Question for converts...

[repentant]

I addressed this questions to converts to Orthodox from other faiths. I figured they might have an idea. Of course anyone who may have an idea or know may answer. :)


I was just wondering...I have seen quite a fews times on other forums here on CF Protestant Christians say that they know that the EO and RC Church's are the actual ancient Apostolic Church's. My question is this, if they say they know this, than why are they not EO or RC? I was just kind of wondering this. It seems weird. I mean if I knew something was the right way, or the actual way it was or supposed to be (pertaining to anything) I would say, "hey maybe I should do that or go there." In other words, for the sake of arguement, I though the RCC was the True Church, I would convert. I just wonder why people who say this don't convert.

[EricTheRed]

umm well yea personally I was just to lazy. I would go get saved and not go to church again for about 3 years untill a friend told me his church had pretty girls then I would go there for a month or 2 and stop. rinse and repeat. Those old churchs required to much "effort" :doh:

[InnerPhyre]

Well seeing as how I was RC, this doesn't apply so much other than to say, when I was RC, I thought the RCC was the true Church. When I realized it was not, I began my journey to Orthodoxy. I think that coming from a different background through, It might not be as easy as you make it out to be. You face persecution from the members of your old faith, judgment of your family and friends, scornful looks, etc. It takes courage to make the jump.

[theoforos]

You face persecution from the members of your old faith, judgment of your family and friends, scornful looks, etc. It takes courage to make the jump.

I think that might the reason for many - the social pressure. It's tough to break away from your previous community. That was the main reason for me anyway. All along I wanted to be Orthodox but nevertheless tried to get along where I was because I was afraid of other people's reactions.

[Monica, child of God]

We were taught that the Church became corrupt early on. Therefore it didn't matter that the RC and EO Churches are the "continuations" of the original Church. The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist; icons/statues; "vain repititions" (such as liturgical worship, the rosary/prayer rope, etc.); hierarchical Church structure, etc. are seen as deviations from the way they imagine the early Church to be.

In the case of the RCC, we were taught that they kept the lay people from reading the Bible and oppressed them with Latin so they would be dependent on the Church. In the case of the OC (if discussion of it even comes up), we were taught that they "drifted away" after the Great Schism and stopped growing in their theology. Apostolic succession was not seen as important because from the Prot perspective each individual can trace their reception of the Good News back to an Apostle, in theory.

Understand that to many Protestants, constant change is seen as a good thing. Contemporary worship that fits the asthetics of each generation, "new" understandings from Scripture, newer and more detailed statements of faith and doctrine are seen as good and necessary. Even the RCC is applauded for these things by some Protestants.

They simply believe that the Protestant Reformation was good and necessary.

M.

PS: If I am breaking a CF rule by saying these things please let me know so that I can provide back up for my statements.

[makariya]

^ in addition to what monica has said ^

as a protestant, apostolic succession is a completely different ballgame, not quite so direct as the orthodox tend to understand it. my father was trying to explain to me that the blessing of apostolic succession is passed down spontaneously: where there is "spiritual fruit" being born, there is apostolic succession.

[Monica, child of God]

^ in addition to what monica has said ^

as a protestant, apostolic succession is a completely different ballgame, not quite so direct as the orthodox tend to understand it. my father was trying to explain to me that the blessing of apostolic succession is passed down spontaneously: where there is "spiritual fruit" being born, there is apostolic succession.

Yes this is true for many Prots. In the view of sola scriptura, the separate offices of priest and bishop are not biblical because initially the terms were used interchangably. Ordaining a presbyter is the same as ordaining a bishop. Therefore, the fact that the Apostles ordained bishops and those bishops ordained bishops is meaningless.

M.

[Michael the Iconographer]

Well seeing as how I was RC, this doesn't apply so much other than to say, when I was RC, I thought the RCC was the true Church. When I realized it was not, I began my journey to Orthodoxy. I think that coming from a different background through, It might not be as easy as you make it out to be. You face persecution from the members of your old faith, judgment of your family and friends, scornful looks, etc. It takes courage to make the jump.

I can't tell you how many Roman Catholic "friends" I lost when I left seminary and told them I was leaving the Roman Rite for the Byzantine Rite of the Catholic Church. When I then embraced Orthodoxy 2 years later all but 1 of my college/seminary Roman Catholic friends deserted me. A priest who was a close friend of mine in college even said to me "Are you only doing this so you can be married and a priest?"

[ufonium2]

I can almost understand the folks who belong to denominations because they believe the Church fell into apostacy early on. I mean, they're wrong, but at least that makes some sense. What I don't understand is the folks that get offended when we say our theology is perfect. Apparently, they don't believe that about their church. So why go there? Why not look for a church that doesn't have the imperfection, or fix it? I once had someone explain to me that, "Nobody's perfect, and no church is perfect." What kind of goofy logic is that? You might as well say, "Nobody's perfect, so no triangle is perfect" or, "No elephant is blue, so no birds are blue."

[Ioan cel Nou]

I think that for a lot of Protestants (being an ex-Protestant myself) the Invisible Church idea trumps whether or not any one Church can claim to be first. What I mean is, when I was Lutheran I viewed all Christians in whatever Church as being members of the Body of Christ even while I acknowledged that we had broken away from the RCC (so they obviously came before us). I believed that the RCC was the Church founded by Christ but also believed that it had changed doctrine over time and as we were all one in Christ anyway, what would be the benefit in becoming Catholic? So, I could acknowledge (wrongly, I believe) that the RCC was the original Church and still have no desire to join it. It was only when I started reading Church history and the Fathers (something that few Protestants ever do) and re-read the Gospels as part of my investigation into that strangely attractive eastern Church I'd fouund in Romania that I began to realise that not only was the Invisible Church idea nonsense but that the actual, physical Church founded by Christ still existed. As soon as I realised that I had to become a member, and so I did.

James

[Jacob4707]

We were taught that the Church became corrupt early on. Therefore it didn't matter that the RC and EO Churches are the "continuations" of the original Church. The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist; icons/statues; "vain repititions" (such as liturgical worship, the rosary/prayer rope, etc.); hierarchical Church structure, etc. are seen as deviations from the way they imagine the early Church to be.

In the case of the RCC, we were taught that they kept the lay people from reading the Bible and oppressed them with Latin so they would be dependent on the Church. In the case of the OC (if discussion of it even comes up), we were taught that they "drifted away" after the Great Schism and stopped growing in their theology. Apostolic succession was not seen as important because from the Prot perspective each individual can trace their reception of the Good News back to an Apostle, in theory.

Understand that to many Protestants, constant change is seen as a good thing. Contemporary worship that fits the asthetics of each generation, "new" understandings from Scripture, newer and more detailed statements of faith and doctrine are seen as good and necessary. Even the RCC is applauded for these things by some Protestants.

They simply believe that the Protestant Reformation was good and necessary.

M.

PS: If I am breaking a CF rule by saying these things please let me know so that I can provide back up for my statements.

You've said what I would say.

[Jacob4707]

^ in addition to what monica has said ^

as a protestant, apostolic succession is a completely different ballgame, not quite so direct as the orthodox tend to understand it. my father was trying to explain to me that the blessing of apostolic succession is passed down spontaneously: where there is "spiritual fruit" being born, there is apostolic succession.

And so have you.

[Jacob4707]

....It was only when I started reading Church history and the Fathers (something that few Protestants ever do) and re-read the Gospels as part of my investigation into that strangely attractive eastern Church I'd fouund in Romania that I began to realise that not only was the Invisible Church idea nonsense but that the actual, physical Church founded by Christ still existed.

James


This, too, says much of what I'd say. Most of us "Bible Prots" have never read the Church Fathers and do not know anything about the church after the book of Acts until you come to the Protestant Reformation, and then the Great Awakenings in America and the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements (or the Fundamentalist and Evangelical movements, if you're a cessationist). There was no need for anything else, because it all became corrupt shortly after the Apostles died, and continued to become corrupt - or the "true" church continued in an unbroken line, but was largely underground and unknown. Read Broadbent's THE PILGRIM CHURCH or Kennedy's THE TORCH OF THE TESTIMONY:"Paul consistently began his ministry in the synagogue wherever one existed, but in every instance the association had to be discontinued and the church had to start afresh on clear ground. As has been sufficiently pointed out, there is no theoretic reason why this should inevitably have been so;... But somewhere along the line God's progressive revelation in the synagogue had been brought to a halt. Light, which God had given, had become crystallized in an unalterable tradition. The flow of life was stopped, and the only alternative to the church's bursting of the bonds which held it and seeking a fresh channel in which to flow, was stagnation. At the beginning of the church's history we see a principle at work which is to be repeated continually through the succeeding centuries." (Kennedy)


All we learned was what was in the Bible, and reading and interpreting Paul takes precedence over almost everything else. All Scriptures are applied to us personally, and the idea that they were written to churches doesn't impact us much. Go to any major Christian Bookstore - Family Christian Stores, Mardel, Lifeway (Southern Baptist owned) - and read through many of the Christian Living books. They are basically Bible verses strung together with personal interpretations and applications. The cutting edge Protestant "church" changes every generation. Now it's the "emergent/emerging" churches that are striving to reach the culture and (re)define the church.



We're not yet converts, but a (re)visit Sunday to a seeker-friendly non-denom church has pushed us closer to conversion.



I don't want to be too negative, and what I've written is a simplification. Many of these churches and persons have a very good knowledge of the Bible, and I attribute my own knowledge of it to being in such churches. After all, the Church Fathers and the RCC Catechism quote the Scriptures in support of and to support what they are saying, and Bible Protestants do the same and regard it as the best means of ensuring fidelity to what God expects and wants. In some ways they are like a three-legged stool with two firm legs, but a weak third leg: the two firm ones are the Bible and the Holy Spirit in the individual, but the weak/wobbly third leg is traditions that are not informed or shaped by the 2,000-year tradition of the Church. Not the best analogy, but somewhat accurate. Or one could say that the weak leg is their ecclesiology, and IMO the strongly-held concept of an "invisible church" makes the possibility of the creation of a robust and valid Evangelical ecclesiology something of a chimera.

If it's not in the Bible, it's rejected, or stands to be rejected, or WILL be rejected by the next generation of Evangelicals, as "going back to the Bible" is the battle cry for every generation that tries to reform or fix what it views as being wrong with the Church. That is one reason why they (and us at one time) can reject the RCC and the EOC, even if they recognize or admit that they were the church that Jesus/the Apostles established - i.e., because of the accretion and implementation of non-Biblical practices and doctrines, which must be purged periodically, and not allowed to keep growing and being added like barnacles on a ship.

My introduction to Peter Gillquist was through his pre-Orthodox writings: LOVE IS NOW, LET'S QUIT FIGHTING ABOUT THE HOLY SPIRIT, maybe a third book, and then a revised edition of LOVE IS NOW in which he added an extra chapter and says that the "missing" thing he overlooked or forgot to mention in the original edition as being essential to Christianity is "the church." Well, we all know what happened when he and his friends began looking for "the church." ;) When some friends told me that he had become Orthodox, I was totally perplexed: "How could someone who wrote all those good 'Jesus Movement-style' books become ORTHODOX?!?!?!?! Isn't that like ... Catholic?!?!?!" :D

[SumTinWong]

I addressed this questions to converts to Orthodox from other faiths. I figured they might have an idea. Of course anyone who may have an idea or know may answer... I have seen quite a fews times on other forums here on CF Protestant Christians say that they know that the EO and RC Church's are the actual ancient Apostolic Church's. My question is this, if they say they know this, than why are they not EO or RC? I was just kind of wondering this. It seems weird. I mean if I knew something was the right way, or the actual way it was or supposed to be (pertaining to anything) I would say, "hey maybe I should do that or go there." In other words, for the sake of arguement, I though the RCC was the True Church, I would convert. I just wonder why people who say this don't convert.
Well to know your history that these churches have existed from the apostolic times is not the same as that these churches have not existed in error for many of those years.

I dare say that even if you thought that the RCC or the EOC were in fact the apostolic churches you would be hard pressed to join them if you feel they had slipped into error at some point. So what we have is someone feeling that they cannot accept what they feel are changes if you will to the Gospel and therefore they will not join.

The way to understand a protestant is to understand where they arrive at their conclusions. No where in the Bible does it say that certain things we believe as Orthodox are true, in fact some of what we say can contradict the Bible if it is not seen in the proper context (Theotokos save us for example). I was always taught that the width and breadeth of Christianity was int eh Bible and until I saw that it was not true considering ECF writings, I began to challenge that belief and eventually it fell like a ton of bricks.

So arguing about asking the theotokos for prayers, or the ever virginity, the mysteries, etc... are futile unless the basic premise is destroyed. Many will cling to their Bibles as if it were a floatation device and they are on a sinking ship, but some will instead use it as an oar with the boat being Orthodoxy.

JMHO.

By the way i am not yet a convert, for what it is worth.

[elizabethevangeline]

Evangelical Free/Conservative Baptist here! These are great comments/explanations.

Personally, Christianity got harder but more tangible and it's about facing myself...Am I really faithful, do I actually love God (enough to be in His church).

A few years ago, the hardest sacrifice I could imagine God asking of me would be to go to a 3rd world country as a missionary or see my kids go when they grow up; but now I'm seeing the real, truer sacrifice is to live the life of the Church and I don't know if I can.

[HandmaidenOfGod]

The question is though, do you see living life of the Church within the context of Orthodoxy?

[elizabethevangeline]

The question is though, do you see living life of the Church within the context of Orthodoxy?

Oh yes. I could never go back to where I came from...it has lost meaning.

[Jacob4707]

Oh yes. I could never go back to where I came from...it has lost meaning.

So, are you a catechumen/potential convert?

[kamikat]

At the church of Christ that I attended for a while, they certainly believed the RCC was the original church. No diss of the EO intended, but frankly, only the minister had even heard of the EO churches before. When I was asked my background, they just assumed I came from a mixed background of RCC and orthodox Judiaism. That church believed that over time, the RCC added things like the Mariology, prayers to saints, route repeated prayers. They believed that while they are the original church, they were no longer the true church. Some churches in the Restoration Movement actually teach that THEY are the one, true church. In the more liberal churches of the church of Christ movement, they teach that the "one, true church" is the invisible community of all believers.
kamikat

[elizabethevangeline]

So, are you a catechumen/potential convert?

I'm in process. I've attended an Orthodox church for about 1 1/2 yrs, irregularly. Attended inquirers class last year.

[Jacob4707]

At the church of Christ that I attended for a while, they certainly believed the RCC was the original church. No diss of the EO intended, but frankly, only the minister had even heard of the EO churches before. When I was asked my background, they just assumed I came from a mixed background of RCC and orthodox Judiaism. That church believed that over time, the RCC added things like the Mariology, prayers to saints, route repeated prayers. They believed that while they are the original church, they were no longer the true church. Some churches in the Restoration Movement actually teach that THEY are the one, true church. In the more liberal churches of the church of Christ movement, they teach that the "one, true church" is the invisible community of all believers.
kamikat

The blog of a Restorationist-becoming-Orthodox. This is from the "Why Orthodoxy?" archive:

http://www.chattablogs.com/aionioszoe/archives/cat_why_orthodoxy.html

He has other archive lists (e.g., "Orthodoxy") that go into other related subjects/details, too.

http://www.chattablogs.com/aionioszoe/ - main page

He apparently attends Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon's church. So the person on this forum who just visited there - EvangeliGirl? - may want to meet and talk with this "Clifton".

[Rilian]

I thought I might let everyone know that the true church is in fact located at my house. This seemed like a good time to mention it. Unfortunately because of some hedges though, it's only semi visible.

[MariaRegina]

I thought I might let everyone know that the true church is in fact located at my house. This seemed like a good time to mention it. Unfortunately because of some hedges though, it's only semi visible.

Actually, you are right.

Each of our homes is to be a domestic church, where Christ is taught to the family members and we pray together in His Name.

In the Early Church, the family was allowed to keep the Eucharist, so each home was a chapel. However, this practice was discontinued shortly after Constantine's Edit of Toleration, when thousands of pagans embraced Christianity, some willingly and others because it was the politically correct thing to do. :doh: Why does that sound so modern?

[kamikat]

The blog of a Restorationist-becoming-Orthodox. This is from the "Why Orthodoxy?" archive:

http://www.chattablogs.com/aionioszoe/archives/cat_why_orthodoxy.html
.

Thanks for the link. This looks really interesting.

kamikat

[Asinner]

I addressed this questions to converts to Orthodox from other faiths. I figured they might have an idea. Of course anyone who may have an idea or know may answer. :)


I was just wondering...I have seen quite a fews times on other forums here on CF Protestant Christians say that they know that the EO and RC Church's are the actual ancient Apostolic Church's. My question is this, if they say they know this, than why are they not EO or RC? I was just kind of wondering this. It seems weird. I mean if I knew something was the right way, or the actual way it was or supposed to be (pertaining to anything) I would say, "hey maybe I should do that or go there." In other words, for the sake of arguement, I though the RCC was the True Church, I would convert. I just wonder why people who say this don't convert.

I would say that TRUTH is not the most important thing to some people :eek: . They are comfortable where they are and changing their religion might just complicate their life? Just my thought . . .

God Bless

[HandmaidenOfGod]

I'm in process. I've attended an Orthodox church for about 1 1/2 yrs, irregularly. Attended inquirers class last year.

Woohoo! :clap:

[MariaRegina]

Woohoo! :clap:

Amen.

[Mary of Bethany]

This is from the blog that KATHXOUMENOC linked to above:



Still, if I can think with any clarity about this, it seems to me that long before I even knew the Orthodox Church existed, before I encountered Anglicanism, before all of this, the first step of the journey began with a simple wish.

I wanted to pray better.

This is *exactly* my experience if you replace "pray" with "worship".

And BTW, I agree with all the things that have been posted in this thread, especially Monica's post. All true.

Mary

[Jebediah]

We were taught that the Church became corrupt early on. Therefore it didn't matter that the RC and EO Churches are the "continuations" of the original Church. The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist; icons/statues; "vain repititions" (such as liturgical worship, the rosary/prayer rope, etc.); hierarchical Church structure, etc. are seen as deviations from the way they imagine the early Church to be.

In the case of the RCC, we were taught that they kept the lay people from reading the Bible and oppressed them with Latin so they would be dependent on the Church. In the case of the OC (if discussion of it even comes up), we were taught that they "drifted away" after the Great Schism and stopped growing in their theology. Apostolic succession was not seen as important because from the Prot perspective each individual can trace their reception of the Good News back to an Apostle, in theory.

Understand that to many Protestants, constant change is seen as a good thing. Contemporary worship that fits the asthetics of each generation, "new" understandings from Scripture, newer and more detailed statements of faith and doctrine are seen as good and necessary. Even the RCC is applauded for these things by some Protestants.

They simply believe that the Protestant Reformation was good and necessary.

M.

PS: If I am breaking a CF rule by saying these things please let me know so that I can provide back up for my statements.

This is exactly it. The way I was taught history was both provincial and religiously tunnel-visioned. I grew up in southern Texas as a Roman Catholic, and lost my faith. History in America ignores the east, mostly, and after the Great Schism (which I was taught about) the rest of the council, the other four bishops and their whole arenas of influence, just leave the story. And we get so many other facts thrown at us, that we are either being graded or judged in CCD class for knowing, that we just lose track.

Church history as I learned it went:

1. NT times
2. Augustine
3. Great Schism
4. Rome and Europe, focusing on France and England and Spain and then on Germany
5. Aquinas
6. Descartes and the mind/body fallacy
6. Reformation
7. Puritans that are touted as being the heroic parents of America, the grand and true
8. Born-agains
9. Now

See how one-sided and provincial that is? Then later on we get a whole bunch of eastern philosophy thrown at us...Vedantism and Zen and Taoism and Confusianism and Buddhism. I heard more about all of those in school than about anything involving eastern Europe or any of the rest. It could have something to do with the Cold War and all the middle east conflicts...we didn't hear about the east after a certain point for political reasons. So in the midst of that we just never ask, if we can find our way back to Christ at all, where the rest of the Church went after Rome pulled its power play in the 11th century. If we did, the logic leads all Protestants to convert, because the only reason the Reformation was justified was the idea that original apostolic Church had been lost and that the true Tradition was unrecoverable. The whole Protestant idea is one of having to start over, like Christianity was a problem to be solved rather than a faith to be lived. I know, I was there till just a few days ago. But once the trail of facts is verified there is simply no choice but to convert to Orthodoxy. Once it is clear that whatever it was that drove Rome nuts for a while (it seems to be recovering, but given all those statements about infallibility, it is having trouble maintaining credibility while trying to correct the error) didn't happen to all the other jurisdictions of ancient Christianity, and that those jurisdictions have pretty much not changed since, you really have no choice.

If you truly have come to faith, if you truly acknowledge God and Christ as an objective fact, then there is simply nothing more important or even comparably important to God and doing His will. Once one realizes that it is absolutely imperative to love and worship God with everything you have and everything you are, then you must find how God wants to be loved and worshiped and then conform yourself to that with joy. That means the Holy Tradition. Analysis of the facts of history prove exactly where that Tradition is held. So every road ends up leading back to Orthodoxy.

So whether you look at it rationally and examine facts or look at it emotionally and simply want to love God in the way He wants, you simply must come back to the Church.

As you can see, I have been thinking these lines of reasoning through myself. I will be pursuing catechism at Prophet Elias down the street. If believing in the Church and the Divine Liturgy and wishing to follow the Tradition and give myself over to that life is conversion, I am converted.

[EvangeliGirl]

The blog of a Restorationist-becoming-Orthodox. This is from the "Why Orthodoxy?" archive:

http://www.chattablogs.com/aionioszoe/archives/cat_why_orthodoxy.html

He has other archive lists (e.g., "Orthodoxy") that go into other related subjects/details, too.

http://www.chattablogs.com/aionioszoe/ - main page

He apparently attends Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon's church. So the person on this forum who just visited there - EvangeliGirl? - may want to meet and talk with this "Clifton".

Thanks for drawing my attention to the link and to this thread. I cant keep up with all the activity here in TAW like I was, but this has been a very interesting and insightful read.

I wonder if an Orthodox conversion would be more difficult for someone who is devoted to their non-EO tradition, or to someone who has mostly enjoyed the ease and convenience of a seeker-sensitive church that doesnt require devotion?

[Mary of Bethany]

Thanks for drawing my attention to the link and to this thread. I cant keep up with all the activity here in TAW like I was, but this has been a very interesting and insightful read.

I wonder if an Orthodox conversion would be more difficult for someone who is devoted to their non-EO tradition, or to someone who has mostly enjoyed the ease and convenience of a seeker-sensitive church that doesnt require devotion?

I don't know. I was devoted to Southern Baptist theology, but my spirit was longing for something more in worship, and as stated above, that is what began my long journey to Orthodoxy.

If someone is completely, totally satisfied with their faith, they may never have any nagging questions that would draw them in another direction. But sometimes, all it takes is one little question.

Mary

[elizabethevangeline]

I wonder if an Orthodox conversion would be more difficult for someone who is devoted to their non-EO tradition, or to someone who has mostly enjoyed the ease and convenience of a seeker-sensitive church that doesnt require devotion?

Hard to tell. I was somewhat devoted to my evangelical-free background. Definitely wouldn't go to just any evangelical or protestant church because it mattered to me to have right doctrine. But like the quote above...I knew something was missing or wrong in me...especially in prayer and worship.

A friend once observed that truth was very important to me...so I wonder if that is a common denominator, not whether someone is devoted to their own tradition, etc. But then I tend to think most folks in the pews don't know their own doctrine well enough to really question it nor recognize truth from a different tradition. (I was barely theology "literate" and I have a rep for "thinking too much")

[Dust and Ashes]

A friend once observed that truth was very important to me...so I wonder if that is a common denominator, not whether someone is devoted to their own tradition, etc. But then I tend to think most folks in the pews don't know their own doctrine well enough to really question it nor recognize truth from a different tradition. (I was barely theology "literate" and I have a rep for "thinking too much")

I think the desire for truth is a very important factor. After I determined to convert and began really studying, I shared Orthodoxy with my cousin and I knew he would become Orthodox because he is just the type of person who isn't satisfied with anything less than the whole truth. He now comes to our weekly Compline services and recently he and his wife had a nice, long talk with our priest. They are serious inquirers and hopefully will begin attending regularly soon and be enrolled as catechumens.

Kind of like with Uncle Bud. I can remember reading many of his posts back early last year and maybe even as far back as late '04 and thinking that if he ever got a good taste of Orthodoxy, he would be heading East. I'm not saying that I think I can tell who will and won't become Orthodox, just that the ones who demonstrate a real desire for truth will usually latch onto it when they find it. Heck, it happens here in TAW all the time. ;)

[Happy Orthodox]

just that the ones who demonstrate a real desire for truth will usually latch onto it when they find it. Heck, it happens here in TAW all the time. ;)


True.
I might even add that whoever sticks around here for more than 10 posts is doomed to converting! How's that?
(well, generally speaking)

[Jacob4707]

True.
I might even add that whoever sticks around here for more than 10 posts is doomed to converting! How's that?
(well, generally speaking)

Then, I'm doomed! :eek: :help:


(to be chrismated, that is)

[Jebediah]

Then, I'm doomed! :eek: :help:


(to be chrismated, that is)

ditto! :thumbsup:

[Akathist]

I addressed this questions to converts to Orthodox from other faiths. I figured they might have an idea. Of course anyone who may have an idea or know may answer. :)


I was just wondering...I have seen quite a fews times on other forums here on CF Protestant Christians say that they know that the EO and RC Church's are the actual ancient Apostolic Church's. My question is this, if they say they know this, than why are they not EO or RC? I was just kind of wondering this. It seems weird. I mean if I knew something was the right way, or the actual way it was or supposed to be (pertaining to anything) I would say, "hey maybe I should do that or go there." In other words, for the sake of arguement, I though the RCC was the True Church, I would convert. I just wonder why people who say this don't convert.

It is a cultural thing... they were raised Protestant, this is where their family has always gone to church (as far back as they can remember). They are used it the way the worship, etc, and comfortable.

In addition, there are some very real theological differences that for some protestants are hard to overcome. I found conversion easy. But I know that it is not so easy for others. I never really believed in "sola scriptura" for example, and I always thought that Mary (the Theotokos) was "special".

But there are some people who might understand that we have true Apostolic succession and that we have maintained the Traditions of the Church for thousands of years, but they equally believe the doctrines of their protestant denomination is correct and inspired by the Holy Spirit.

[HandmaidenOfGod]

As I had a Protestant friend say to me this weekend "I don't care about any doctrines of any Church -- all I need is my Bible and Jesus!" :eek:

[Theophorus]

I wonder if an Orthodox conversion would be more difficult for someone who is devoted to their non-EO tradition, or to someone who has mostly enjoyed the ease and convenience of a seeker-sensitive church that doesnt require devotion?

I would guess the latter. But this ties into the zeal for truth that I see more in denoms outside of the "community" church scene.

I was CoC for years. I knew my bible and taught and led many studies. I found that many use the bible to attack others, and when the hard questions came up, I was convinced that many were just making it up as they went along. Especially some of the claims I heard about Constantine and the supposed corruption of Christianity.
When I did start to explore the theology of the Church fathers, I quickly realized what shallow soil I was planted in.

[repentant]

Wow! All these answer's..I knew you would come through... :thumbsup:

It was also nice to hear why some of you converted. I have always felt that if someone were to actually experience what the Orthodox Church is, they would love it. I think it shows here.

A few things I would like to comment on. I guess if some people had it drilled into there heads that the Apostolic Church's became corrupt, then maybe I can understand them not converting. Unless someone wants to actually know the truth, they never will. The one thing that I can't nessecarily not agree with, because people are different, is wanting to convert but being afraid of being rejected by former friends or family of your Protestant faith. Me personally am not a follower. If you can't see that by now, even on here, then I don't know what to tell you, lol. But seriously I was never one to not do something or do something to please other's or because I am worried of what they might think. So I can't really agree with that, but I can't disagree with that either because like I said people are different. I just can't symphonize with that I guess.

Anyways, thanks all for the reply's.

BTW any Anthony's out there, Ke tou Hrono.

[Jacob4707]

When I did start to explore the theology of the Church fathers, I quickly realized what shallow soil I was planted in.

What a great line! :thumbsup:

[BabyLutheran]

I am not afraid of being rejected by my family. I am more afraid to convert, and then I go to church and my wife is left at home and doesn't attend any church. Or goes to a different church with the kids. That is just not a healthy family dynamic. I know many of you would say it's my salvation I should worry about, but I would say that it is better for me to go to a less than perfect church with my wife and family than for me to go to EO church and them to not go to church at all (or to harbor resentment and bitterness towards me). Although I totally agee that EO is the best choice of churches, I also think that one can certainly develop a good (although not great) Christian walk at a Protestant church too. So right now I am just hanging around the forum, attending EO when I can, and praying a lot for the Holy Spirit to help me and my wife do His will.

It is so tempting just to convert. But I see it as a selfish act right now, so I am refraining.

[choirfiend]

It would be nice if she let you take the kids to church with you sometimes, even if she didnt want to go. They're your kids too, right? In this matter, in this situation, there should be some degree of compromise, it seems, on both ends.

[EvangeliGirl]

I am not afraid of being rejected by my family. I am more afraid to convert, and then I go to church and my wife is left at home and doesn't attend any church. Or goes to a different church with the kids. That is just not a healthy family dynamic. I know many of you would say it's my salvation I should worry about, but I would say that it is better for me to go to a less than perfect church with my wife and family than for me to go to EO church and them to not go to church at all (or to harbor resentment and bitterness towards me).

The family thing is tough. Fortunately for me, though my husband is not attending with me, he's supportive of my journey. Were also still able to attend a nondenom church on Sat.'s. He's more the type thats just not really motivated to seek the truth, and is fine with giving the minimal if thats all thats absolutely necessary, so Orthodoxy will be difficult for him.

When I became a Christian at 13, I read the Bible alot on my own. One of the first prayers that I prayed was, "Lord, I want to see and believe your truth, no matter how I feel or am inclined to believe about it." When I did attend church, I was always sensing that things were 'off' or 'wrong' or 'missing', no matter how optimistic I tried to be. And it wasnt a rebellious questioning of authority because I didnt want to be submissive, I wanted an authority to submit to. I was beginning to believe that I had just been very nieve about what a church should be and how Christians should be, that I was too idealistic. Even still, something from within urged me to press on and search for something more. Only now, facing Orthodoxy, do I truly believe I have a chance to be satisfied.

Another point, is that some Protestants (or even RCs) believe in staying within their traditions despite knowing their flaws, to make efforts toward healing and reformation. I think the ecumenical movement is all about that.