coptic vs. non-denominational - is it only about tradition?

[ajuran]

hi,

i never thought much about the coptic church. i grew up in a spirit filled charismatic church - and it seemed that the coptic church is the furthest from my point of believe.

2 weeks ago i met my boyfriend - he is an egyptian, and an coptic christian. but to me it seems that he only says hes christian cause he is born in a christian family. that it is all about tradition - and not about having a real relationship with christ. so i just wonder what do copts believe in? do copts really know the bible and live according to it? have copts a relationship with the savior? is there any point we could come together in our understanding on how church should be - me non-denominational and he a copt? :confused:

i know god goes strange ways, and i know that he called me to be a missionary in the arabic muslim world - so it must be for something good. even if it seems to be a strange mixture. ;)

[SaintGeorge]

Of course the Coptics believe in a personal relationship with Christ. Some of them are just mediocre Christians, just as some Baptists or Catholics are.

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, God bless you for caring about your boyfriend.:crossrc:

[Colabomb]

Of course the Coptics believe in a personal relationship with Christ. Some of them are just mediocre Christians, just as some Baptists or Catholics are.

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, God bless you for caring about your boyfriend.:crossrc:
You will find weaker Bretheren in any group of Christians.

[Yeznik]

Of course the Coptics believe in a personal relationship with Christ. Some of them are just mediocre Christians, just as some Baptists or Catholics are.

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, God bless you for caring about your boyfriend.:crossrc:

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Esran again.

Sorry Esran.

[Farid]

hi,

i never thought much about the coptic church. i grew up in a spirit filled charismatic church - and it seemed that the coptic church is the furthest from my point of believe.

2 weeks ago i met my boyfriend - he is an egyptian, and an coptic christian. but to me it seems that he only says hes christian cause he is born in a christian family. that it is all about tradition - and not about having a real relationship with christ. so i just wonder what do copts believe in? do copts really know the bible and live according to it? have copts a relationship with the savior? is there any point we could come together in our understanding on how church should be - me non-denominational and he a copt? :confused:

i know god goes strange ways, and i know that he called me to be a missionary in the arabic muslim world - so it must be for something good. even if it seems to be a strange mixture. ;)
Hi Ajuran!
Copts do have a very deep relationship with their Saviour the Lord Christ, The Coptic Church does everything based on the Holy Bible and the Apostolic Traditions that in no way contradict the Bible. Unfortunately, some people of the Coptic Orthodox Church are Christians by name only, and have nothing to do with their Church or God. They may even provide you with the wrong information or impression about the church. If one day you go to Egypt, try to visit the Coptic Monasteries there where monks of the Coptic Church have forsaken everything for their love for Christ, to live deserted in the wilderness just devoted to prayers and fasting and contemplating on God's words and works. If you truely wanna know about the Coptic Church, go to the root and the pure source, and you will find what it is that kept the Coptic Orthodox Church stong for 2000 years despite persecutions, up until today from the Muslims in Egypts.
God bless you :)

[Rilian]

You make two great points Farid. Having some lukewarm members is not an overall indication of the spiritual power of a church. Related to that is to look at the history and depth of the spiritual tradition in the Coptic church, especially in the face of great persecution which is something most western Christians no longer face. The Copts.net (http://www.copts.net/index.asp) web site shows in great detail what Coptic Christians deal with living as a religious minority in Egypt.

[ajuran]

thans for your advice - esp. for the link to copts.net - it really helped a lot, to start to understand what coptic means.

[DarkNLovely]

*Bump!*

OO! Look what I found!

I was wondering to about OOC relatets to non-denominationalism. In truth, we have nothing in common except our love of Christ. I know the OP hasn't been back for a while, but I hope she and her b'f were able to work things out. In short I don't think this kind of relationship would be very successful. To me, that is an unequal yoking. But that's opinion.

What do OO Christians believe about non-denominationalism? Much of it really Evangelicalism, but what do you guys think?

[zhilan]

*Bump!*

OO! Look what I found!

I was wondering to about OOC relatets to non-denominationalism. In truth, we have nothing in common except our love of Christ. I know the OP hasn't been back for a while, but I hope she and her b'f were able to work things out. In short I don't think this kind of relationship would be very successful. To me, that is an unequal yoking. But that's opinion.

What do OO Christians believe about non-denominationalism? Much of it really Evangelicalism, but what do you guys think?
The relationship can only work out if the girl converts to be Orthodox. But seeing as they only had met 2 weeks before, I guess that bridge can be crossed much later.

[minasoliman]

I think OO Christians, like any logical person, would see "non-denominationalism" as just ironically another denomination. In addition, what is considered "non-denominational" isn't really a group that holds to personal freedom in thinking. Otherwise, you would have some in Church that would accommodate for instance those who believe in the intercessions of the saints and those who don't. But I find that very little, if not none at all, have any "traditional" element of Christianity in them, like allowing the ideas of liturgies and priests, and the idea that tradition can go along with the Bible, instead of going at it as the Bible alone. "Non-denominationalism" is really nothing more than an ideal Charismatic-evangelical Protestantism that has a core understanding of beliefs that make it quite a denomination that clearly rejects other denominational beliefs, instead of living up to its name as a true "non-denominational" Church.

Certainly, the ajuran's boyfriend clearly has no understanding of OO Christianity and seems to be not religious to begin with. The idea of tradition is deep-rooted in a primary importance of a relationship with Christ. Nevertheless, I don't want to criticize ajuran's boyfriend completely. We do have occasionally these Copts who love their culture so much that if one day they become atheists, they will still give primacy towards being Coptic more than anything. I hear similar things happening with Greeks and Russians, where it is more important to be Greek or Russian than to be Orthodox.

In the history of Christianity, when you see all the diversities of worship in the OO's and EO's (and Roman Catholics and Assyrians I must add), you find a historical traditional Christianity that actually cared about the culture she evangelized and gave birth to, and not just stick with customs that ultimately have no importance on Orthodox Christianity and a spiritual relationship with Christ.

God bless.

[Lbet123]

*Bump!*

OO! Look what I found!

I was wondering to about OOC relatets to non-denominationalism. In truth, we have nothing in common except our love of Christ. I know the OP hasn't been back for a while, but I hope she and her b'f were able to work things out. In short I don't think this kind of relationship would be very successful. To me, that is an unequal yoking. But that's opinion.

What do OO Christians believe about non-denominationalism? Much of it really Evangelicalism, but what do you guys think?
:wave: DarkNLovely, Im a recenlty converted Coptic. I can give you my take. 6yrs ago I married an Egyptian Copt who did not attend church regularly. I was a member of a Non-denom Church and so my husband and I began to attend my church. After several years he found the sermons and presentations of such to be too "Jesus Light". I began attending a Coptic Church with my husband and also to read up on the subject of Orthodoxy. There is a great book (and I higly recommend it to all Non-Denom's) called "Becoming Orthodox" by Ft. Peter Gillquist. This story covers a non-denom churchs journey to find the 1st church. It is an easy read and I found every question (and answer) they came across to not only make sense to me but to be TRUTH. I found myself going back to the beginning of the Church and asking how did things go then? And I found my answer. God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow and he has spoken loud and clear about how he is to be worshipped. That will not change no matter how much we do. Todays society craves instant gratification in all things from our food to our religion. No one wants to feel bad about themselves and unfortunately a lot of Non-Denom churchs provide a feel good pep rally. The truth is we are all sinners and sin is ugly and unacceptable to God so unless we confess our sin and work out our salvation with fear and trembling and begin to take our worship serious we labor in vain. I want to stand before God and hear "well done my Good and faithful servant" not "Depart from me I never knew you". I believe that any Christian who seeks to know the Truth of the Church and her history will come to the same conclusion Orthodox. Please keep in mind I am not the judge so I do not say all others are Hades bound but I do say if you want to know Christs church the one true Church then Orthodoxy is it. I'm afraid I was not able to keep it brief but thats my story...
L

[DarkNLovely]

:wave: DarkNLovely, Im a recenlty converted Coptic. I can give you my take. 6yrs ago I married an Egyptian Copt who did not attend church regularly. I was a member of a Non-denom Church and so my husband and I began to attend my church. After several years he found the sermons and presentations of such to be too "Jesus Light". I began attending a Coptic Church with my husband and also to read up on the subject of Orthodoxy. There is a great book (and I higly recommend it to all Non-Denom's) called "Becoming Orthodox" by Ft. Peter Gillquist. This story covers a non-denom churchs journey to find the 1st church. It is an easy read and I found every question (and answer) they came across to not only make sense to me but to be TRUTH. I found myself going back to the beginning of the Church and asking how did things go then? And I found my answer. God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow and he has spoken loud and clear about how he is to be worshipped. That will not change no matter how much we do. Todays society craves instant gratification in all things from our food to our religion. No one wants to feel bad about themselves and unfortunately a lot of Non-Denom churchs provide a feel good pep rally. The truth is we are all sinners and sin is ugly and unacceptable to God so unless we confess our sin and work out our salvation with fear and trembling and begin to take our worship serious we labor in vain. I want to stand before God and hear "well done my Good and faithful servant" not "Depart from me I never knew you". I believe that any Christian who seeks to know the Truth of the Church and her history will come to the same conclusion Orthodox. Please keep in mind I am not the judge so I do not say all others are Hades bound but I do say if you want to know Christs church the one true Church then Orthodoxy is it. I'm afraid I was not able to keep it brief but thats my story...
L
And a fabulous story it is! Great to see you and thank you SOOOOOOOOO much for sharing that with me! :hug: :thumbsup: :hug:

[Anglian]

Non-denominalism is understandable in the west, where the splintering effects of Protestantism have no end.

What Lbet123 writes is very interesting. Christians who know little of the history of the Church between Apostolic times and the reformation often find a big surprise when they discover that that Church founded by the Lord is with us today.

Of course the OO, the EO and the RCs all lay exclusive claim to be that Church, and it can be very confusing to those coming to Apostolic Christianity to have three Churches making the same claim.

But, as this Catholic comment shows, there are those there, as in the EO and OO communions who strive to see what it is Our Lord wishes for us:


the Orthodox churches are churches in the apostolic succession; they are bearers of the apostolic Tradition, witnesses to apostolic faith, worship and order - even though they are also, and at the same time, unhappily sundered from the prima sedes, the first see. Their Fathers and other ecclesiastical writers, their liturgical texts and practices, their iconographic tradition, these remain loci theologici - authoritative sources - to which the Catholic theologian can and must turn in his or her intellectual construal of Catholic Christianity.
...only the Orthodox are, along with the Catholic Church, bearers of Holy Tradition - in the singular, with a capital 'T', that is, of the Gospel in its plenary organic transmission through the entirety of the life - credal, doxological, ethical - of Christ's Church.

As a faithful member of the Oriental Orthodox family I can recognise the kind intentions of this Catholic writer.

The Apostolic Churches have more in common than they sometimes believe, and one of those things is a common Patristic heritage - and the belief that without the teachings of the Fathers one inherits, at best, a severely impoverished understanding of Holy Scripture.

In peace,

Anglian

[zhilan]

Also DarkNLovely, did you know that the Coptic church was actually founded by St. Mark, the Apostle? He went to Egypt and brought Christianity to the Copts, and they have been doing what he taught them since then, we can see this by looking back and seeing that the Liturgy of today is the same Liturgy that has been offered up for almost 2000 years. Now, if they got their Christianity from St. Mark, who knew Jesus personally, you have to suspect they probably have it right. St. Mark didn't go to them and say "ok guys, meet in small groups with your Bible, you should have drum sets and loud music and free form worship."

[Colabomb]

And a fabulous story it is! Great to see you and thank you SOOOOOOOOO much for sharing that with me! :hug: :thumbsup: :hug:

(off topic side note)

I havn't seen you around STR, where have you gone?

[DarkNLovely]

Also DarkNLovely, did you know that the Coptic church was actually founded by St. Mark, the Apostle? He went to Egypt and brought Christianity to the Copts, and they have been doing what he taught them since then, we can see this by looking back and seeing that the Liturgy of today is the same Liturgy that has been offered up for almost 2000 years. Now, if they got their Christianity from St. Mark, who knew Jesus personally, you have to suspect they probably have it right. St. Mark didn't go to them and say "ok guys, meet in small groups with your Bible, you should have drum sets and loud music and free form worship."
No I had no idea. Though I fail to understand what's wrong with the type of worship you mentioned.

*off topic*

Do ya'll bring your Bibles to church? I never thought about it that before. I figured everybody did.

[DarkNLovely]

(off topic side note)

I havn't seen you around STR, where have you gone?
Oh here, there, everyhwere! Hey! Wheres your doggie?

[zhilan]

No I had no idea. Though I fail to understand what's wrong with the type of worship you mentioned.

*off topic*

Do ya'll bring your Bibles to church? I never thought about it that before. I figured everybody did.
No, but there are usually Bibles available in the pews or around the Church (if it's a church without pews) for people who want to follow along.

[Colabomb]

Oh here, there, everyhwere! Hey! Wheres your doggie?

I liked my doggy, but having a doggy fills up your inbox waayy to fast! :)

[Anglian]

Christ founded a Church, against which the gates of Hades would not prevail; where is that Church now?

There are at least three Churches which would claim Apostolic foundation - the Eastern Orthodox, the Roman Catholics and ourselves, the Oriental Orthodox.

What is clear is that Christ did not found a non-denominational Church.

In Christ,

Anglian

[DarkNLovely]

Christ founded a Church, against which the gates of Hades would not prevail; where is that Church now?

There are at least three Churches which would claim Apostolic foundation - the Eastern Orthodox, the Roman Catholics and ourselves, the Oriental Orthodox.

What is clear is that Christ did not found a non-denominational Church.

In Christ,

Anglian
The reason why we don't believe this is because no where in scripture does it say Christ founded a church. That's the big whoop. The thingy with Peter is clearly figurative to us. Also, the things He said about the law and the

[DarkNLovely]

Christ founded a Church, against which the gates of Hades would not prevail; where is that Church now?

There are at least three Churches which would claim Apostolic foundation - the Eastern Orthodox, the Roman Catholics and ourselves, the Oriental Orthodox.

What is clear is that Christ did not found a non-denominational Church.

In Christ,

Anglian
The reason why we don't believe this is because no where in scripture does it say Christ founded a church. That's the big whoop. The thingy with Peter is clearly figurative in our Biblical understanding.

[Anglian]

Dear DarkNLovely,

Who says the reference to St. Peter is 'clearly figurative'? Our Lord clearly says He will 'build my Church'. If you look at the following verses:
Matthew 18:17
Acts 8:1, Acts 11:22, Acts 11:26, Acts 12:5, Acts 14:23, and about 70 other references, you'll find the Scriptures refer to the Church constantly. What happened to that Church?

Indeed, it was the Church itself which decided which Biblical books were canonical, so without the Church there could be no Bible.

In Christ,

Anglian

[Ravenonthecross]

DarkNLovely, Anglian is right. It is true, it is why I reverted to an apostolic Church, The Holy Catholic Church, because of Sacred Tradition and History attest to her. Christ founded an the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church (both OO, EO, and RCs were all part of the same Catholic Church founded by Christ). Christ did NOT found the Protestant Denominations, the Protestant Reformers such as Cranmer, Calvin, Know, Zwingli, Luther---they all founded their own Churches and split from the Catholic Church ----Christ did NOT found or establish them. They were founded by ordinary mortal men and fallible men, not our Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus.
'Tis true otherwise I'd not be Catholic today.

[DarkNLovely]

Dear DarkNLovely,

Who says the reference to St. Peter is 'clearly figurative'? Our Lord clearly says He will 'build my Church'. If you look at the following verses:
Matthew 18:17
Acts 8:1, Acts 11:22, Acts 11:26, Acts 12:5, Acts 14:23, and about 70 other references, you'll find the Scriptures refer to the Church constantly. What happened to that Church?

Indeed, it was the Church itself which decided which Biblical books were canonical, so without the Church there could be no Bible.

In Christ,

Anglian

In my reserch of this, I have actually found some sources that show that that last part may not be true. I have been looking into all the councils and I have yet to find that. I'm still looking. From my understanding, they simply affirmed what was already established, but didn't actually put it together. That was done much earlier. Please pass me any links.

As far as "the church", of course he was refering to physical congregations with leaders and such, but not the hierarichal structure the Apostolics know as the church today and the idea that one is only saved through the true church, that God can only truly be known through the true church, that there is only one true church and if you aren't in it your salvation is doubtful. That's what we mean. If he wasn't talking about any kind of church or authority, then we Protestants wouldn't have that with all it's rules and regulations and blah blah blah. Also, they were very Jewish and very different than any church seen today. I can also clearly see that Paul is most likely refering to the body of believers in all of those verses where they have gathered together, not the other way around. I see Paul continuing the Jewishness of the faith, not starting something new, as all of his and especially Peters actions, were rooted in Judaisim. I don't see this in any church today and it's quite troublesome. Acts 15 and acts 14:27 clearly show that Gentiles were converting to a Jewish faith. As far as what happened to that church( and the apostles established a bunch of them), it was badly persecuted for a LOOOOOOONNNNNNGGGG time and was later "re-founded" so to speak by Constantine, and from what I can discearn, it had many paganistic influencs. I believe that is why so much contradiction in so many churches exist to this day. The other thing that really bugs me, is that in all of the research I have been doing, I have found no actual historic link to the churches of the Paul and Peter. I have heard a lot of people say it, but I haven't seen it. I am also befuddled over the fact that apparently there is a list of Popes since peter AND a list of Orthodox Patriarches so I am ubber confusedy! LOL! :doh: I have no desire to disuade you from your own faith or to offend (which I apologize for if I have), but since you asked me and obviously put time and thought into your question, I felt it only respectful to respond.:)

With all do respect, I have already been persuaded, but thanks for your insight! :pink:

[DarkNLovely]

DarkNLovely, Anglian is right. It is true, it is why I reverted to an apostolic Church, The Holy Catholic Church, because of Sacred Tradition and History attest to her. Christ founded an the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church (both OO, EO, and RCs were all part of the same Catholic Church founded by Christ). Christ did NOT found the Protestant Denominations, the Protestant Reformers such as Cranmer, Calvin, Know, Zwingli, Luther---they all founded their own Churches and split from the Catholic Church ----Christ did NOT found or establish them. They were founded by ordinary mortal men and fallible men, not our Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus.
'Tis true otherwise I'd not be Catholic today.
Don't agree, but can we just agree to disagree since I really don't want to upset anybody or get upset?

[Anglian]

Dear DarkNLovely,

First, let me reassure you, nothing you have written in the slightest bit offends me; you have simply represented, very well, the position taken up by those from outside the Apostolic Churches.

In my reserch of this, I have actually found some sources that show that that last part may not be true. I have been looking into all the councils and I have yet to find that. I'm still looking. From my understanding, they simply affirmed what was already established, but didn't actually put it together.

That is not incompatible with what I was saying: who was it who established the canon? It was the Church, and it was the Council at Nicaea which indeed confirmed the existing view of the Church. The Council was presided over by the emperor and took the views of the bishops - who were bishops of the universal orthodox Church, not a set of ministers from different Churches.

If you want more on this read something like Stuart Hall's Doctrine and Practice of the Early Church (SPCK 1991, new edition 2005).

Dr. Michael Green (An Anglican) has written a fascinating and very accessible book, The Books the Church Suppressed (Monarch Books 2005) which makes these points very well, and provides chapter and verse for the Catholic/Orthodox view.

Fr. Peter Gillquist's Becoming Orthodox (Conciliar Press, 1990) shows how an Evangelical Protestant reacted to discovering the truth about the history of the Faith.


As far as "the church", of course he was refering to physical congregations with leaders and such, but not the hierarichal structure the Apostolics know as the church today and the idea that one is only saved through the true church

How can you be so sure? What was the significance of the 12 Apostles and the 70 others selected if it was not to act as bishops? Acts 15 shows us that as early as the 40s A.D. there was a structure, and it is one the Church has followed ever since. What was so special about mankind in the 1500s that it suddenly became right to abandon the teachings of tradition? No sooner had one group of 'protestants' protested and broken away from the Church than another group broke away from the first group and so on untilo today. Yet Christ said He was establishing a Church, and He warned us against those who preached any other doctrine, as did His disciples the Apostles. Now it may be that men in the sixteenth century thought they knew better, but the modern situation where there are so many 'Churches' with each relying on its own 'research', hardly equates with the One Church founded by Christ.


The idea that the early Church was very 'Jewish' is one that is also dealt with in Hall's history quoted above. St. Paul's great contribution was to ensure the Gospel was preached to the Gentiles, and so of the Judaisers were were cross with him for doing so. When you say that 'you see' Paul as continuing the Jewish nature of the Church, I fear that shows the limits of individual interpretation; the Church has nearly 2000 years of wisdom and experience, and it often surprises me that we think our small experience and 'research' can be put against that. But, as you say, we shall have to disagree in Christian humility and love.
, As far as what happened to that church( and the apostles established a bunch of them), it was badly persecuted for a LOOOOOOONNNNNNGGGG time and was later "re-founded" so to speak by Constantine, and from what I can discearn, it had many paganistic influencs

This is another common misunderstanding. No, there is no sign in the minutes of the Council that anyone thought that Constantine was refounding the Church - he was simply presiding over a council to deal with Arianism. The Church had certainly been persecuted, but throughout it had struggled to retain right worship and right belief - that was what Nicaea was about. The doctrine of the Trinity was the developing understanding of the Church, which, as He had promised, survived even though the Gates of Hades were raised against it.

In 451 at Chalcedon, and again in 1054, there were splits within the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, with the Oriental Orthodox, the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholics all claiming Apostolic succession; all of them have good claims to go back to Apostolic times; no other Church has such a claim that it can substantiate.

Of course modern men and women like to think they know better than the past, and they can decide what is and what is not Christianity, but the fact remains that the Church He founded still exists, and either one is part of it, or one is not. Of course, His love is so vast that at the last judgement only He knows who will be saved, so anyone who says that those outside the Apostolic Churches will not be saved says what s/he cannot be authorised to say; only God knows that.

But within the Orthodox Church is the fullness of the Christian faith and the deepest understanding of it. We live but a short while and know so little; the Church lives forever and knows so much more. Look into it like Peter Gillquist and see what you think - start with his book.

It is good of you to engage in this dialogue, and you do it in a true Christian spirit which shines through all your postings here.

Blessing be upon you,

Anglian

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

Dear DarkNLovely,

First, let me reassure you, nothing you have written in the slightest bit offends me; you have simply represented, very well, the position taken up by those from outside the Apostolic Churches.



That is not incompatible with what I was saying: who was it who established the canon? It was the Church, and it was the Council at Nicaea which indeed confirmed the existing view of the Church. The Council was presided over by the emperor and took the views of the bishops - who were bishops of the universal orthodox Church, not a set of ministers from different Churches.

If you want more on this read something like Stuart Hall's Doctrine and Practice of the Early Church (SPCK 1991, new edition 2005).

Dr. Michael Green (An Anglican) has written a fascinating and very accessible book, The Books the Church Suppressed (Monarch Books 2005) which makes these points very well, and provides chapter and verse for the Catholic/Orthodox view.

Fr. Peter Gillquist's Becoming Orthodox (Conciliar Press, 1990) shows how an Evangelical Protestant reacted to discovering the truth about the history of the Faith.




How can you be so sure? What was the significance of the 12 Apostles and the 70 others selected if it was not to act as bishops? Acts 15 shows us that as early as the 40s A.D. there was a structure, and it is one the Church has followed ever since. What was so special about mankind in the 1500s that it suddenly became right to abandon the teachings of tradition? No sooner had one group of 'protestants' protested and broken away from the Church than another group broke away from the first group and so on untilo today. Yet Christ said He was establishing a Church, and He warned us against those who preached any other doctrine, as did His disciples the Apostles. Now it may be that men in the sixteenth century thought they knew better, but the modern situation where there are so many 'Churches' with each relying on its own 'research', hardly equates with the One Church founded by Christ.


The idea that the early Church was very 'Jewish' is one that is also dealt with in Hall's history quoted above. St. Paul's great contribution was to ensure the Gospel was preached to the Gentiles, and so of the Judaisers were were cross with him for doing so. When you say that 'you see' Paul as continuing the Jewish nature of the Church, I fear that shows the limits of individual interpretation; the Church has nearly 2000 years of wisdom and experience, and it often surprises me that we think our small experience and 'research' can be put against that. But, as you say, we shall have to disagree in Christian humility and love.
,

This is another common misunderstanding. No, there is no sign in the minutes of the Council that anyone thought that Constantine was refounding the Church - he was simply presiding over a council to deal with Arianism. The Church had certainly been persecuted, but throughout it had struggled to retain right worship and right belief - that was what Nicaea was about. The doctrine of the Trinity was the developing understanding of the Church, which, as He had promised, survived even though the Gates of Hades were raised against it.

In 451 at Chalcedon, and again in 1054, there were splits within the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, with the Oriental Orthodox, the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholics all claiming Apostolic succession; all of them have good claims to go back to Apostolic times; no other Church has such a claim that it can substantiate.

Of course modern men and women like to think they know better than the past, and they can decide what is and what is not Christianity, but the fact remains that the Church He founded still exists, and either one is part of it, or one is not. Of course, His love is so vast that at the last judgement only He knows who will be saved, so anyone who says that those outside the Apostolic Churches will not be saved says what s/he cannot be authorised to say; only God knows that.

But within the Orthodox Church is the fullness of the Christian faith and the deepest understanding of it. We live but a short while and know so little; the Church lives forever and knows so much more. Look into it like Peter Gillquist and see what you think - start with his book.

It is good of you to engage in this dialogue, and you do it in a true Christian spirit which shines through all your postings here.

Blessing be upon you,

Anglian


Wow!! This is a clear, cogent and perfectly explains the facts. Kudos, Brother.

Yours in Christ.

[Anglian]

Wow!! This is a clear, cogent and perfectly explains the facts. Kudos, Brother.

Yours in Christ.

Dear Ignatius,

Thank you for your kind words.:blush:

In peace,

Anglian