

Yes, but none, absolutely none have believed the same from the beginning. History is quite accurate even given the ancient Church lived in severe persecution for almost 300 years and yet that very same Church is the only one to come through, strengthened, growing, and faithful to the Truth.
You are correct in that an initial assumption of faith is that Christ is who He says He is. That is the first step of faith. If that step is not taken, then all else is but vanity. You can develope a succession that is linear and so watered down that it stretches right into Mormonism. They have a link as valid as any other church.

How do you tell which one is correct, other than in a tautological way?

Follow the original understanding, the original teachings, the explanations from uniform Fathers across the spectrum of time and geography in the first century. Then the rest is faith. Faith that the Holy Spirit is Truth. In my study of almost 10 years, I have yet to find any group, any other Church, that can even come close. Historically there has never been a disagreement of what or who constituted the True Church until the split with the Pope of Rome when he established the RCC. There are actually many original Churches that still exist and have links, materially with the very first congregations. The Church at Jeruselem, the Holy Sepulcher, has had only three buildings from the beginning. The Antiochian Headquarters is still on Damascus Street. The Church of Ephesus existed continually until the massacre of Christians by the Moslems in 1921.
Many RCC would like you to believe that a Pope as understood as the Papacy, always existed, but history is void of such information. Since that time they have changed many things from the original understanding. Hardly, the Gospel once given. Since then, you have literally hundreds, even thousands over the years that have so claimed but none, absolutely none have any link with the beginning Church.
Efforts over the centuries have been made to seek union with these separated churches. Only two have any chance in the very near future. The Coptic Church, which differs from the Orthodox only in the very issue that separated the founder centuries ago (non-Chalcedonian) They have retained all of the doctrines, the liturgies that existed at the time they split. The Assyrian Church, might also be welcomed back within the next 50 years. Negotiations have been going on for years.
Many more differences have existed and have been created between the Orthodox and RCC over the years. They are becoming more divided on many issues, adding many more issues and are quite a ways from any kind of union with the Orthodox.

 

[DanielRB]

Peace, Rightglory

DanielRB,
The Body of Christ as established by the Apostles at Pentacost. It has existed ever since as ONE Body. Christ as Head. There is ONLY one Church. Christ is that Church. He is Head of the Body, His Body, of which believers are members. That is the ONLY Church that has ever existed.

I agree.

That is because you are still looking at Church Fathers as the basis of Truth.

No, I'm not. As I stated before, the Apostolic deposit is the Truth, and it's true no matter who agrees (or disagrees) with it. But this truth is carried in something. Just as the Church may be an invisible spiritual reality, it also has visible manifistation. We might say "we believe in the faith of the Apostles", but have different ideas as to what that faith is on certain particular matters. The truth is established by God; but human beings carry it. A person may claim (or be claimed by others to be a "Church Father"; but that claim doesn't make it true or false. It's how close it is to that Truth established by God that makes it true.

But one person might say "I am a member of the One, True, Church which is faithful to the Apostolic deposit. My faith doesn't come from the Church Fathers, but they faithfully transmitted it. Those bodies claiming to be the Church but disagree with it are false, and those claiming to be 'Church Fathers' but reflect a different faith are false." This is a judgment. It may or may not be correct, it may or may not be informed, but still a judgment.

They are not the Truth. The Church, Christ, is that Truth. It is the Holy Spirit working within that Body, ONLY that Body, within the Believers who make up that Body. It is that Rule of Faith that was deposited and guarded and preserved by the Church. It is not guarded and preserved by Church Fathers.

Technically, the Church Fathers were part of that Church, so they participated in that preservation. There shouldn't be a distinction made between the Church and the Church Fathers; the Fathers were a subset of the Church...though it is proper to emphasize that the Church Fathers alone were not the preservers of the Faith.

the Rule of Faith, as guided by the Body of Christ. That is how the Canon was determined. It was not decided on by one man, a group of men, but by an Ecumenical Council which was approved by the believers, through the Rule of faith.

Do you therefore believe that the Seven Ecumenical Councils did accurately and infallibly proclaim the Apostolic Deposit? (Please note; I'm not saying that you're saying the Councils made that truth; I'm asking if you believe that they accurately proclaimed that truth.)

Again, going back to the above. It is not a particular person, or groups of persons. It is the Rule of Faith within the Body of Christ that has maintained, unbroken, unchanged the same faith, the same deposit of Truth from the beginning. It is quite easy, actually, to follow false teachings. They just do not last the test of time. They arrive, they stay for a while, then fall away.

And yet certain beliefs are quite old. Why is the Roman Catholic Church larger than the Orthodox Church? Why does the Assyrian Church still exist? Why is Christianity just a shadow of what it once was in the land of its birth, displaced by Islam?

I really don't think it's "quite easy" to judge the truth of something simply because it survives, just as it is improper to say that if it doesn't survive, it wasn't true.

Yet, the original teachings, the Rule of Faith, has always existed, unchanged from the beginning. You mention the RCC which is probably the most familiar, and how many changes have they made since they were instituted. This includes the Papacy. A concept unheard of in the early Church and still has not been instituted in that original Church. Then add all the others. Can you trace them all the way back as doctrine?

Can you trace back this statement to the original Church?

Anathema to those who do not salute the holy and venerable images.

Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Vol. XIV. The Seven Ecumenical Councils. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems.

Do you believe that a person is acursed and damned if they do not honor icons? Is this what the Apostles taught? Can you demonstate this? (Please note: I'm not arguing that the Apostles were iconoclasts, but I'm asking for evidence that the early Church not only had icons, but cursed those who did not honor them.)

Yes, but none, absolutely none have believed the same from the beginning. History is quite accurate even given the ancient Church lived in severe persecution for almost 300 years and yet that very same Church is the only one to come through, strengthened, growing, and faithful to the Truth.
You are correct in that an initial assumption of faith is that Christ is who He says He is. That is the first step of faith. If that step is not taken, then all else is but vanity. You can develope a succession that is linear and so watered down that it stretches right into Mormonism. They have a link as valid as any other church.
Follow the original understanding, the original teachings, the explanations from uniform Fathers across the spectrum of time and geography in the first century. Then the rest is faith. Faith that the Holy Spirit is Truth. In my study of almost 10 years, I have yet to find any group, any other Church, that can even come close. Historically there has never been a disagreement of what or who constituted the True Church until the split with the Pope of Rome when he established the RCC. There are actually many original Churches that still exist and have links, materially with the very first congregations. The Church at Jeruselem, the Holy Sepulcher, has had only three buildings from the beginning. The Antiochian Headquarters is still on Damascus Street. The Church of Ephesus existed continually until the massacre of Christians by the Moslems in 1921.
Many RCC would like you to believe that a Pope as understood as the Papacy, always existed, but history is void of such information. Since that time they have changed many things from the original understanding. Hardly, the Gospel once given. Since then, you have literally hundreds, even thousands over the years that have so claimed but none, absolutely none have any link with the beginning Church.
Efforts over the centuries have been made to seek union with these separated churches. Only two have any chance in the very near future. The Coptic Church, which differs from the Orthodox only in the very issue that separated the founder centuries ago (non-Chalcedonian) They have retained all of the doctrines, the liturgies that existed at the time they split. The Assyrian Church, might also be welcomed back within the next 50 years. Negotiations have been going on for years.
Many more differences have existed and have been created between the Orthodox and RCC over the years. They are becoming more divided on many issues, adding many more issues and are quite a ways from any kind of union with the Orthodox.

Honestly, though I think that the Orthodox, RCC, Assyrian, Coptic and other historic bodies have largely kept the faith, I think that it is impossible to trace every belief back to the first century. Consider my question on Icons.

In Christ,

Daniel

 

[Rightglory]

DanielRB,

But one person might say "I am a member of the One, True, Church which is faithful to the Apostolic deposit. My faith doesn't come from the Church Fathers, but they faithfully transmitted it. Those bodies claiming to be the Church but disagree with it are false, and those claiming to be 'Church Fathers' but reflect a different faith are false." This is a judgment. It may or may not be correct, it may or may not be informed, but still a judgment.

I believe I understand what you are saying. It is not only a judgement of what I believe, either being or accepting Hinduism,or any other belief system and more narrowly, a form of Christian faith. That I made the judgment based on all the evidence that has been recorded, plus the faith from the conviction of the Holy Spirit that the Church He founded is none other that what is embodied in the Orthodox faith today. That the continual existance of the same Truth speaks volumes and authenticates the work of the Holy Spirit through men, believers, throughout the history of the NT Church and even before.

Technically, the Church Fathers were part of that Church, so they participated in that preservation. There shouldn't be a distinction made between the Church and the Church Fathers; the Fathers were a subset of the Church...though it is proper to emphasize that the Church Fathers alone were not the preservers of the Faith.

Each believer is a subset of the Church. We are many, but ONE Body. It is the Body that preserves the Truth. Christ cannot either fail or disappear. He cannot err. Men err and have erred throughout history. That is why certain men were noted as Fathers because the Body recognized them as perservers of the Original faith. That some were not are so recognized and those who actually spoke error or taught error were declared heretical by the Body, as not having taught or held to the"Rule of faith" as given and believed from the beginning.

Do you therefore believe that the Seven Ecumenical Councils did accurately and infallibly proclaim the Apostolic Deposit? (Please note; I'm not saying that you're saying the Councils made that truth; I'm asking if you believe that they accurately proclaimed that truth.)

Absolutely. At each succeeding Council it was confirmed that the preceding one was accepted. Many local councils were not accepted by the faithful. One that could have become an ecumenical council is the Council of Trent, an attempt at reconciliation. The Orthodox legates had agreed to some of the principles of the council, but when they returned home, the faithful resoundedly castigated them for acquiesing to the Roman Pope. Thus it did not become an Ecumenical one, but simply a Roman council.

And yet certain beliefs are quite old. Why is the Roman Catholic Church larger than the Orthodox Church?

Probably, historically, west went west and the ideas and principles that developed out of the Middle Ages, the Rennaisance etc. gave birth to the concept of freedom, including freedom of religion in half of the new world. The other half was exclusive to the Roman Catholic Church for centuries. On the other hand, at the same time the Moslems, after almost 6 centuries of trying to overtake the East, finally defeated Constantinople in 1453. The Eastern Church had migrated into all of Russia, the Balkens. Had migraged into what is now India, even China. But with the Advent of Islam, severe persecution and the concept of dhimmitude severely limited any growth in the East. This has been the status since the 15th century.
Severe persecutions, not like seen anywhere in the West decimated the Orthodox from the eastern lands. More Orthodox have been cleansed from the world in the Twenteth century alone then since the Church started at Pentacost.

Why does the Assyrian Church still exist?

Why does the Coptic Church still exist? Why do the Hindus still exist. Why does any protestant church exist? Why does the Jewish faith still exist?

Why is Christianity just a shadow of what it once was in the land of its birth, displaced by Islam?

Strange question to ask considering the historcial evidence since WW II. The Moslems failed to make significant inroads into extinquishing the Church in Jerusalem, in what we call the Middle East for 600 years. Part of that change was the establishment of Isreal after WWII. With that the influence and power of the US has been successful in almost eliminating any Christian faith from the Middle East, but suredly the Orthodox and the Orientals. I read recently that by the mid 21st century you will no longer find any Christian existance in the Holy Land. Christians are being purged out of the Balkans at an alarming rate and with the help and condoning of the US in some cases. Same for Pakistan, Indonesia, Checknya, and in news lately, the Coptics in Sudan.
I would really wonder just how many Christians would remain in the US under such a severe persecution.

I really don't think it's "quite easy" to judge the truth of something simply because it survives, just as it is improper to say that if it doesn't survive, it wasn't true.

Only if ones faith accepts that All Truth was given ONCE. It was practiced and taught for the Ages, preserved by the Holy Spirit in time, faithfully. You either have faith that He speaks the Truth or you don't. If you doubt that He cannot preserve both His Church and Gospel in this world, I would presume you would have a lot of doubts about a lot of things relative to that Gospel.

Can you trace back this statement to the original Church?

Quote:
Anathema to those who do not salute the holy and venerable images.

Not the statement, but the concept and practice goes back into the OT times. It is one of the things carried over but not readily used in the first 300 years because of the severe persecutions. There were no Church buildings as we would recognize today. They met at many and varied homes, even the catacombs in Rome. It is here that icons and prayers to the saints have given validity to both practices. Neither are required for salvation. They as is the Liturgy itself, are means to an end, our salvation. The Church has never denied the direct link with God using the material world to convey His Grace. Icons are the visible witnesses of the saints, of the heroes of faith. Many icons witness to the historical events of the Church, from creation, to Christ teaching, crucifiction, resurrection, ascension, baptism etc. They are visuals, the reality, to support the spiritual faith. The supreme Icon is Christ Himself. Incarnated for us. The Icon of the Invisible God. The Early Church, the Orthodox have never divested the material from the spiritual as did a parallel false religion of Pauls day, the Gnostics. We use, water, wine, bread, fruit, to convey God's power and Grace in our lives. Scripture is quite vivid with these images.

Do you believe that a person is acursed and damned if they do not honor icons? Is this what the Apostles taught? Can you demonstate this? (Please note: I'm not arguing that the Apostles were iconoclasts, but I'm asking for evidence that the early Church not only had icons, but cursed those who did not honor them.)

I do not believe one is cursed if they do not honor Icons. But denying them or their power within the Christian faith and practice is altogether a different issue. There are many things that you will not gather from the Bible or even early Church History of such a statment. One reason is that there probably was no great disagreement. We do not have any disagreement over the Incarnation or the Trinity either for 300 or more years. The Church does not make doctrine, does not institute new things for the sake of introducing them. Definitions, corrections were made by Councils over disputes, new innovations, ideas, practices that occured much later in history.

Honestly, though I think that the Orthodox, RCC, Assyrian, Coptic and other historic bodies have largely kept the faith, I think that it is impossible to trace every belief back to the first century. Consider my question on Icons.

Largely kept the faith is not saying one has kept the faith. Christ did not say he would relatively preserve His Gospel and Church. He said, the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. He prayed for unity, the same unity as He has with the Father. This does not imply any relativity of almost, ar largely.
RCC, Assyrian, Coptic are all departures from the Original which is embodied in the Orthodox. Icons not only were in the Early Church but were in the OT. Much of what we do and practice is a carry over of the form of worship in the Temple and the first Tabernacle. After all most of the early Christians were former Jews, including the Apostles. God laid down very specific rules of worship to Moses. Christ never rejected this form of worship. No early Father spoke against that carryover.
I have found nothing that we do as Orthodox that is not either directly or indirectly described in the Bible. Even in the NT.

 

[DanielRB]

Peace, Rightglory

DanielRB,
I believe I understand what you are saying. It is not only a judgement of what I believe, either being or accepting Hinduism,or any other belief system and more narrowly, a form of Christian faith. That I made the judgment based on all the evidence that has been recorded, plus the faith from the conviction of the Holy Spirit that the Church He founded is none other that what is embodied in the Orthodox faith today. That the continual existance of the same Truth speaks volumes and authenticates the work of the Holy Spirit through men, believers, throughout the history of the NT Church and even before.

Good, I think we understand each other now...although we may respectfully disagree about the conclusions we reach after our individual studies of Church history, the Bible, etc.

Each believer is a subset of the Church. We are many, but ONE Body. It is the Body that preserves the Truth. Christ cannot either fail or disappear. He cannot err. Men err and have erred throughout history. That is why certain men were noted as Fathers because the Body recognized them as perservers of the Original faith. That some were not are so recognized and those who actually spoke error or taught error were declared heretical by the Body, as not having taught or held to the"Rule of faith" as given and believed from the beginning.

Again, agreed. But a heretic (who doesn't view himself as a heretic) would have a different set of men he views as "Church Fathers". That heretic has made a judgment and probably we both have nearly identical views on what constitutes heresy.

Absolutely. At each succeeding Council it was confirmed that the preceding one was accepted. Many local councils were not accepted by the faithful. One that could have become an ecumenical council is the Council of Trent, an attempt at reconciliation. The Orthodox legates had agreed to some of the principles of the council, but when they returned home, the faithful resoundedly castigated them for acquiesing to the Roman Pope. Thus it did not become an Ecumenical one, but simply a Roman council.

See my response below, concerning the anathama pronouced by the Seventh council.

Probably, historically, west went west and the ideas and principles that developed out of the Middle Ages, the Rennaisance etc. gave birth to the concept of freedom, including freedom of religion in half of the new world. The other half was exclusive to the Roman Catholic Church for centuries. On the other hand, at the same time the Moslems, after almost 6 centuries of trying to overtake the East, finally defeated Constantinople in 1453. The Eastern Church had migrated into all of Russia, the Balkens. Had migraged into what is now India, even China. But with the Advent of Islam, severe persecution and the concept of dhimmitude severely limited any growth in the East. This has been the status since the 15th century.
Severe persecutions, not like seen anywhere in the West decimated the Orthodox from the eastern lands. More Orthodox have been cleansed from the world in the Twenteth century alone then since the Church started at Pentacost.

But this was in response to the idea that you gave that truth prevails and error fades away. I really don't think it's a good criterion for what is true or false, because often falsehood gains ascendency and truth languishes in obscurity.

Why does the Coptic Church still exist? Why do the Hindus still exist. Why does any protestant church exist? Why does the Jewish faith still exist?

Exactly my point. The success of a particular movement or philosophy in no way demonstrates its truth.

Strange question to ask considering the historcial evidence since WW II. The Moslems failed to make significant inroads into extinquishing the Church in Jerusalem, in what we call the Middle East for 600 years. Part of that change was the establishment of Isreal after WWII. With that the influence and power of the US has been successful in almost eliminating any Christian faith from the Middle East, but suredly the Orthodox and the Orientals. I read recently that by the mid 21st century you will no longer find any Christian existance in the Holy Land. Christians are being purged out of the Balkans at an alarming rate and with the help and condoning of the US in some cases. Same for Pakistan, Indonesia, Checknya, and in news lately, the Coptics in Sudan.

Again, this is my point. If the Orthodox Church is eventually purged from Muslim lands, does this somehow provide evidence that it's not true? I don't think so.

I would really wonder just how many Christians would remain in the US under such a severe persecution.
Only if ones faith accepts that All Truth was given ONCE. It was practiced and taught for the Ages, preserved by the Holy Spirit in time, faithfully. You either have faith that He speaks the Truth or you don't. If you doubt that He cannot preserve both His Church and Gospel in this world, I would presume you would have a lot of doubts about a lot of things relative to that Gospel.

I think we'll come down to this fundamental disagreement: you identify "THE Church" with the Orthodox Church, a particular body under a particular Apostolic succession. I don't; I believe that Christ's words ARE true, and that the Holy Spirit DOES preserve Christ's Church. I, however, don't identify it with a particular organization.

Not the statement, but the concept and practice goes back into the OT times. It is one of the things carried over but not readily used in the first 300 years because of the severe persecutions. There were no Church buildings as we would recognize today. They met at many and varied homes, even the catacombs in Rome.

But no ecumenical council (to my knowledge) ever pronounced anathamas against those who don't use Church buildings.

It is here that icons and prayers to the saints have given validity to both practices. Neither are required for salvation.

If the use of Icons is not required for salvation, then why did the Seventh Council call those "accursed" who didn't venerate them? (They also called down anathamas on those who actively opposed them, but I'm not talking about that...I'm talking about those who simply don't use them, which the Seventh Council seemed to think was worthy of anathama, being accursed.) Does not "anathama" mean "accursed" and therefore it would suggest that the use of icons was indded necessary for salvation?

They as is the Liturgy itself, are means to an end, our salvation. The Church has never denied the direct link with God using the material world to convey His Grace. Icons are the visible witnesses of the saints, of the heroes of faith. Many icons witness to the historical events of the Church, from creation, to Christ teaching, crucifiction, resurrection, ascension, baptism etc. They are visuals, the reality, to support the spiritual faith. The supreme Icon is Christ Himself. Incarnated for us. The Icon of the Invisible God. The Early Church, the Orthodox have never divested the material from the spiritual as did a parallel false religion of Pauls day, the Gnostics. We use, water, wine, bread, fruit, to convey God's power and Grace in our lives. Scripture is quite vivid with these images.

But I'm not arguing against Icons, simply what if one chooses not to use them.

I do not believe one is cursed if they do not honor Icons.

But that's exactly what the Seventh Council did. Do you disagree with the Council? Was it wrong at this point?

But denying them or their power within the Christian faith and practice is altogether a different issue.

Agreed; that's why I specifically pointed to this particular part of the Seventh Council's decision, and not to iconoclasim per se.

There are many things that you will not gather from the Bible or even early Church History of such a statment. One reason is that there probably was no great disagreement.

Could be, but arguments from silence are notoriously open to any one's whimsical interpretation.

We do not have any disagreement over the Incarnation or the Trinity either for 300 or more years.

I disagree. The Ebionites were quite early, and they denied the Incarnation.

The Church does not make doctrine, does not institute new things for the sake of introducing them. Definitions, corrections were made by Councils over disputes, new innovations, ideas, practices that occured much later in history.

Agreed, in theory. But as you pointed out with the example of Rome, even though they claim they're not inventing new doctrine, you and I would both point to Papal Infallibility, for example, as new doctrine.

Largely kept the faith is not saying one has kept the faith. Christ did not say he would relatively preserve His Gospel and Church. He said, the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. He prayed for unity, the same unity as He has with the Father. This does not imply any relativity of almost, ar largely.

Agreed, but it goes back to our fundamental disagreement. Christ is perfect, but human beings are not. No single person ever has understood everything about God--nor are they expected to. They are only expected to be faithful to what God has revealed to them. Similarly, the collective body of Christ's Church has made errors in the past--but the fundamentals of the faith have been presvered.

RCC, Assyrian, Coptic are all departures from the Original which is embodied in the Orthodox.

IMO, and please I don't mean to offend, the Assyrians and RCC might say exactly the same thing. It's a statement of faith, and it can be supported by evidence, but I don't find the evidence overwhellming that the Orthodox are the ones that got it right. But your mileage may vary.

Icons not only were in the Early Church but were in the OT. Much of what we do and practice is a carry over of the form of worship in the Temple and the first Tabernacle. After all most of the early Christians were former Jews, including the Apostles. God laid down very specific rules of worship to Moses. Christ never rejected this form of worship. No early Father spoke against that carryover.

I don't have a problem with this, though I might disagree on the defintion of what is an Icon. The Old Testament never had an Icon of the Incarnate God, since this was pre-incarnation. And in the Old Testament, they used some three-dimentional images, such as the Cerubs on the Ark.

I have found nothing that we do as Orthodox that is not either directly or indirectly described in the Bible. Even in the NT.

I'll end with a quote from a rather humerous book about "Growing up Fundamentalist". It was a multiple-choice question 'What is a catholic':

(a) Servants of the devil
(b) The Irish
(c) A Christian who believes too many things.

I guess in many ways I believe (c) about the Orthodox, as well as the Catholics. I recognize their faith, and their work in helping to preserve the gospel message. But I don't accept it all; I respectfully disagree about some of their beliefs and practices. But they are my brothers and sisters in Christ.

In Christ,

Daniel

 

[Rightglory]

danielRB,

Again, agreed. But a heretic (who doesn't view himself as a heretic) would have a different set of men he views as "Church Fathers". That heretic has made a judgment and probably we both have nearly identical views on what constitutes heresy.

Probably not. No Church Father in any case of a heretic spoke, taught the same as that prospective heretic. That is why they eventually were declared heretical. Their view was not from the beginning. It was never understood as they were defining or teaching it.
Having said that, Origin was never declared a heretic. In fact, it was not until several centuries later that a disciple, a student of Origin began to teach what became known as universalism with more fervor than did Origin. Thus he was declared a heretic and so universalism. Origin was the start of such a teaching, so in isolated cases your statment might be true. But then Origin is not considered a Church Father anyway.

But this was in response to the idea that you gave that truth prevails and error fades away. I really don't think it's a good criterion for what is true or false, because often falsehood gains ascendency and truth languishes in obscurity.

Still holds sway. The seventh was a long way beyond probably the largest group, for the longest time a heresy existed in the Church. That being Arianism. It has an existance from East to West for almost 400 years. At its height, probably 3/4, possibly even more, of the Church accepted to some degree the view of Arianism.
Yet, it did die out. The faithful remained faithful and kept teaching that which was from the beginning inspite of overwhelming odds.

Exactly my point. The success of a particular movement or philosophy in no way demonstrates its truth.

It demonstrates the Truth of that movement. Any person of any religion will tell you that He has Truth. But what is Truth. That is what we are discussing. If one wants to show that Confucius, or Mormonism, or Christian Science or any other religion is truth we are dealing with a wholly different argument. But if we are discussing the Truth of Christ, the ALL Truth that He established with the Apostles, that He promised to preserve, guard against falsehood, then we need to look at the beginning and follow that Truth, not just any truth.

Again, this is my point. If the Orthodox Church is eventually purged from Muslim lands, does this somehow provide evidence that it's not true? I don't think so.

Probably a better argument that it is the Truth. The Truth and those who bear it will be persecuted and will die in His Name, Christ promised this would happen. He gave dire warning to the Apostles and that this should not prevent them from going forward. The entire Book of Revelation is written to the Early Church in the midst of very severe persecutions. They felt that God had forsaken them and Revelations speaks otherwise.

I think we'll come down to this fundamental disagreement: you identify "THE Church" with the Orthodox Church, a particular body under a particular Apostolic succession. I don't; I believe that Christ's words ARE true, and that the Holy Spirit DOES preserve Christ's Church. I, however, don't identify it with a particular organization.

I don't either. it is truly, wholly Christ's Body, but that Body is an extension of His Incarnation and dwells here on earth in faith. Can you identify the Orthodox organization of which you refer?

But no ecumenical council (to my knowledge) ever pronounced anathamas against those who don't use Church buildings.

You missed the whole statement. Icons have been in existance before the NT Church. You want them to be identified in the early Church. It is very hard to have an Icon, a window, an iconistasis when there are very rare church buildings during the first 300 years of the Church's existance. But when Christianity was given legal status in the empire, then buildings sprang up, and icons were prevelant everywhere.

If the use of Icons is not required for salvation, then why did the Seventh Council call those "accursed" who didn't venerate them? (They also called down anathamas on those who actively opposed them, but I'm not talking about that...I'm talking about those who simply don't use them, which the Seventh Council seemed to think was worthy of anathama, being accursed.) Does not "anathama" mean "accursed" and therefore it would suggest that the use of icons was indded necessary for salvation?

Nothing and everything is required for salvation. you can list all the means available and none in and of themselves saves anyone. Yet, Christ through the Apostles instituted many means, the sacraments, prayers, communion of the saints, litugical workship carried from the OT, icons, incense, other material elements, including water for baptism. Baptism does not save, neither does water. But in the combination of worship and sacrament they all are salvfic. They are all available to assist the believer on his way to purfication, to holiness, to sanctification, to be better molded into the Image of Christ, to achieve the Mind of Christ. Some will use some more than others. Some will use all to their best advantage.

But I'm not arguing against Icons, simply what if one chooses not to use them.

You are separating yourself from the communion of the saints. Though they are not with us physically, we believe they are with us in spirit and the icon strengthens that communion. We worship together, all the saints and they are the physical reminders both of their past existance, but their faith and presence now.
I dare say it is absolutely no different than you putting your wifes, childrens, grandchildren's pictures on your desk. What a silly thing to do. Do you not have them even in this life, and you still put their picture on your desk, why?

But that's exactly what the Seventh Council did. Do you disagree with the Council? Was it wrong at this point?

The council is doing this in answer to the extreme of totally eliminating them for all. Not only eliminating them, but actually declaring their invalidity, their meaning as it was understood for centuries.
Every Christian can use what he desires and in not using a means, lessens his ability to gain salvation. It is God's judgement, not any man, of what each does with his conscience. The Church is Christ. The Church is a spiritual guide in the wilderness of the world. One can take advantage of all there is to salvation, or one can jeopardize that salvation by limiting all the means available to heal our sin sick souls.

Could be, but arguments from silence are notoriously open to any one's whimsical interpretation.

That is the sole reason why the Bible should never be extracted from the whole Gospel. Should not be divested from Holy Tradition. Why do you think protestants have so many ideas on so many issues relative to their interpretation of the Bible. Yet, Tradition, the practice as established by the Apostles has been around since the beginning. The Bible does not cover all the explanations, such as baptism, as it was not a problematic thing to the early Church. The Eucharist never has been problematic. No false teaching, to my knowledge has ever been presented to oppose the practice from the beginning as well as the understanding which all protestants, for the most part, deny.

I disagree. The Ebionites were quite early, and they denied the Incarnation.

They were not Christians. They were not ever part of the Early Church. They, as the Gnostics were a parallel form of religion. For that matter we could include the Jews.
But it does give credence to the view that the Incarnation was understood as it was declared 300 years later.

Agreed, in theory. But as you pointed out with the example of Rome, even though they claim they're not inventing new doctrine, you and I would both point to Papal Infallibility, for example, as new doctrine.

It is not what they claim. It is what is evident. Both Scripture, Holy Tradition, and historical record. This is the judgement of which you spoke of earlier. It is quite manifest if one choses to look at it objectively.
Speaking of just one new dogma, Papal infallibility, this was not known even in the RCC until quite recently leading up to the actual declaration. Rome has a great scholastic reputation. They are very adept at formulating, rationalizing scripture and tradition to try to show that it has some relevance long before they actually instituted the dogma. Another note, they all were, without exception, new innovations for the sake of innovations. They were not negative statements relative to a false teaching within the Church.
to study this within the documentation of RCC itself is quite revealing. The Pope, in reality, beyond description rammed this down the throats of the College of Cardinals and his advisory board at the time. It was not taken kindly and resisted for years but finally it was accepted as suceeding Popes also agreed with this concept. Hardly the Gospel given in the beginning.
It augments why the Church never has had a pope, a vicar of Christ on earth.

Agreed, but it goes back to our fundamental disagreement. Christ is perfect, but human beings are not. No single person ever has understood everything about God--nor are they expected to. They are only expected to be faithful to what God has revealed to them. Similarly, the collective body of Christ's Church has made errors in the past--but the fundamentals of the faith have been presvered.

That is why it is the Church that rules because it is Christ. He is Head of that Church. The Church cannot err as you state. If it does, then Christ himself has erred. He is that Church. It is the whole of that Body, His Body over which He Rules. To say that the 'Body has erred, is saying that Christ has erred. That is precisly why, not a person ever has determined Truth, no pope, no college of cardinals, not even an Ecumenical Council. It is the Rule of Faith" embodied in the collective, infallible Body of Christ. Christ is the one preserving, through the collective Body, men, but not a man or even small numbers, even large numbers in a given time. But the Body since Pentacost when 3000 were added to the twelve and all those who are members today. That is the Body and that is the agency of the Holy Spirit in using men to preserve the Gospel and Christ's Body. It is not an organization as you seem to think.

IMO, and please I don't mean to offend, the Assyrians and RCC might say exactly the same thing. It's a statement of faith, and it can be supported by evidence, but I don't find the evidence overwhellming that the Orthodox are the ones that got it right. But your mileage may vary.

You could not offend on that account. It is a statement of faith. No different than any other person toward any faith that they believe, including any and all that exist in this world.

I guess in many ways I believe (c) about the Orthodox, as well as the Catholics. I recognize their faith, and their work in helping to preserve the gospel message. But I don't accept it all; I respectfully disagree about some of their beliefs and practices. But they are my brothers and sisters in Christ.

I can go with that. I will say that is probably the sole reason that I am no longer a protestant. I came to believe that it is quite relativistic, personal in nature and quite a long distance from that early Church.

 

[DanielRB]

Peace, Rightglory

danielRB,
Probably not. No Church Father in any case of a heretic spoke, taught the same as that prospective heretic. That is why they eventually were declared heretical. Their view was not from the beginning. It was never understood as they were defining or teaching it.
Having said that, Origin was never declared a heretic. In fact, it was not until several centuries later that a disciple, a student of Origin began to teach what became known as universalism with more fervor than did Origin. Thus he was declared a heretic and so universalism. Origin was the start of such a teaching, so in isolated cases your statment might be true. But then Origin is not considered a Church Father anyway.

I still don't think you understand my point. What is the definition of "Church Father"? And who decides someone was a Church Father? If someone teaches what is contrary to what you believe is "Orthodox", then, by definition, they are not a Church Father--so of course no Church Father speaks in defense of heresy.

Still holds sway. The seventh was a long way beyond probably the largest group, for the longest time a heresy existed in the Church. That being Arianism. It has an existance from East to West for almost 400 years. At its height, probably 3/4, possibly even more, of the Church accepted to some degree the view of Arianism.

"Holds sway"--over what? With the thousands of denominations on the planet, and some legitimately claiming that they were historically founded by an Apostle or Apostles, you can find just about any ancient heresy holding sway over some sector of "Christendom."

Yet, it did die out. The faithful remained faithful and kept teaching that which was from the beginning inspite of overwhelming odds.

It demonstrates the Truth of that movement. Any person of any religion will tell you that He has Truth. But what is Truth. That is what we are discussing. If one wants to show that Confucius, or Mormonism, or Christian Science or any other religion is truth we are dealing with a wholly different argument. But if we are discussing the Truth of Christ, the ALL Truth that He established with the Apostles, that He promised to preserve, guard against falsehood, then we need to look at the beginning and follow that Truth, not just any truth.

Probably a better argument that it is the Truth. The Truth and those who bear it will be persecuted and will die in His Name, Christ promised this would happen. He gave dire warning to the Apostles and that this should not prevent them from going forward. The entire Book of Revelation is written to the Early Church in the midst of very severe persecutions. They felt that God had forsaken them and Revelations speaks otherwise.

This seems like a double standard. On the one hand, if a group withers and dies, it died out because it was heretical. On the other hand, if Orthodoxy is purged from a land, it is because it was faithful.

Christ also gave warnings that false teachers would arise--and I'm sure you'll agree that that has happened, and it happend very quickly in Church history.

Remember that heretics have had their martyrs, too.

I don't either. it is truly, wholly Christ's Body, but that Body is an extension of His Incarnation and dwells here on earth in faith. Can you identify the Orthodox organization of which you refer?

Those Churches that call themselves "Orthodox", and who are in communion with each other. If my triune baptism is not recognized as valid, though I hold to the Nicean creed, and I am denied communion, it seems as though the Orthodox Church--even without a heirarchy higher than that of the local bishop--has a method of identifying who is "in" and who is "out."

You missed the whole statement. Icons have been in existance before the NT Church. You want them to be identified in the early Church.

No, I specifically did not ask for accounts of icons in the early Church. I specifically asked for a viewpoint that anathematized those who did not venerate them.

It is very hard to have an Icon, a window, an iconistasis when there are very rare church buildings during the first 300 years of the Church's existance. But when Christianity was given legal status in the empire, then buildings sprang up, and icons were prevelant everywhere.

So are you saying that icons were rare for the first 300 years of the Church's existence?

Nothing and everything is required for salvation. you can list all the means available and none in and of themselves saves anyone. Yet, Christ through the Apostles instituted many means, the sacraments, prayers, communion of the saints, litugical workship carried from the OT, icons, incense, other material elements, including water for baptism. Baptism does not save, neither does water. But in the combination of worship and sacrament they all are salvfic. They are all available to assist the believer on his way to purfication, to holiness, to sanctification, to be better molded into the Image of Christ, to achieve the Mind of Christ. Some will use some more than others. Some will use all to their best advantage.

You are separating yourself from the communion of the saints. Though they are not with us physically, we believe they are with us in spirit and the icon strengthens that communion. We worship together, all the saints and they are the physical reminders both of their past existance, but their faith and presence now.
I dare say it is absolutely no different than you putting your wifes, childrens, grandchildren's pictures on your desk. What a silly thing to do. Do you not have them even in this life, and you still put their picture on your desk, why?

I've heard the analogy before. I frankly don't think either having my wife's picture or not cuts me off from communion with her. I don't anathamatize those who use icons; why did the Seventh Council anathamitize me?

The council is doing this in answer to the extreme of totally eliminating them for all. Not only eliminating them, but actually declaring their invalidity, their meaning as it was understood for centuries.

I know the historical context. But if the Church was infallible in pronouncing this, why did they not just stop at anathamatizing those who call icons invalid? Why did they also anathamatize those who simply do not venerate icons? Is the proper reaction to extremism extremism?

Every Christian can use what he desires and in not using a means, lessens his ability to gain salvation. It is God's judgement, not any man, of what each does with his conscience.

But if one is accursed if he does not use icons, how is this up to the individual?

The Church is Christ.

I disagree. The Church should not be confused with its Lord. We are not hypostatically the same as Christ. You probably do not mean to suggest this, but such a statement seems, in my opinion, dangerously close to confusing what is Creator what what is created.

The Church is a spiritual guide in the wilderness of the world. One can take advantage of all there is to salvation, or one can jeopardize that salvation by limiting all the means available to heal our sin sick souls.

I agree; but the Church often has been infiltrated by false teachers.

That is the sole reason why the Bible should never be extracted from the whole Gospel. Should not be divested from Holy Tradition. Why do you think protestants have so many ideas on so many issues relative to their interpretation of the Bible. Yet, Tradition, the practice as established by the Apostles has been around since the beginning. The Bible does not cover all the explanations, such as baptism, as it was not a problematic thing to the early Church. The Eucharist never has been problematic. No false teaching, to my knowledge has ever been presented to oppose the practice from the beginning as well as the understanding which all protestants, for the most part, deny.

We could begin another thread on sola scriptura. Often, even for protestants, this has been set up as a straw man. Martin Luther respected and followed Holy Tradition; but he used the Bible as the final test if something was apostolic or not. This is a far cry from the "Bible Only" posiition that many protestants today follow.

They were not Christians. They were not ever part of the Early Church. They, as the Gnostics were a parallel form of religion. For that matter we could include the Jews.

Though they did feel that they were the faithful disciples of Christ, and the Church was in error. Yes, I agree; they were not technically part of the Church, as the gnostics were not as well.

But it does give credence to the view that the Incarnation was understood as it was declared 300 years later.

It is not what they claim. It is what is evident. Both Scripture, Holy Tradition, and historical record. This is the judgement of which you spoke of earlier. It is quite manifest if one choses to look at it objectively.

On this we'll have to respectfully disagree.

Speaking of just one new dogma, Papal infallibility, this was not known even in the RCC until quite recently leading up to the actual declaration. Rome has a great scholastic reputation. They are very adept at formulating, rationalizing scripture and tradition to try to show that it has some relevance long before they actually instituted the dogma. Another note, they all were, without exception, new innovations for the sake of innovations. They were not negative statements relative to a false teaching within the Church.
to study this within the documentation of RCC itself is quite revealing. The Pope, in reality, beyond description rammed this down the throats of the College of Cardinals and his advisory board at the time. It was not taken kindly and resisted for years but finally it was accepted as suceeding Popes also agreed with this concept. Hardly the Gospel given in the beginning.
It augments why the Church never has had a pope, a vicar of Christ on earth.

Although to be honest, Papal infallibility seems little different to me than Ecumenical Council infallibility.

That is why it is the Church that rules because it is Christ.

Again, I disagree with this view.

He is Head of that Church. The Church cannot err as you state. If it does, then Christ himself has erred. He is that Church.[/qutoe]

Again, I disagree. I believe the Church can and has erred, but this in no way implies that Christ has erred.

It is the whole of that Body, His Body over which He Rules. To say that the 'Body has erred, is saying that Christ has erred.

Again, I disagree.

That is precisly why, not a person ever has determined Truth, no pope, no college of cardinals, not even an Ecumenical Council. It is the Rule of Faith" embodied in the collective, infallible Body of Christ. Christ is the one preserving, through the collective Body, men, but not a man or even small numbers, even large numbers in a given time. But the Body since Pentacost when 3000 were added to the twelve and all those who are members today. That is the Body and that is the agency of the Holy Spirit in using men to preserve the Gospel and Christ's Body. It is not an organization as you seem to think.

Would you then include those who are part of Christ's body who are not members of the Orthodox Church?

You could not offend on that account. It is a statement of faith. No different than any other person toward any faith that they believe, including any and all that exist in this world.

I am glad I did not offend. I truly enjoy this exchange, even if we have sharp disagreements.

I can go with that. I will say that is probably the sole reason that I am no longer a protestant. I came to believe that it is quite relativistic, personal in nature and quite a long distance from that early Church.

And that's probably why I feel drawn to the Lutheran Church, when I was raised in a "Bible Only" Church

In Christ,

Daniel

 

[Rightglory]

DanielRB,

still don't think you understand my point. What is the definition of "Church Father"?

One who has been faithful to the Gospel as understood and believed by the faithful.

And who decides someone was a Church Father?

all the faithful through the Church, the Body of Christ.

If someone teaches what is contrary to what you believe is "Orthodox", then, by definition, they are not a Church Father--so of course no Church Father speaks in defense of heresy.

Obviously. But the question is not what I believe, but what has always been believed by the faithful within the Body of Christ, the One True Church, which I have also accepted by faith. I don't declare someone a Church Father.

"Holds sway"--over what? With the thousands of denominations on the planet, and some legitimately claiming that they were historically founded by an Apostle or Apostles, you can find just about any ancient heresy holding sway over some sector of "Christendom."

For short times, yes. But heresy, false teachings come and go. But the Truth has remained constant and unchanged. A heresy, a new innovative teaching has not been accepted. It is the work of the Holy Spirit within the Body of Christ, the faithful from the beginning, that has preserved the Gospel, once given.

This seems like a double standard. On the one hand, if a group withers and dies, it died out because it was heretical. On the other hand, if Orthodoxy is purged from a land, it is because it was faithful.

Why? There is a big difference between false teaching and faithful witnessess. Might also add that one is a natural demise of people changing minds or actually dying, but in the latter, it is forced death because of a belief. Hardly a double standard.

Christ also gave warnings that false teachers would arise--and I'm sure you'll agree that that has happened, and it happend very quickly in Church history.

Yes, and it also happened as Paul warns, more so from the inside than from the outside. This has also been borne out in history. I know of only a few instances, two of which were already mentioned in this thread that were external to the Body of Believers. All the rest of the heresies were internal. Actually correctly understood, by definition, heresy cannot only be from within a group or belief, a system. External it is just another whatever, view, belief, system, even religion.

Those Churches that call themselves "Orthodox", and who are in communion with each other. If my triune baptism is not recognized as valid, though I hold to the Nicean creed, and I am denied communion, it seems as though the Orthodox Church--even without a heirarchy higher than that of the local bishop--has a method of identifying who is "in" and who is "out."

Yes, it is the common faith and practice from the beginning. We are in communion because we believe and practice the same way, that which is from the beginning.

So are you saying that icons were rare for the first 300 years of the Church's existence?

rare does not mean non-existant.

I've heard the analogy before. I frankly don't think either having my wife's picture or not cuts me off from communion with her. I don't anathamatize those who use icons; why did the Seventh Council anathamitize me?

Why do you feel guilty? Relative to the analogy, if it has no bearing whatsoever, then why the picture? They were anathamitizing those who were working so hard to totally eliminate them. These were fellow believers who wanted to disband a long used means to exercise the principle of "communion with the saints". We can and should use all means available. I don't think the Church was anathamatizing those outside of the faith. What relevance would it have?

I know the historical context. But if the Church was infallible in pronouncing this, why did they not just stop at anathamatizing those who call icons invalid? Why did they also anathamatize those who simply do not venerate icons? Is the proper reaction to extremism extremism?

By not practicing the veneration at that time would have also been the ones not venerating.
If I do not venerate an Icon, it can be that I also believe them to be invalid and of no salvfic means.
It goes right back to the analogy. Many people follow stars of all stripes, they emulate them. They become role models, examples. This is precisely the same meaning and the same purpose of Icons. The only difference one is religious, the other is secular.
In some cases this actually becomes much more than veneration and it becomes worship. On both sides this is where the error creeps in. We don't stop doing something that is good because some abuse it. If so, we should all stop eating as well.

But if one is accursed if he does not use icons, how is this up to the individual?

Do you really believe that every human being, a believer, does everything perfectly? There are many who do not use confession either. Many do not use some of the other means as well, or use it very sparingly. That is not for either the Church, not individuals within the Church to judge. That is God's alone. But it is the role and authority of the Church to lead, to help, to assist all believers. To encourage all to use the means available to strengthen faith, to live within the Body, the community of believers as one. That is the work of the Holy Spirit, but unless we are willing, the Holy Spirit is powerless as well.

I disagree. The Church should not be confused with its Lord. We are not hypostatically the same as Christ. You probably do not mean to suggest this, but such a statement seems, in my opinion, dangerously close to confusing what is Creator what what is created.

It is not confusing at all. Christ is the Head of the Church. The Church is the Body of Christ. We are members of that Body. We are individuals, but ONE. It is trinitarian. Christ is not I as an individual, not am I Christ. But we exist ontologically IN Christ. It is an internal organic state. The Holy Spirit indwells us. The Bible is quite clear on just what constitutes the Church, The Body of Christ. Christ as Head of that Body. The Church is not a created thing.

agree; but the Church often has been infiltrated by false teachers.

Yes, but the tares are not the Church. We as individuals are not the Church. But as individuals, many are ONE, the Body of Christ. See the parable of the sower. There will be and historically it has been borne out. Christ stated there would be, Paul confirms, and history surely does not deny that it is real.
Actually, one could say the Church is filled with sinners, all seeking to be healed. If we were already healed, we would not need the Church.

We could begin another thread on sola scriptura. Often, even for protestants, this has been set up as a straw man. Martin Luther respected and followed Holy Tradition; but he used the Bible as the final test if something was apostolic or not. This is a far cry from the "Bible Only" posiition that many protestants today follow.

It may be for protestants because they have set the Bible up as the "sole source of faith and practice". The problem is that it is not the Bible but the interpreter that is being set up as the final arbiter of what the Bible means.
We already discussed false teaching. Most, as I stated, have all been internal. All of those internal false teachings have been based on Scripture. Every single one, every single eventual heretic used the Scriptures to prove his point. That is sola scripturea and is precisely what protestants are using. The Councils, Church Fathers, did not isolate scripture or set it over Tradition. But the Bible has been understood, believed and practiced the same as the Gospel once given in the beginning. Thus it has always been the "Rule of Faith". What was always meant or understood as recorded in the Bible. Scripture is held up first within Tradition. But it is not isolated, nor elevated. They are the same, they don't contradict each other, but support each other. The Whole Gospel given once from the beginning.
Most, if not all protestants use Tradition only as a guide. They proof-text it all against Scripture. If Tradition does not agree with their personal interpretation of the Bible, it is false. If it happens to correspond, they simply say, that their view is supported by Tradition and agrees with their interpretation.

Although to be honest, Papal infallibility seems little different to me than Ecumenical Council infallibility.

Even they are not considered infallible. Only the Body of Christ is infallible. It is infallible because it is Christ as Head, over the Body, which is made up of believers, who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. You would need to contend that either Christ or the Holy Spirit is fallible. This goes directly back to the definition of Church. It is not individuals, but those individuals who make up ONE Body. It is that Rule of Faith, held constant by the Body, not individuals in time and space. That Rule of Faith today has the reliability of 2000 years of steadfastness.

Again, I disagree. I believe the Church can and has erred, but this in no way implies that Christ has erred.

Scripturally, it does make Christ the one who erred. You have a totally different understanding of Church, primarily as an organization. It is not understood in the Trinitarian or Incarnational understanding. Read John 17 and the verses 20-23 where He is praying for those who will believe, who become members of that Body. That is trinitarian. Many are one. Since Christ assumed our natures, we can also partake of His divine nature.

Would you then include those who are part of Christ's body who are not members of the Orthodox Church?

all those who believed in the OT are part of that Church. There are many who are not Orthodox who be part of the Triumphant Church. Who they might be, we cannot say. That is God's judgment. We know where the Holy Spirit resides for sure, and where He works for sure, since that has been revealed to us. But where and how He might work outside of what He has revealed we remain silent.

 

[DanielRB]

Peace, Rightglory

DanielRB,
One who has been faithful to the Gospel as understood and believed by the faithful.
all the faithful through the Church, the Body of Christ.
Obviously. But the question is not what I believe, but what has always been believed by the faithful within the Body of Christ, the One True Church, which I have also accepted by faith. I don't declare someone a Church Father.
For short times, yes. But heresy, false teachings come and go. But the Truth has remained constant and unchanged. A heresy, a new innovative teaching has not been accepted. It is the work of the Holy Spirit within the Body of Christ, the faithful from the beginning, that has preserved the Gospel, once given.
Why? There is a big difference between false teaching and faithful witnessess. Might also add that one is a natural demise of people changing minds or actually dying, but in the latter, it is forced death because of a belief. Hardly a double standard.
Yes, and it also happened as Paul warns, more so from the inside than from the outside. This has also been borne out in history. I know of only a few instances, two of which were already mentioned in this thread that were external to the Body of Believers. All the rest of the heresies were internal. Actually correctly understood, by definition, heresy cannot only be from within a group or belief, a system. External it is just another whatever, view, belief, system, even religion.
Yes, it is the common faith and practice from the beginning. We are in communion because we believe and practice the same way, that which is from the beginning.
rare does not mean non-existant.
Why do you feel guilty? Relative to the analogy, if it has no bearing whatsoever, then why the picture? They were anathamitizing those who were working so hard to totally eliminate them. These were fellow believers who wanted to disband a long used means to exercise the principle of "communion with the saints". We can and should use all means available. I don't think the Church was anathamatizing those outside of the faith. What relevance would it have?
By not practicing the veneration at that time would have also been the ones not venerating.
If I do not venerate an Icon, it can be that I also believe them to be invalid and of no salvfic means.
It goes right back to the analogy. Many people follow stars of all stripes, they emulate them. They become role models, examples. This is precisely the same meaning and the same purpose of Icons. The only difference one is religious, the other is secular.
In some cases this actually becomes much more than veneration and it becomes worship. On both sides this is where the error creeps in. We don't stop doing something that is good because some abuse it. If so, we should all stop eating as well.
Do you really believe that every human being, a believer, does everything perfectly? There are many who do not use confession either. Many do not use some of the other means as well, or use it very sparingly. That is not for either the Church, not individuals within the Church to judge. That is God's alone. But it is the role and authority of the Church to lead, to help, to assist all believers. To encourage all to use the means available to strengthen faith, to live within the Body, the community of believers as one. That is the work of the Holy Spirit, but unless we are willing, the Holy Spirit is powerless as well.
It is not confusing at all. Christ is the Head of the Church. The Church is the Body of Christ. We are members of that Body. We are individuals, but ONE. It is trinitarian. Christ is not I as an individual, not am I Christ. But we exist ontologically IN Christ. It is an internal organic state. The Holy Spirit indwells us. The Bible is quite clear on just what constitutes the Church, The Body of Christ. Christ as Head of that Body. The Church is not a created thing.
Yes, but the tares are not the Church. We as individuals are not the Church. But as individuals, many are ONE, the Body of Christ. See the parable of the sower. There will be and historically it has been borne out. Christ stated there would be, Paul confirms, and history surely does not deny that it is real.
Actually, one could say the Church is filled with sinners, all seeking to be healed. If we were already healed, we would not need the Church.
It may be for protestants because they have set the Bible up as the "sole source of faith and practice". The problem is that it is not the Bible but the interpreter that is being set up as the final arbiter of what the Bible means.
We already discussed false teaching. Most, as I stated, have all been internal. All of those internal false teachings have been based on Scripture. Every single one, every single eventual heretic used the Scriptures to prove his point. That is sola scripturea and is precisely what protestants are using. The Councils, Church Fathers, did not isolate scripture or set it over Tradition. But the Bible has been understood, believed and practiced the same as the Gospel once given in the beginning. Thus it has always been the "Rule of Faith". What was always meant or understood as recorded in the Bible. Scripture is held up first within Tradition. But it is not isolated, nor elevated. They are the same, they don't contradict each other, but support each other. The Whole Gospel given once from the beginning.
Most, if not all protestants use Tradition only as a guide. They proof-text it all against Scripture. If Tradition does not agree with their personal interpretation of the Bible, it is false. If it happens to correspond, they simply say, that their view is supported by Tradition and agrees with their interpretation.
Even they are not considered infallible. Only the Body of Christ is infallible. It is infallible because it is Christ as Head, over the Body, which is made up of believers, who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. You would need to contend that either Christ or the Holy Spirit is fallible. This goes directly back to the definition of Church. It is not individuals, but those individuals who make up ONE Body. It is that Rule of Faith, held constant by the Body, not individuals in time and space. That Rule of Faith today has the reliability of 2000 years of steadfastness.
Scripturally, it does make Christ the one who erred. You have a totally different understanding of Church, primarily as an organization. It is not understood in the Trinitarian or Incarnational understanding. Read John 17 and the verses 20-23 where He is praying for those who will believe, who become members of that Body. That is trinitarian. Many are one. Since Christ assumed our natures, we can also partake of His divine nature.
all those who believed in the OT are part of that Church. There are many who are not Orthodox who be part of the Triumphant Church. Who they might be, we cannot say. That is God's judgment. We know where the Holy Spirit resides for sure, and where He works for sure, since that has been revealed to us. But where and how He might work outside of what He has revealed we remain silent.

Our posts are getting rather lengthy, aren't they?

I guess we've strayed a bit from the original thread...perhaps we should start a new one.

I think our main disagreement is this: I believe that the Church is not Christ, it can and has erred, and this does not reflect on Christ as an error but our own sinfulness. The Holy Spirit never causes this error, but neither does he override our sinful choice if we choose to rebel.

I also believe that even if every single faithful Christian were to perish, the gates of Hell would still not prevail against the Church--for the Church still would exist in heaven. And Christ could still raise his Church up again--organic desent with apostolic succession is not necessary to insure the existence of the Church. (They might be useful, but not necessary.)

Also, I tend to have a more liberal view of what would constitute "heresy" vs. what is merely a misunderstanding or even just a difference of opinion.

As far as Scripture, I view it as the final criterion and arbiter of belief. Yes, we as Christians may have practices and even beliefs outside of Scripture; but I believe Scripture contains what is essential--what is outside of it may be useful, but not necessary.

Any way, please let me know if you'd like to choose one of these subjects to discuss. Perhaps we should start another thread, maybe in one of the other sub-forums (depending on the particular subject).

And I must say that I have really enjoyed this exchange, and the spirit of gentleness (but firmness in belief) that you have persued it.

In Christ,

Daniel

 

[Rightglory]

DanielRB,

think our main disagreement is this: I believe that the Church is not Christ, it can and has erred, and this does not reflect on Christ as an error but our own sinfulness. The Holy Spirit never causes this error, but neither does he override our sinful choice if we choose to rebel.

That is a very serious error from my vantage point. Obviously then you also do not believe in everything of the Nicene Creed. It becomes one of those asterisks.
But, again, our sinfulness has nothing to do with the Church. That is why an individual is not the church and why the Church cannot err. She is headed by Christ. Can Christ err? He is in charge of and over His Body, which is governed, guarded, preserved by the Holy Spirit. So either both err in your view. It cannot be otherwise by definition as defined in Scripture which you hold us as supreme authority alone for faith and practice.

I also believe that even if every single faithful Christian were to perish, the gates of Hell would still not prevail against the Church--for the Church still would exist in heaven. And Christ could still raise his Church up again--organic desent with apostolic succession is not necessary to insure the existence of the Church. (They might be useful, but not necessary.)

that would not ever happen based on Christ's own words. It is also in Revelations that God would not tarry long, even though the tribulations would affect even the elect.

Also, I tend to have a more liberal view of what would constitute "heresy" vs. what is merely a misunderstanding or even just a difference of opinion.

I can understand that. One must have such a viewpoint in lieu of the thousands of views that Sola Scriptura has produced. Many faiths, but not serious, just differences of opinion. Clearly the Church Fathers did not agree with Arius as just having a difference of opinion.

As far as Scripture, I view it as the final criterion and arbiter of belief. Yes, we as Christians may have practices and even beliefs outside of Scripture; but I believe Scripture contains what is essential--what is outside of it may be useful, but not necessary.

I know, I once believed the same. But I could not agree that the Holy Spirit could be the instigator of so much confusion, contradiction, relativism and outright humanism. He either was someone I could believe and that what He did state in that Bible was true, or if not, nothing else mattered anyway.

And I must say that I have really enjoyed this exchange, and the spirit of gentleness (but firmness in belief) that you have persued it.

Same here. I can say the same for you. I have enjoyed it immensely.

 

[DanielRB]

Peace, Rightglory

DanielRB,
That is a very serious error from my vantage point. Obviously then you also do not believe in everything of the Nicene Creed.

On the contrary, I believe it firmly. It says concerning the Church:

And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

It does not say that the Church is Christ, it does not say it is infallible, it does not even say it is the body or bride of Christ, which would be biblical and entirely true. It says it is holy, catholic and apostolic. The saints of old were holy, but not infallible.

It becomes one of those asterisks.
But, again, our sinfulness has nothing to do with the Church. That is why an individual is not the church and why the Church cannot err. She is headed by Christ. Can Christ err? He is in charge of and over His Body, which is governed, guarded, preserved by the Holy Spirit. So either both err in your view. It cannot be otherwise by definition as defined in Scripture which you hold us as supreme authority alone for faith and practice.

I disagree. The people of God, individually and collectively have erred and will err. Christ is the head, he clearly tells us the truth, and has never erred, but we, in response to his command, can and do err--both individually and collectively.

that would not ever happen based on Christ's own words. It is also in Revelations that God would not tarry long, even though the tribulations would affect even the elect.

Actually, some of Christ's words seem to imply that very thing. Consider Luke 18:8.

But I don't think that such a thing will take place, simply that even if it did, Christ's words would still be true.

I can understand that. One must have such a viewpoint in lieu of the thousands of views that Sola Scriptura has produced. Many faiths, but not serious, just differences of opinion. Clearly the Church Fathers did not agree with Arius as just having a difference of opinion.

Please, Rightglory. I am not talking about denial of the Trinity or the Incarnation. I am talking about things like pronouncing anathamas against those who don't venerate icons. (Not those who are iconoclasts, just those who don't practice the veneration of icons). I do not believe it is a heresy worthy of anathamas to not use icons.

I know, I once believed the same. But I could not agree that the Holy Spirit could be the instigator of so much confusion, contradiction, relativism and outright humanism. He either was someone I could believe and that what He did state in that Bible was true, or if not, nothing else mattered anyway.

I don't believe the Holy Spirit is the author of confusion. I believe human beings are the author of confusion, when either we directly contradict the Holy Spirit by denying what he has said or done, or by saying the Holy Spirit has said or done something that he has not. I think either error is serious.

Same here. I can say the same for you. I have enjoyed it immensely.

Thanks. God be with you!

In Christ,

Daniel