question about salvation [Archive]

buzuxi02

6th September 2007, 08:09 PM

Dear Monica,

This would be considered apostacy.

As Paul taught, "I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel. Which is not another, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel of heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be anathema! As we have said before, so now i say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to youthan what you have recieved, let him be accursed." (Gal 1.6-9)

Now whether the individual will be saved is a matter of what mercy God will show. It may have not been entirely his fault, could have been a lack of instruction from his parents and/or godparents, who are entrusted to raise the children up in the faith. (yes, this would be a strike against the parents or godparent on judgement day)

Unlike western protestant culture which claims " the child can shop around and choose whatever faith he wishes when he grows up". Orthodoxy follows the traditions of the apostles. It is a parents responsibility and the godparents to help raise and instruct them , thats why Orthodoxy practises infant baptism.

This is in accordance with judaism as well. As scripture says, "....And what does he desire? Godly offspring. So take heed to yourselves, and let none be faithless to the wife of his youth. For I hate divorce says the God of Israel..." (Mal 2.15-16)
This is an allegory. The wife of his youth was the faith of the jews. But some of them (due to pagan influences) began mingling with these other faiths and adopting some of their practises. being faithless. Some of these jews abandoned the faith of their fathers altogether and joined idolators. Hence they divorced the wife of their youth, and God hates divorce.

MoNiCa4316

6th September 2007, 08:32 PM

Jacob4707

6th September 2007, 08:43 PM

MsDahl

6th September 2007, 08:49 PM

Hi :) I have a question...I'm curious what Orthodox Christians believe about this. I'm not going to debate :)
I've heard several times in this forum that salvation and grace is found within the EO church, but that others may also be saved if they are following Christ. Is this correct?
What about people who were born Orthodox, but changed faiths when they grew up?
For example, what if someone was raised in an Orthodox family, but then felt that God wanted them to be Protestant, and began their relationship with God in a Protestant church? Are they saved? What do you all think? Or would you say that God would never lead someone away from the EO church?

I hope it is alright to ask this question..

God bless.

Orthodox Christians view salvation as a process that begins with accepting the gift of salvation. It continues throughout our lives through sanctification as we grow closer to God and it ends when we are in heaven (glorification). We do not believe in a "saving date" in the sense of I was saved on such and such date. We all were saved on the same date, 33 AD. Now we each accepted this gift at different times in our lives but that doesn't change the fact that human kind was saved on 33 AD. In closing, salvation is a process that begins with accepting Jesus as one's Savior and ends with us being in Heaven.

As for people of other churches, I believe that as long as the form of Christianity they follow is in accordance with the word of God and they believe Jesus to be their Savior, then I believe that they are in the process of salvation as well. I don't limit the Holy Spirit and I realize that God is omnipotent and He can be present in more than one Christian denomination. However, I don't feel that worshiping Jesus for me could be done properly in any other denomination besides TAW.

Orthocat

6th September 2007, 09:33 PM

There are so many differences between Orthodoxy and Protestant religions it could not be explained in one thread.

Orthodoxy has kept an unbroken line since the apostles. Protestants broke away from the Roman Catholic church, supposedly to return to the roots of Christianity. The roots of Christianity are found in the Orthodox.

Western thought believes in sola scriptura or sola fide. Eastern thought is not found in the head, or knowledge, but in the heart. (Not that Orthodox do not study - it's just different.)

As a former Baptist many moons ago, I began to study and trace Christianity and its beliefs back to the beginning and back forward again. Through it all, the Orthodox held fast thru attacks from the Muslims, the Roman Catholics, the Protestants, the Communists, and now back to the Muslims. I changed to Orthodoxy, because throughout the centuries Orthodoxy never changed. Current social values are of no significance, fads and fashions mean nothing, society does not dictate what is taught - only the teachings of the early church councils when the church was still one.

I would urge you to read the writings of those councils. Read the letters written by those the apostles taught, and who took over for the apostles, such as Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius, etc. What they teach, and the scriptures they quote, and their meanings of those scriptures, may be very different from what you have been taught.

Forgive me for rambling, and may God bless you.

buzuxi02

6th September 2007, 09:34 PM

Forgive me, but how is the "Protestant gospel" different from the one the Apostles preached? Protestants also believe in the Trinity, the Resurrection, salvation, etc. There are some differences in doctrine, but surely not the gospel itself? It matches what the Bible says, which is from Apostolic times. :confused:

Nor do I think that children of Protestants are encouraged to "shop around". Most Protestants (if not all) believe that there is no salvation outside of Christ, and I'm sure that any devoted Protestant parents would be sad if their children chose another religion. Perhaps we have encountered different Protestants, I don't know.

I understand that turning away from Christ would be apostacy, but I don't really understand why it's considered that if one changes denominations. I think I understand your views of the Church, and the role of the Orthodox church in salvation. But what if the person becomes Protestant simply because they (sincerely) feel that they are closer to Christ there? Would it be wrong to seek more of Him then, even if the Orthodox church is the Church?

I'm just interested in what you all believe about this...it's something I've been thinking about recently.

God bless.
Dear Monica,

Its quite an oversimplification to say its the same gospel. Orthodoxy is the Faith of the bible not protestantism. Roman Catholics also hold to the view of the Trinity, the ressurection, savation ,etc yet most protestants believe joining the RC is apostacy and some denominations openly teach they will go to hell!!!

I on the other hand say its apostacy, but depending on circumstances, God shows mercy, it maybe the fault of certain immoral orthodox laity which lead the individual to leave.

Orthodoxy and RC have much in common which the protest believe to be heresy. And many protestant denoms will teach the same about Orthodoxy as they do the RC.

Orthodoxy believes in One baptism for the remission of sins, inspite of some of the higher church protestants claiming protestants believe the same, the majority believe that multiple baptisms are allowed, and for the most part baptism is meaningless.

There is no communion of the saints, no Eucharist, no Chrismation, no belief in theosis, so i cant see how it would NOT be apostacy.
But as i said, God knows the intent of the indiviual and HE gives mercy to whom mercy is deserved.

repentant

7th September 2007, 02:23 AM

eoe

7th September 2007, 07:00 AM

A quote:
With reference to the above question [will the heterodox be saved], it is particularly instructive to recall the answer once given to an inquirer by the Blessed Theophan the Recluse. The blessed one replied more or less thus: "You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them? They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins... I will tell you one thing, however: should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever."

eoe

7th September 2007, 07:04 AM

MoNiCa4316

7th September 2007, 11:56 AM

1 - The protestant gospel is quite different.
2 - The protestant idea of Salvation is quite different.
3 - Yes - the protestants teach another gospel.
4 - The bible is NOT from Apostolic times. It was not put together until quite a few (hundred) years later.

What I meant is that the New Testament was written by John, Matthew, Luke, Paul, etc - the apostles and their disciples. It was written during apostolic times, even if it was put together later on.
I still don't really see why the Protestant gospel is different than what they preached...it's exactly like what's in the Bible. Paul asks the Galatians why they are accepting a different gospel, which taught that we are saved by observing the law. He told them we are saved by grace. That's what Protestants also believe (and the Orthodox), and we all believe in the same Christ. We all pray to the same God and are all baptized in His name.

If a Protestant fully agrees with the Nicene Creed, how is it a different gospel? :confused: I know there are differences in some doctrines, but not in the message. I think we all have one Lord, one faith, one baptism.

Let's start here:
Christ said that there are three things that ANYONE must do if they want to be with him him - you know what those are?

Unfortunately I don't have enough time to look for this in the Bible. Here's what I remember:
1. believe in Him to be born again (John 3)
This has conditions:
2. if we really love Him, we would obey His commands. I don't think that our works save us (as Paul said, we are saved by grace) but they are the evidence of our salvation. It is impossible to have real faith without works.
2. we must forgive others, or we would not be forgiven.
That's just what I can remember.
Is this different than what the Orthodox believe?

MoNiCa4316

7th September 2007, 12:18 PM

With reference to the above question [will the heterodox be saved], it is particularly instructive to recall the answer once given to an inquirer by the Blessed Theophan the Recluse. The blessed one replied more or less thus: "You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them? They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins... I will tell you one thing, however: should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever."

I was raised in a non religious home, but when I was a preteen my family became Orthodox. Very soon afterwards we moved to another town, and it was too far away from our church so we stopped going. I didn't know anything about the Orthodox church, but I was baptized there. Over the years, I started to believe in Christ and read the Bible. I accepted Him and made a commitment to follow Him. I wanted to go to church again, and since there was no Orthodox church in my area I started going to a local Protestant one. I agreed with everything they taught, because it seemed according to the Bible. I grew in my faith and now I have what I consider a fairly close relationship with Christ. I know that He has changed me. When some of my Orthodox friends started worrying that I'm changing churches, I began praying about it...I really felt that God only cared about my response to Him. I felt like the right church was the one where I was closer to God...I decided to just trust Him and become Protestant, since it was working for me. I stopped worrying about denominations and began focusing more on God, which I think is what He wanted me to do... I'd just like to add that I like the Orthodox church, I like the doctrine and the liturgy. My family still goes there on the holidays. I'm not posting here to lead people away from the Orthodox faith, but because recently I've had people tell me again that I'm going down the wrong path. I'm wondering whether or not they are right. But if I'm going in the wrong direction, how come I feel close to God? If my soul is lost forever, how come I'm more committed than ever before to follow Him, and why did I change as a person? I used to be bitter and angry, and now I have lots of joy in my life because of Him. "You will know them by their fruits"..if my soul is lost, shouldn't I become a worse person than even before? I believe that Christ is 'truth in all its fulness', and I've never left Him.

I have prayed many times whether I should become Orthodox, after having discussions with people...and always I feel the answer to be "as long as you're with Me, all is well". Could this be an illusion or is it real? But doesn't only God know for sure?

MoNiCa4316

7th September 2007, 12:27 PM

Monica, it is also be said that even though we read the same Bible (for the most part, variances between original Greek and English, and we also have more OT books) but for the books we do share, and the NT, we do have the same Bible, but vastly disagree on what it says. That is the different Gospel.

Repentant, do you believe that we are saved by Christ, by grace, and that this transforms us into 'new creations' who live in the light, not in darkness? Don't we both believe in the Nicene Creed? (I do). We may disagree on Apostolic Succession or the definition of the Church, and have different worship styles...but am I right when I say that these things are not the Gospel itself? By the way, I'd like to add that I do agree with your view of the Eucharist, even though I'm Protestant. I don't take it as "just a symbol". There is no Orthodox priest there when I take Communion, but every single time I feel His presence afterwards..I can't describe it, but I do believe it "works" even in my church. That's just my experience.

Lukaris

7th September 2007, 12:31 PM

There is a thread on an article by the late Fr Seraphim Rose on how to treat the non Orthodox which seems to clearly imply many non Orthodox Christians will see salvation (& Fr Seraphim was hardly a liberal ecumenist). It should be on page 2 in yesterdays posts as of this post. ps. Fr Seraphim was a convert & so am I.

Shubunkin

7th September 2007, 12:33 PM

I felt close to God, too, while being a Protestant, but all the while He was leading me into Orthodoxy. Whatever I learned was basically in line with Orthodoxy, even though my denomination I was in at the time taught differently. It was a different Gospel in those Protestant churches. It is apostasy. I know it now, even though I did not know it then. I suppose God will not judge those harshly who had no opportunity to know Orthodoxy, but once we learn about it, we cannot turn away from it without consequences. You cannot trade the truth for falsehood. We all will be judged by what we know.

MoNiCa4316

7th September 2007, 01:15 PM

Dear Monica,

Its quite an oversimplification to say its the same gospel. Orthodoxy is the Faith of the bible not protestantism.

I know you believe this, and I am not encouraging you to doubt. But when I read the Bible, I dont' find anything that contradicts my beliefs. I don't know how 'typically Protestant' my beliefs are, but that's just my experience with it.

Roman Catholics also hold to the view of the Trinity, the ressurection, savation ,etc yet most protestants believe joining the RC is apostacy and some denominations openly teach they will go to hell!!!

I know :( I don't believe that though. I accept Catholics as well as Orthodox as well as Protestants.

Orthodoxy believes in One baptism for the remission of sins, inspite of some of the higher church protestants claiming protestants believe the same, the majority believe that multiple baptisms are allowed, and for the most part baptism is meaningless.

I wouldn't say it's meaningless. In my church baptism is done with a lot of reverence and people look forward to it as something that would change their lives and lead them closer to God. Galatians 3 tells us that "You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ." I believe that I became a child of God through faith, and was forgiven of sin when I repented, but baptism 'clothed me in Christ'..I do not pretend to understand fully what this means. But I do believe it changed me in some way. Personally I believe that we need both faith and baptism.

I don't know how many baptisms we are 'allowed to' have, personally I feel quite alright with one...

There is no communion of the saints

It is true that we do not pray to saints....I do not think that it is wrong to do so, though. I've just never really felt the need, but that's just me. However, I do believe that all who are in heaven are our living brothers and sisters in Christ, because He has conquered death.

no Eucharist

I do not know what makes Communion 'effective'. Maybe it is just faith and the Holy Spirit. In that case, it is present in Protestant churches also, maybe even without them knowing it. If an ordained priest is necessary, then you are right.
I do not know.

no Chrismation

But surely this does not limit the Holy Spirit? Maybe this is just one of the ways He uses.

no belief in theosis

No, we do believe this. It is simply called a different word: sanctification. It is also believed to be necessary, because if one does not bear fruit they have nothing to show for their faith. My pastor talks a lot about sanctification and reminds us that we can not live the Christian life if we remain our old selves...this is the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives.

One thing that I've noticed is that often people quote "continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling", and use this as Biblical evidence that Protestantism is wrong. But this is only one half of the sentence. The other half goes: "for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose." And I've never met a Protestant who disagreed with this point.

I do not think that Orthodox doctrines are wrong. I'm not here to tell you all that Protestantism is the right way. All I know is that Christ is the right way, and the only way. However He decides to work, that is up to Him. Isn't there a chance that things are much more complex, that God is not bound by any denomination, and that one day, we will both see that we have followed the Truth? But if you firmly believe that only the Orthodox church has the Truth, then I would not tell you to change your mind...I do not want to cause other Christians doubt or be a stumbling block. To any struggling EO Christians reading this: don't listen to me. All I have is my testimony, and I'm just trying to work things out.

MoNiCa4316

7th September 2007, 01:17 PM

Orthodox Christians view salvation as a process that begins with accepting the gift of salvation. It continues throughout our lives through sanctification as we grow closer to God and it ends when we are in heaven (glorification). We do not believe in a "saving date" in the sense of I was saved on such and such date. We all were saved on the same date, 33 AD. Now we each accepted this gift at different times in our lives but that doesn't change the fact that human kind was saved on 33 AD. In closing, salvation is a process that begins with accepting Jesus as one's Savior and ends with us being in Heaven.

As for people of other churches, I believe that as long as the form of Christianity they follow is in accordance with the word of God and they believe Jesus to be their Savior, then I believe that they are in the process of salvation as well. I don't limit the Holy Spirit and I realize that God is omnipotent and He can be present in more than one Christian denomination.

I believe the same things.

However, I don't feel that worshiping Jesus for me could be done properly in any other denomination besides TAW.

I'm glad you found the right church for you :)

MoNiCa4316

7th September 2007, 01:19 PM

Orthosdoxa

7th September 2007, 02:11 PM

Hi Ms. Dahl,

In closing, salvation is a process that begins with accepting Jesus as one's Savior and ends with us being in Heaven.

I'm sorry, but this is an incorrect and modernized (Protestantized) version of theosis, which is what salvation is.

Salvation begins with baptism and chrismation and continues throughout one's life as one grows in theosis through faith in Christ, partaking of the holy mysteries, repentance, and prayer. No one's salvation is assured, and it is the worst pride to be sure that one will one day be in heaven.

Hi Monica,

I've quoted this here before: http://philthompson.net/pages/faq/19.html#here

Why do you talk about the Church so much? Because it's important! It's precisely in the Church that unbelievers and believers alike encounter Christ. The life in Christ is lived in relationships, not individually.

Jesus Christ did not come to establish such a thing as "Christianity". Even that word itself is not in the Scriptures. What Christ did establish was the Church, which Scripture calls both His Body and His Bride, the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15). The communion which man seeks with God is to be found in the Church, something which St. Paul calls a great mystery, in which we become members of Christ: of His flesh, and of His bones. (Ephesians 5:30,32) The Bible also tells us that such as were being saved were added to the Church (Acts 2:47). They were not merely making "decisions for Christ" -- again, not a Scriptural term -- but they were repenting, being baptized for the remission of their sins, and being added to the Church. (Acts 2:38ff.) There, they were continuing steadfastly in the Apostle's doctrine and fellowship, the Breaking of Bread (what is today called the Eucharist), and the prayers.

It's worth noting that, from the day of Pentecost, the "birthday" of the Church, the Bible never speaks of Christians who were not a part of the Church. In later generations, early Christians experienced schisms, and argued over who was the true Church; but they never lost the belief that there was an identifiable, visible body called The Church. They called it "catholic," meaning "whole and complete in itself" as distinguished from outsiders like the Novatianists, Montanists or Arians. No one ever invented the notion of an invisible Church until the Protestant Reformation made the new doctrine necessary. (In Evangelicalism it's a common belief that all believers in Christ are automatically members of an invisible Church. This belief is undeniably a modern innovation, not found in any writing or tradition before the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century.)

The Enlightenment contributed to western European culture the idea of the exalted role of the individual person, his rights, and his place as judge of what he will accept as proven truth. Significantly, western European Christianity adopted this belief as its own. Today any number of Christian groups de-emphasize the role of the Church in interpreting Scripture or establishing norms of discipline and practice. The Campbellite cry, "No creed but Christ" (itself a creed) could not have emerged without Christians' embracing the innovative message of independence from the Church.

An individual Christianity dissociated from the communities founded by the Apostles can not claim to be historically, organically, the same congregation (ecclesia) which was born at the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in Jerusalem on Pentecost. At best an individual, independent Christian or congregation can only claim to be an adherent to a belief system, or a para-Church organization.

It's worthwhile to look at the origins of the doctrine of an invisible Church, and examining how modern philosophy, unchecked by any restraint of previous generations of Christians, has dictated beliefs and attitudes to modern western Christians. And if a belief comes not from Scripture or even from ancient Christianity, but rather from modern rebellion against authority, perhaps that doctrine should be thrown out in favor of the ancient beliefs of previous generations.

Please read that entire selection and note the parts I have underlined. We do not deny that there are people who are not Orthodox who do believe in Jesus - but is that belief enough, without being in the Church founded by Christ? Only God can say, though James 2:19 comes to mind.

As Phil Thompson says, the belief in some invisible church that you're a part of merely by virtue of belief was only invented a few hundred years ago, and was made necessary by rebellion against authority. If we find ourselves believing some doctrine that no Christian from the time of Christ believed until about the 1500 or 1600's - shouldn't we re-examine that belief?

MoNiCa4316

7th September 2007, 02:35 PM

Hi Orthosdoxa :) thanks for the article, it's pretty informative. My beliefs about the Church are similar, except that I believe that anyone who believes in Christ and is baptized is part of the Church. I know that you are trying to say that this is wrong, but to me it appears to be Biblical...That is because the Church is not just an organization but His Body, and He is the Head...how can someone be in Christ but not be in His Body? (Or do you believe that Protestants are not in Christ, but then how can they be saved? And if they don't have the Holy Spirit, why do they start showing the fruits of the Spirit after conversion?)

Just like we are 'in' the Father because we are in Christ, we are in the Church because we are in Christ. He can not be divided. Even if on the visible level we are separated, all types of Christianity still have the Apostles as the foundation. I completely agree that Christ came to make the Church, God's people, not a new religion.

I wouldn't say that the Church is fully invisible, certainly it has a visible component...but what holds it together is Christ, not a set of doctrines that all must agree with. Thus I can't see how we can say that some can be His followers but not be in His Church. His Church IS His followers.
In the Apostolic times there were disagreements as well...that is why Paul wrote Romans 14. And the Galatians believed that we are saved by the law, until Paul corrected them..yet they were still part of the Church.

They were not merely making "decisions for Christ" -- again, not a Scriptural term -- but they were repenting, being baptized for the remission of their sins, and being added to the Church

I see what the author is saying...I'd just like to add my experience. I "accepted Christ", but when I did that I repented of my sins and decided to believe and follow Him. It's just a different term, that's all...it's the same thing that Orthodox and Catholic Christians do when they decide to believe in Him.

my two cents....I don't know...are our views really incompatible?

God bless.

Jacob4707

7th September 2007, 02:43 PM

I see what the author is saying...I'd just like to add my experience. I "accepted Christ", but when I did that I repented of my sins and decided to believe and follow Him. It's just a different term, that's all...it's the same thing that Orthodox and Catholic Christians do when they decide to believe in Him.

my two cents....I don't know...are our views really incompatible?

God bless.

I would wager that a Mormon could say the same thing - i.e., he/she has accepted Christ and repented and tries to follow Him. In fact, a recent book (http://www.amazon.com/Different-Jesus-Christ-Latter-day-Saints/dp/0802828760/)* by a Mormon scholar and published by an Evangelical Christian publishing company clearly states that Mormon salvation is based on faith in Christ, not on works. So I would ask you: Are Mormons Christians? If so, why? If not, why not? Are your views and Mormons' views incompatible?

I am NOT questioning your salvation or beliefs, just approaching this conversation and your questions from a different perspective than what has been raised so far - i.e., to see how you as a Protestant view yourself vis-a-vis Mormons, and why.

* Read the Review at Amazon.com by "Tad Griffin" (the first review in the list of reviews for the book) as well as the one by by Korrie Kamauoha.

authiodionitist

7th September 2007, 02:54 PM

Hi Monica, I just want to go through some vocabulary with ya.....

My beliefs about the Church are similar, except that I believe that anyone who believes in Christ and is baptized is part of the Church. I know that you are trying to say that this is wrong, but to me it appears to be Biblical...That is because the Church is not just an organization but His Body, and He is the Head...how can someone be in Christ but not be in His Body?
The first part is called ecumenism....
The second part, the answer is no. To "be in Christ" is first to seek out Holy Baptism, then experience His death and Resurrection in the three-fold immersion and so "as many have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." ~St Paul, Galatians 3:27.

Even if on the visible level we are separated, all types of Christianity still have the Apostles as the foundation. I completely agree that Christ came to make the Church, God's people, not a new religion.
So.... after the Apostles, where did all the Christians go?

I wouldn't say that the Church is fully invisible, certainly it has a visible component...but what holds it together is Christ, not a set of doctrines that all must agree with.
It is more than rational assent. We must belive from our hearts by making the prayers our own, and seek Him out with our bodies through fasting and attention at prayer.

Let us commend ourselves and each other, and all of our life unto Christ our God.
To Thee, O Lord!

God bless.
:)

MoNiCa4316

7th September 2007, 04:38 PM

Hi, I'll reply to you all a little later, since I have to go to class soon :)

There is something I'm sort of confused about. Romans 8:9 says "..if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ". In another part of the Bible, Paul (I think) says that the Holy Spirit we have now will raise us to eternal life in the Resurrection. It appears that we need the Holy Spirit to be saved. Do you believe that Protestants, and ex-Orthodox Christians, have the Holy Spirit? If they do not, they can not be saved. If they do, then the Spirit is active outside of the Orthodox Church as well as in it. If the latter is the case, then we have two options: 1. the Holy Spirit is active in all Christian denominations, or 2. the Holy Spirit is able to affect anyone, but it is present in the Orthodox Church in a fuller way.
Which option is more 'Orthodox'?

God bless.

MoNiCa4316

7th September 2007, 04:46 PM

I would wager that a Mormon could say the same thing - i.e., he/she has accepted Christ and repented and tries to follow Him. In fact, a recent book (http://www.amazon.com/Different-Jesus-Christ-Latter-day-Saints/dp/0802828760/)* by a Mormon scholar and published by an Evangelical Christian publishing company clearly states that Mormon salvation is based on faith in Christ, not on works. So I would ask you: Are Mormons Christians? If so, why? If not, why not? Are your views and Mormons' views incompatible?

I am NOT questioning your salvation or beliefs, just approaching this conversation and your questions from a different perspective than what has been raised so far - i.e., to see how you as a Protestant view yourself vis-a-vis Mormons, and why.

* Read the Review at Amazon.com by "Tad Griffin" (the first review in the list of reviews for the book) as well as the one by by Korrie Kamauoha.

Hi,
Well I certainly don't believe in the Book of Mormon and I disagree with them on many points. But I can not say whether or not they are saved. It seems that the 'criteria' for salvation does not actually talk about religion. If a person believes in Christ and follows Him, the Bible tells us they can be saved...even if they believe lots of other stuff that's not the Truth. Basically, God doesn't just take people who have perfect doctrine. None of us have that... am I correct? For example, Paul sometimes writes about people who believed certain foods to be 'unclean'. They are mistaken, but does that cost them their salvation, as long as they believe in Christ? I think it's similar with Mormons. Even if they believe some false doctrines, they can still be saved because of Christ. Good doctrine just helps us grow in Christ.

So if they can be saved, that means that God has accepted them. And who am I to reject someone that God has accepted?

God bless.

monica

authiodionitist

7th September 2007, 05:08 PM

Hey all,

I realize I've indulged in the polemics....this is wrong for this forum. Forgive me for indulging.

We currently are violating the following rules for TAW (found at http://foru.ms/t5776534-the-ancient-way-forum-specific-rules.html):

1.Non-Orthodox are permitted only fellowship and honest, sincere questions. No debating, teaching or preaching will be tolerated.

4.Active Promotion of views contrary to the established teachings of canonical Orthodox Churches are prohibited.

Let's get back to fellowship and inquiry.

Jacob4707

7th September 2007, 06:26 PM

Hi,
Well I certainly don't believe in the Book of Mormon and I disagree with them on many points. But I can not say whether or not they are saved. It seems that the 'criteria' for salvation does not actually talk about religion. If a person believes in Christ and follows Him, the Bible tells us they can be saved...even if they believe lots of other stuff that's not the Truth. Basically, God doesn't just take people who have perfect doctrine. None of us have that... am I correct? For example, Paul sometimes writes about people who believed certain foods to be 'unclean'. They are mistaken, but does that cost them their salvation, as long as they believe in Christ? I think it's similar with Mormons. Even if they believe some false doctrines, they can still be saved because of Christ. Good doctrine just helps us grow in Christ.

So if they can be saved, that means that God has accepted them. And who am I to reject someone that God has accepted?

God bless.

monica

Would you have communion with Mormons as fellow believers? Again, just asking.

MsDahl

7th September 2007, 09:07 PM

Hi Ms. Dahl,

I'm sorry, but this is an incorrect and modernized (Protestantized) version of theosis, which is what salvation is.

Salvation begins with baptism and chrismation and continues throughout one's life as one grows in theosis through faith in Christ, partaking of the holy mysteries, repentance, and prayer. No one's salvation is assured, and it is the worst pride to be sure that one will one day be in heaven.

Could you kindly point out where I stated that salvation was assured on the earthly plane? I don't see how you arrived at that conclusion based on my commentary. I actually stated that salvation began with Jesus' work on this earth.

Anyway, I spent quite some time getting a better grasp on the concept of salvation some time ago based on the work of Anthony Coniaris. I saved it on my hard drive.

What I believe about salvation:

There are three facets to salvation – justification, sanctification and glorification. These three concepts are intertwined in the concept of salvation. I was saved through Jesus Christ and his death and resurrection but I am also being saved. According to 1 Cor 1:18, “For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” This verse clearly demonstrates that we are in a state of being saved. Also, there is no reference in the New Testament that one is saved here on earth. I don’t view my salvation as “I am saved, I have arrived, I have made it”; rather I view it as “I am on the way, I am moving, I am growing in God, with God and through the power of God”. Salvation is dynamic, it is a constant moving toward being more Christ-like. Each time I choose God’s will, I am working out my salvation – “Therefore, my beloved…work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil 2:12).

I am saved by grace through faith as stated in Eph 2:8. Grace represents to me God’s hand reaching out to me and faith represents my hand stretching out to God. When my hand grasps God’s hand, there is reconciliation and salvation.

I don't believe salvation should be viewed as a destination. I don’t agree with the idea that we are “saved” because we say a certain prayer and that date becomes my “saving date”. In my opinion, this does not encompass the awesome spiritual and multi-dimensional nature of salvation. Jesus Christ was crucified on the cross in 33 AD to pay the price for all humanity’s sins – this was His work of salvation and the date that all of humanity was saved. It is not a different date for each person. However, we have free will and we are able to freely reject this gift of grace that God so lovingly offers to us. This gift is always there and able for us to accept but we can choose to reject it. To say that “I am saved” discredits the fact that we do have free will, which means that I can accept this gift of grace but I also can reject it once I have accepted it. Thus, Salvation is a process, a journey and not a destination or a point of arrival. Salvation began with Jesus’ work on earth and ends when I unite with God in heaven.

Orthosdoxa

7th September 2007, 09:17 PM

MsDahl

7th September 2007, 09:43 PM

Orthosdoxa, I don't see how she may have gotten that impression but for the sake of clarification, I appreciate you challenging my statement so as to have me elaborate further on my views on Salvation. However, in the future, I beseech that you ask me for more elaboration rather than automatically stating I hold an incorrect stance on a particular issue. Since this is not a full blown Bible study, minor details get lost in the transfer of information. Also, since tone cannot be communicated, I hope you don't take my words offensively.

As for that "once saved always saved" doctrine, that was one of the hardest things my spirit wrestled with when I was searching for God elsewhere as a teen/young adult (I had spent some time in the evangelical churches and that was something that was being preached).

repentant

7th September 2007, 10:41 PM

Repentant, do you believe that we are saved by Christ, by grace, and that this transforms us into 'new creations' who live in the light, not in darkness? Don't we both believe in the Nicene Creed? (I do). We may disagree on Apostolic Succession or the definition of the Church, and have different worship styles...but am I right when I say that these things are not the Gospel itself? By the way, I'd like to add that I do agree with your view of the Eucharist, even though I'm Protestant. I don't take it as "just a symbol". There is no Orthodox priest there when I take Communion, but every single time I feel His presence afterwards..I can't describe it, but I do believe it "works" even in my church. That's just my experience.

I was merely speaking on Protestant Gospel vs. Orthodox Gospel. We may read the same exact words, but interpret them differently. As far as your first question...let's say I do agree with you here, does that mean we agree on the "how"?

rusmeister

7th September 2007, 11:07 PM

What I meant is that the New Testament was written by John, Matthew, Luke, Paul, etc - the apostles and their disciples. It was written during apostolic times, even if it was put together later on.
I still don't really see why the Protestant gospel is different than what they preached...it's exactly like what's in the Bible. Paul asks the Galatians why they are accepting a different gospel, which taught that we are saved by observing the law. He told them we are saved by grace. That's what Protestants also believe (and the Orthodox), and we all believe in the same Christ. We all pray to the same God and are all baptized in His name.

If a Protestant fully agrees with the Nicene Creed, how is it a different gospel? :confused: I know there are differences in some doctrines, but not in the message. I think we all have one Lord, one faith, one baptism.

Hello Monica!
Your question is a good one. Let me start by saying that you are right as to our having one Lord and one Baptism. Indeed, I, like a number of converts from other Christian faiths here, was accepted into the Orthodox Church via Chrismation, skipping the Orthodox Baptism.

However, the faith differs, because it is determined by interpretation of Scripture. Although we look at the same book, we understand what is written there differently. Who on earth decides what a given passage means?

For Protestants, the interpreter of what is written is the individual reading it. Usually the belief is that the Holy Spirit will guide the individual into correct understanding.

For Orthodox Christians, the interpreter is the Church itself; the accumulated wisdom in clarification of Scripture of all the saints and Church Fathers that ever lived, confirmed over time (weeding out both heresies and inaccuracies).

As individuals, we only have 20, 40 or 60 years of experience and our mostly limited to our own language and cultural understandings. Writings by people removed from us by vast amounts of time and space tend to be re-interpreted, often wrongly, in terms of our own cultural understandings. To offer a benign example, references to a 'stable' where Jesus was born. An American Protestant will picture a wooden structure. However, there is serious traditional backing that the 'stable' was actually what we would call a cave, which was where animals were often kept.

A more serious example would be understanding Mary's status as ever-Virgin. A Protestant today will read (in English) "...and Joseph did not know Mary his wife until she had brought forth the baby Jesus." In English, this word implies, "finishing at the time of". In the original Greek (and in modern Russian, for that matter) the word eos (Russian - poka /pah-KAH/)actually has no such implication and would be better rendered today as 'while' or 'during the time of'.
Similarly the concept of Jesus having 'brothers'. In English, the texts say in black and white, "brothers", a concept which in English means children born to the same mother. Yet if you study Eastern languages you will make the amazing discovery that in a good number of them, the words we render as 'brother' and 'sister' are also used for 'cousin', as there is no separate word. In teaching young Russian children English using only English, I have to jump through major hoops to get the children to understand that cousins must be excluded when I ask them "How many brothers do you have?" Add to this Tradition which tells us that Joseph was much older than Mary, had been previously married, and had children not by Mary, giving rise to an understanding of step-brothers.
On these understandings hang the acceptance by Orthodox and Catholics and denials by Protestants of Mary's ever-virginity.

A monolingual Protestant has no hope of navigating this morass of differences in languages and cultures, and yet it is all contained in the Tradition of the Church.

My point is not to debate, but to demonstrate the necessity of seeking authority outside of the self for interpretation. We know too little to think we can properly interpret the Holy Scriptures. We think you understand the words 'until' and 'brother', and little realize how much hang on our interpretation. This is what the others mean by speaking of a different Gospel.

What is seen as blind obedience to Church authority is actually a rational acceptance of my own limitations (which, I hope, keeps me humble!). :)

buzuxi02

8th September 2007, 03:59 AM

Dear Monica,

In the Divine Liturgy we pray for the unity of the faith. But not unity of churches or denominations or religions, this would be syncretism.

To understand this let me give an incident in the life of St Gregory Palamas of the 14th century. The saint decided to engage in a dialogue with an imam, while he was at Constantinople. There was group of christians and muslims present listening. The imam was baffled and could not counter the saints arguments, so the christians were getting nervous seeing the muslim crowd getting agitated.
At one point during the conversation the imam said that muslims believed in all the prophets before Muhammed including Jesus and they accepted the gospel of Christ, so why dont christians believe in the Koran. After the Saint gave a lengthy response and seeing the tense crowd he decided to end it on a positive note. He said, "If we agree according to teaching, we shall come to the same dogma Whosoever comprehends let him judge the power of the words uttered here". A muslim responded,"Some day it will happen that we shall agree".

The saint prayed that it may happen quickly, and we still pray, but at this point it hasnt happened.

The protestants cannot agree with the nicene creed without making themselves hippocrites. The creed says " I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins".

Protestantism allows for multiple baptisms. The creed also reads " I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church", this is hardly a protestant belief.

Protestants also use the creed with the fillioque insertion, yet this is contradicted by scripture.

When Paul miraculously recieved the gospel directly from Christ, he went to the established apostles to confirm it. In fact he was told to do this by divine intervention. "And i went up by revelation and communicated to them the gospel which i preach among the gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation lest by any means I might run or had run, in vain".(Gal 2.2)

I used the allegory of Mal 2.15-16 about divorcing the wife of ones youth. Paul puts it this way, "For I have betrothed you to one husband, that i may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. But i fear, lest somehow as the serpent decieved Eve by his craftiness, so your minds maybe corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you recieve a different spirit which you have not recieved or a different gospel which you have not accepted -you will submit to it readily enough". (2Cor 11.2-5)

As you can see Paul believes such "proselytising" is similar to the craftiness of the devil.

The protestant understanding of what is the Church is condemned in scripture as schism, (1 Cor 1.10-13, 12.25). They also believe that only 'holy people' make up this invisible church who are saved beyond any doubt. Yet according to scripture the church has both saints and sinners (Matt 21.28-32, 1 Cor 12.22-25).

As St Athanasius taught, the body of Christ after crucifixion was incorrupt and undivided (not a bone of him was broken nor was he executed by beheading) because the Church is undivided.

MoNiCa4316

8th September 2007, 05:03 PM

Would you have communion with Mormons as fellow believers? Again, just asking.

I wouldn't go to a Mormon temple and have Communion with them, just because it would be insincere, since I disagree with much of their doctrine. But if I were taking Communion with some Christians, some of whom happened to be Mormon, it wouldn't bother me. I guess what I'm saying is I wouldn't go to their church, but I have no problem praying or worshipping with them elsewhere, as brothers and sisters in Christ. It is not up to me to say whether or not they are Christians.

MoNiCa4316

8th September 2007, 05:13 PM

To "be in Christ" is first to seek out Holy Baptism, then experience His death and Resurrection in the three-fold immersion and so "as many have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." ~St Paul, Galatians 3:27.

Do you believe that Protestant Baptism is valid?

So.... after the Apostles, where did all the Christians go?

I don't understand...they didn't go anywhere..all who believed in Christ since the Apostles are in the Church - in my view.

It is more than rational assent. We must belive from our hearts by making the prayers our own, and seek Him out with our bodies through fasting and attention at prayer.

I agree :) What I meant is that it's Christ who holds the Body together, not doctrine, and to be in the Body we just have to be His children. Protestants also sincerely believe in Christ, even if their doctrine is different. I was just trying to explain my view. :)

Bushmaster78FS

8th September 2007, 05:16 PM

MoNiCa4316

8th September 2007, 05:21 PM

What I believe about salvation:

There are three facets to salvation – justification, sanctification and glorification. These three concepts are intertwined in the concept of salvation. I was saved through Jesus Christ and his death and resurrection but I am also being saved. According to 1 Cor 1:18, “For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” This verse clearly demonstrates that we are in a state of being saved. Also, there is no reference in the New Testament that one is saved here on earth. I don’t view my salvation as “I am saved, I have arrived, I have made it”; rather I view it as “I am on the way, I am moving, I am growing in God, with God and through the power of God”. Salvation is dynamic, it is a constant moving toward being more Christ-like. Each time I choose God’s will, I am working out my salvation – “Therefore, my beloved…work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil 2:12).

I am saved by grace through faith as stated in Eph 2:8. Grace represents to me God’s hand reaching out to me and faith represents my hand stretching out to God. When my hand grasps God’s hand, there is reconciliation and salvation.

I don't believe salvation should be viewed as a destination. I don’t agree with the idea that we are “saved” because we say a certain prayer and that date becomes my “saving date”. In my opinion, this does not encompass the awesome spiritual and multi-dimensional nature of salvation. Jesus Christ was crucified on the cross in 33 AD to pay the price for all humanity’s sins – this was His work of salvation and the date that all of humanity was saved. It is not a different date for each person. However, we have free will and we are able to freely reject this gift of grace that God so lovingly offers to us. This gift is always there and able for us to accept but we can choose to reject it. To say that “I am saved” discredits the fact that we do have free will, which means that I can accept this gift of grace but I also can reject it once I have accepted it. Thus, Salvation is a process, a journey and not a destination or a point of arrival. Salvation began with Jesus’ work on earth and ends when I unite with God in heaven.

I like this view of salvation :)

How I view salvation...I was 'justified' and saved when Christ died on the Cross. At one point in my life, I accepted this gift. I can still reject it if I want to (by the way, many Protestants don't believe in 'once saved always saved'), but the Holy Spirit is helping me persevere. He is also allowing me to grow in Christ and become more like Him (theosis, or sanctification). I became a child of God when I accepted Him, but I am not finished. I guess...I believe that I am saved and given eternal life, because I have put my faith in Christ, but that was only the beginning of the journey, not the end.

MoNiCa4316

8th September 2007, 05:23 PM

Hi Ms. Dahl,

I was concerned with your statement about "accepting Jesus as one's Savior" and wanted to make clear to our guest that this is not all salvation is - I was expanding upon that to include the mysteries, etc. I just wanted to make clear to her that such "acceptance" is not a ticket to heaven, nor should anyone be so proud as to think they have that, though unfortunately that is rampant in the Protestant world.

Hi Orthosdoxa, I see what you mean :) But I don't think that people who feel certain they are going to heaven are proud, because all their hope is in Christ and not in themselves. They still realize that they didn't do anything to deserve this.

MoNiCa4316

8th September 2007, 05:27 PM

I was merely speaking on Protestant Gospel vs. Orthodox Gospel. We may read the same exact words, but interpret them differently. As far as your first question...let's say I do agree with you here, does that mean we agree on the "how"?

No, we may disagree on the 'how'.

MoNiCa4316

8th September 2007, 05:38 PM

Hello Monica!
Your question is a good one. Let me start by saying that you are right as to our having one Lord and one Baptism. Indeed, I, like a number of converts from other Christian faiths here, was accepted into the Orthodox Church via Chrismation, skipping the Orthodox Baptism.

However, the faith differs, because it is determined by interpretation of Scripture. Although we look at the same book, we understand what is written there differently. Who on earth decides what a given passage means?

For Protestants, the interpreter of what is written is the individual reading it. Usually the belief is that the Holy Spirit will guide the individual into correct understanding.

For Orthodox Christians, the interpreter is the Church itself; the accumulated wisdom in clarification of Scripture of all the saints and Church Fathers that ever lived, confirmed over time (weeding out both heresies and inaccuracies).

As individuals, we only have 20, 40 or 60 years of experience and our mostly limited to our own language and cultural understandings. Writings by people removed from us by vast amounts of time and space tend to be re-interpreted, often wrongly, in terms of our own cultural understandings. To offer a benign example, references to a 'stable' where Jesus was born. An American Protestant will picture a wooden structure. However, there is serious traditional backing that the 'stable' was actually what we would call a cave, which was where animals were often kept.

A more serious example would be understanding Mary's status as ever-Virgin. A Protestant today will read (in English) "...and Joseph did not know Mary his wife until she had brought forth the baby Jesus." In English, this word implies, "finishing at the time of". In the original Greek (and in modern Russian, for that matter) the word eos (Russian - poka /pah-KAH/)actually has no such implication and would be better rendered today as 'while' or 'during the time of'.
Similarly the concept of Jesus having 'brothers'. In English, the texts say in black and white, "brothers", a concept which in English means children born to the same mother. Yet if you study Eastern languages you will make the amazing discovery that in a good number of them, the words we render as 'brother' and 'sister' are also used for 'cousin', as there is no separate word. In teaching young Russian children English using only English, I have to jump through major hoops to get the children to understand that cousins must be excluded when I ask them "How many brothers do you have?" Add to this Tradition which tells us that Joseph was much older than Mary, had been previously married, and had children not by Mary, giving rise to an understanding of step-brothers.
On these understandings hang the acceptance by Orthodox and Catholics and denials by Protestants of Mary's ever-virginity.

A monolingual Protestant has no hope of navigating this morass of differences in languages and cultures, and yet it is all contained in the Tradition of the Church.

My point is not to debate, but to demonstrate the necessity of seeking authority outside of the self for interpretation. We know too little to think we can properly interpret the Holy Scriptures. We think you understand the words 'until' and 'brother', and little realize how much hang on our interpretation. This is what the others mean by speaking of a different Gospel.

What is seen as blind obedience to Church authority is actually a rational acceptance of my own limitations (which, I hope, keeps me humble!). :)

Hi Rusmeister, I see what you mean :) I also realize that I have many limitations, particularly in interpreting Scripture. So it is understandable that the Church writings would help people understand it. Well the Protestant interpretation is also sort of based on the Reformers view of Scripture, and what pastors teach. It's not just ourselves. When we say that we are trusting in the Holy Spirit to guide us in the right direction, we're just saying that human writings/teachings are not perfect, but God knows all things. Even though I agree with what my pastor teaches, I am still careful, because he's human and can make mistakes. I'm also careful about my own ideas. I don't fully trust my own mind or the minds of others, but God.
However, I've read a little of the Church fathers and Orthodox saints, and they have some excellent things to say :)

MoNiCa4316

8th September 2007, 05:55 PM

The protestants cannot agree with the nicene creed without making themselves hippocrites. The creed says " I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins".
Protestantism allows for multiple baptisms.

Protestants do not blindly follow "Protestantism". I believe in one baptism, so I can say that part in the Nicene Creed quite safely :)

The creed also reads " I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church", this is hardly a protestant belief.

We do believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church...we just define it differently. When I say this I am talking about the Body of Christ, which includes everyone who believes in Him. I know our definitions are different, I'm just saying that I have no problem with this line in the Creed.

Protestants also use the creed with the fillioque insertion, yet this is contradicted by scripture.

Sorry I'm not sure what you mean. I'm pretty ignorant about this..

I do not think that what Protestants teach is against what the Apostles taught...I guess that's just me. I'm not going to argue it, because this argument can go on forever.

The protestant understanding of what is the Church is condemned in scripture as schism, (1 Cor 1.10-13, 12.25).

I think Paul was just saying that we should just follow Christ, not be divided over human teachings. He talked about the unity of the Church, not the definition of it.

They also believe that only 'holy people' make up this invisible church who are saved beyond any doubt. Yet according to scripture the church has both saints and sinners (Matt 21.28-32, 1 Cor 12.22-25).

Personally, I've never encountered a Protestant who thinks this...I don't know about you. But I haven't. We believe that we are all sinners saved by grace, not 'holy people'.... didn't Paul say that we are all sinners, but still called all Christians 'saints' in the Bible?

MoNiCa4316

8th September 2007, 05:56 PM

I became a Christian after converting from the religion of the devil, Islam, and joined the US Army, during school I prayed hard not to go to Korea, only to be assigned to Korea and meet HOLY ORTHODOXY there... Does that tell you something Monica?

It tells me that God was leading you to Himself during this time, and I'm glad that you are now a Christian :) I guess God wanted you to be Orthodox, and you listened to Him.
God bless.

paleodoxy

8th September 2007, 08:14 PM

I came into Orthodoxy from several Protestant sectors with a higher view of the church than your typical fundie evangelical churches. Many (but not all) Protestants would deny that there is only "one baptism" for the remission of sins, or that there is only "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church".

I came out of Protestant churches which taught that if you weren't baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit with water you were not a Christian according to the ordinary, biblical/ecclesiastical understanding of salvation. These churches refused to re-baptize those who had fallen away only to repent and turn back. They denounced this (re-baptism) as heresy.

The problem with these churches was that their sacramental definition and outworking of what the Church was came in direct conflict with their history as schismatic churches. Those passages in the Creed were developed within a socio-religious Apostolic context. One baptism meant baptism into the one, undivided, Church apostolically established by Christ during the first century. In short, jurisdictional untiy goes to the heart of what Christ and the Apostles taught. The Church Fathers refuted any notion of "one Church" within a milieu of multiple "churches" claiming to all be "valid".

It has to be remembered that, at the same time the Creed was hammered out, the Novatians, Donatists, and Montanists had all been denounced as traitors, schismatics and heretics, even though there were many individuals within their ranks who the Spirit of God was able (and I'm sure willing) to bring to heaven on the Last Day (e.g., Tertullian). And these heretics I am mentioning were puritanical legalists, not heretical from a Trinitarian/Christological standpoint. Yet they were excluded from consideration in the "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church."

This is why even Protestants with a higher notion of visible church unity present an arbitrary and fundamentally wrong-headed approach to ecclesiology and the Church. They are ultimately teaching that the Church, in its essence, is invisible. There isn't one visible Church...now there are many "visible churches" who collectively compose some ethereally defined notion of "church".

The abandonment of visible unity equals the abandonment of visibility period. And people can't wrap their minds around that. But if we don't understand this from a Trinitarian perspective, we will never "get it". Plurality without a unity of essence is polytheism, not Trinitarian Christianity.

What Protestantism asks us to accept by accepting all self-declared "churches" is that there are many christs, many bride grooms, many saviors. Ecclesiastically speaking, that is the message.

To break from Christ's Church, whether it was 500 or a thousand years ago, is to break off of Christ. Christ is undivided, and so His Church. And that Church has both a spiritual and physical composition, like Christ and his image bearing creatures, made up of body and soul in a single visible unity. To deny the essential unity and oneness of Christ's Church is to deny the incarnation in our praxis.

MoNiCa4316

8th September 2007, 08:37 PM

Shubunkin

8th September 2007, 09:34 PM

buzuxi02

9th September 2007, 03:29 AM

But why is unity considered unity of doctrine? Why can't we all have unity, even though we disagree on some points? According to Romans 14, etc, there were disagreements even in the early church. Those who were declared 'heretics' were those who denied the divinity of Christ, or of the Holy Spirit, etc..they were actually denying the gospel. But most Protestants view God as a Trinity, and believe the same things about Christ that the Orthodox do.
Why can't we have unity that goes beyond agreement/disagreement, and is more grounded on loving one another as Christians?
There are other ways to show the world 'visible unity' of the Church, not just everyone having the same doctrine. Christ said the world would know His disciples by our love, and by our 'fruits'. Of course it is important to guard the Church from errors, but who decides what is the Truth? I believe it's in the Bible.
I do believe there is only one Christ and Saviour, not many for each church.
If I truly 'broke off from Christ', then how come I am able to have a relationship with Him, and why do I feel closer to Him than ever before? If the devil is behind me becoming Protestant, then why are the 'fruits' so like the fruits of the Holy Spirit?
Maybe when they said that those who leave lose their soul, there was only one church..and leaving it meant becoming atheist, or Muslim, or Buddhist, etc. But now, the case is quite different. Maybe it doesn't apply today?

In any case, I think I should retire from this discussion. Thank you all for taking the time to answer my questions :) I just don't want this to turn into a debate. I'll keep on trusting God that He would lead me in the right direction, and I know that He is perfectly trustworthy. If He ever leads me to Orthodoxy, I will let you all know :)

God bless.

monica
Monica this unity while its politically correct especially in the western world and is the goal of the WCC, is simply heresy.

The article in the nicene creed which reads One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church was added in the council of Constantinople in 381 a.d. This council was "star-studded" if you will, in attendance were people who are spiritual and theological giants. It included St Gregory Nazianzen, St. Gregory Nyssa, St Cyril of Jerusalem, St Amphilocius, St Peter of Sebaste.

The writings of some of these men are extensive and can be looked up online. They are the same teaching as St Basil the great who died 2 years before the council, his writings are extensive as well. You will see that its disingenuous to reinterpret the nicene verse to say something it does not.
There is no need to put a different interpretation on the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church phrase since we know exactly what it means explained by the very same people who penned it.

Orthodoxy is the fullness of the truth, it cannot compromise this position by sanctioning competing theology and praxis.

Lets take a look at how the bible described the unity of the church, and see that the protestant understanding of invisible denominations and branch theories, is simply a way to rebel against scripture:

According to Jesus, It should be One as Christ and His Father are One. John 17.11, 21

The Church is one heart and one soul. Acts 4.32

Of one accord. Acts 5.12
Of one mind. 2Cor 13.11

By adapting to a protestant mentality of what the Church is or should be, we simply would be contradicting the bible and the faith we recieved.
I'm sorry if you dont like this, never meant to break your spirit, but as an Orthodox christian its my christian duty to safeguard the purity of the entire Apostolic Faith and pass it down to my children after me unadultered.

eoe

9th September 2007, 07:19 AM

Why can't we all have unity, even though we disagree on some points? Because some of the things that we disagree on are deal breakers.

We are to keep the faith as it was delivered (Jude 1) and not add, alter or subtract from it.

(from earlier..)
Unfortunately I don't have enough time to look for this in the Bible. Here's what I remember:
1. believe in Him to be born again (John 3)
This has conditions:
2. if we really love Him, we would obey His commands. I don't think that our works save us (as Paul said, we are saved by grace) but they are the evidence of our salvation. It is impossible to have real faith without works.
2. we must forgive others, or we would not be forgiven.
That's just what I can remember.
Is this different than what the Orthodox believe?Not what I was looking for. Christ said that anyone that wanted to follow him had to do 3 things.

Deny themselves.
Pick up a cross.
Follow him.
MKJV] Matthew 16:24 Then Jesus said to His disciples, If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me.
Another question... What is it that we are saved from? (sword://MKJV/Matthew%2016:24)

[MKJV] Luke 9:23 And He said to all, If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow Me. [MKJV] Mark 8:34 And calling near the crowd with His disciples, He said to them, Whoever will come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me. Here is another question:
What are we saved from?

MoNiCa4316

9th September 2007, 07:02 PM

Well, I look at it this way, if the saints from the early Church could come back, which Church do you think they would agree with? With Church still holds the same faith they did? The Orthodox Church would be easily recognized by these people. This is the faith of the Apostles, not something with some different doctrines that were made up in 18th, 19th, or even 20th centuries, and the early Church certainly didn't have rock 'n roll bands in the services.

I see what you are saying, Cygne, and it makes sense, because the early saints would probably choose the church most similar to theirs. But God's perpective on the matter might differ (I don't know, but it's a possibility)...because He looks at people's hearts, not at the externals. I'm not trying to speak for God, I'm just saying that it seems like one of the possibilities to me... personally I believe that He doesn't care if our worship music is Gregorian chants or Hillsongs ;) I guess we'll know someday...

MoNiCa4316

9th September 2007, 07:18 PM

Because some of the things that we disagree on are deal breakers.

We are to keep the faith as it was delivered (Jude 1) and not add, alter or subtract from it.

But you see, Protestants don't think that they have added or subtracted from what's in the Bible, which is our authority. Maybe if you add Tradition as a second authority, some things change...but most Protestants don't really look at Tradition, because they consider it a human thing.

Not what I was looking for. Christ said that anyone that wanted to follow him had to do 3 things.

Deny themselves.
Pick up a cross.
Follow him.

Are you saying that my 'list' was wrong? :confused: Christ said both the things in your 'list' and in mine. They are not mutually exclusive. Or were you trying to show that Protestantism is self centered and we don't want to 'deny ourselves'? Well I don't know about other churches, but in my church today the pastor said a whole sermon about making ourselves servants to be used by God..dying to self and putting His Kingdom ahead of our own desires. In fact that's a common subject he talks about.

Here is another question:
What are we saved from?

From death?
God saves us and gives us everlasting life.

MoNiCa4316

9th September 2007, 07:22 PM

Monica this unity while its politically correct especially in the western world and is the goal of the WCC, is simply heresy.

The article in the nicene creed which reads One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church was added in the council of Constantinople in 381 a.d. This council was "star-studded" if you will, in attendance were people who are spiritual and theological giants. It included St Gregory Nazianzen, St. Gregory Nyssa, St Cyril of Jerusalem, St Amphilocius, St Peter of Sebaste.

The writings of some of these men are extensive and can be looked up online. They are the same teaching as St Basil the great who died 2 years before the council, his writings are extensive as well. You will see that its disingenuous to reinterpret the nicene verse to say something it does not.
There is no need to put a different interpretation on the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church phrase since we know exactly what it means explained by the very same people who penned it.

Orthodoxy is the fullness of the truth, it cannot compromise this position by sanctioning competing theology and praxis.

Lets take a look at how the bible described the unity of the church, and see that the protestant understanding of invisible denominations and branch theories, is simply a way to rebel against scripture:

According to Jesus, It should be One as Christ and His Father are One. John 17.11, 21

The Church is one heart and one soul. Acts 4.32

Of one accord. Acts 5.12
Of one mind. 2Cor 13.11

By adapting to a protestant mentality of what the Church is or should be, we simply would be contradicting the bible and the faith we recieved.
I'm sorry if you dont like this, never meant to break your spirit, but as an Orthodox christian its my christian duty to safeguard the purity of the entire Apostolic Faith and pass it down to my children after me unadultered.

Ok well I'll think more about this, but I just want to say that I think the Church can still have Biblical unity even if we have different worship styles, etc. As long as we all believe the same gospel, which is in the Bible, and which most Christians already believe...and as long as we consider each other brothers and sisters in Christ. And the Creed was written before there were any Protestants, and the 'heretical ideas' that were dismissed during that time are also considered wrong in good Protestant churches.
I guess my answer to all this is...God knows, I'll pray about it, and research some more :)

repentant

9th September 2007, 08:19 PM

The Bible, like any other writing, can be interpretd many different ways. Just like a class of students doing a report on a book, and each person seeing completely different things, the Bible is no different. SO what we have to rely on to interpret the correct meaning is the Holy Spirit. Now we know from Scripture that Jesus started a Church on earth, and we know He promised the Holy Spirit to guide this Church. So from this we know that the Church started by Christ will have the Holy Spirit guiding it. The question is, what Church is it? Well the only visbible Church on earth that has NEVER changed is the Eastern Orthodox Church. The same men who Canonized Scripture that you read, and also interpreted them for us, are ALL part of the EOC's history.

Another guide to show that the EOC is the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is the unity of faith from arounf the WORLD. It does not matter if you live in America, Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia or any country that has an EOC Church, you will find the same faith. This is highly different than the Protestant Church's who vary in teachings from block to block.

MoNiCa4316

9th September 2007, 10:09 PM

I believe that the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church, but I also think that He is present in every believer.

"Having believed, you were marked in Him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession—to the praise of His glory." (Ephesians 1:13)

So from this we know that the Church started by Christ will have the Holy Spirit guiding it. The question is, what Church is it? Well the only visbible Church on earth that has NEVER changed is the Eastern Orthodox Church

I see what you're saying, but don't we know the Holy Spirit by the 'fruits of the Spirit', not whether or not something is unchanging? If a Protestant church has the 'fruits of the Spirit', doesn't that mean He's guiding it?

repentant

9th September 2007, 10:17 PM

I believe that the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church, but I also believe that He is present in every believer.

I see what you're saying, but don't we know the Holy Spirit by the 'fruits of the Spirit', not whether or not something is unchanging? If a Protestant church has the 'fruits of the Spirit', how could He not be guiding it?

If the 1000's if not millions of Saints produced by the EOC are not fruit, then I do not know what is...the incoruptness of their bodies, the miracles contributed to those alive and living, and everything else...

MoNiCa4316

9th September 2007, 10:19 PM

If the 1000's if not millions of Saints produced by the EOC are not fruit, then I do not know what is...the incoruptness of their bodies, the miracles contributed to those alive and living, and everything else...

I never said that the Holy Spirit is not guiding the EO church. In fact, I believe He is. I was just trying to say that I believe He guides other Christian churches as well, Catholic and Protestant.

:)

repentant

9th September 2007, 10:20 PM

What are their fruits?

rusmeister

9th September 2007, 10:33 PM

But you see, Protestants don't think that they have added or subtracted from what's in the Bible, which is our authority. Maybe if you add Tradition as a second authority, some things change...but most Protestants don't really look at Tradition, because they consider it a human thing.

Right. But we think they did. Subtract, specifically. From Scripture, never mind Tradition. That, and misunderstand. That and not returning to the Eastern Church when Luther felt it necessary to break off from the West.

Again, Monica, if you don't have questions about Orthodox practice, this ought to be in our debate subforum, where visitors are invited to offer their own beliefs and compare. The general forum is for those that are curious about Orthodox teaching and practice.

Do you have any more questions about salvation from the Orthodox perspective?

MoNiCa4316

9th September 2007, 10:39 PM

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires." (Galatians 5: 22-24)

I know Protestants whose lives were changed after they became Christians, and I think if they did not have the Holy Spirit they would not have begun to display these 'fruits' in their lives, but would have continued living to please their 'sinful nature'. Their lives are the evidence. I know people who are leading others to Christ and showing them God's love, and helping the poor. There are Protestant churches (as well as Orthodox and Catholic churches) that are making a difference in this world, and advancing God's Kingdom. I can add my own testimony to this; even though I still have far to go in my walk with Christ, I know that He has changed me.

There are also miracles that happen in Protestant churches, but I think that changed lives and 'fruits of the Spirit' are the better evidence. Miraculous signs and wonders are not necessarily from God, but love, joy, and peace always are.

By the way, I've read about several Orthodox saints, and they sound like really godly people who greatly advanced His Kingdom. :) They definitely had the 'fruits of the Spirit'. I like reading about the early saints and the Apostles because they are great examples for us, and they inspire me to put God first in my life.

MoNiCa4316

9th September 2007, 10:44 PM

Do you have any more questions about salvation from the Orthodox perspective?

Well, just one :) Do you believe that the Holy Spirit is active outside of the Orthodox Church, in some way? ..in what way?

repentant

9th September 2007, 10:46 PM

paleodoxy

9th September 2007, 10:48 PM

I believe that the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church, but I also think that He is present in every believer.

I think that the Spirit works inside individual persons outside Orthodoxy, and brings them to the fullness of salvation on the Last Day. However, as "churches", these other establishments do not constitute the Body of Christ on earth.

"Having believed, you were marked in Him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession—to the praise of His glory." (Ephesians 1:13)But remember that these passages occur within a context - the context of the baptized community which Christ established, the Apostles founded, and their successors preserved and defended - prior to any schism.

I see what you're saying, but don't we know the Holy Spirit by the 'fruits of the Spirit', not whether or not something is unchanging? If a Protestant church has the 'fruits of the Spirit', doesn't that mean He's guiding it?There are surely genuine spiritual fruits for display within the lives of many individual Protestant and Roman Catholic persons, and we do not doubt that many will enjoy eternal salvation with faithful Orthodox Christians in heaven. (BTW, neither do we believe that every Orthodox Christian will automatically be saved on the last day - those who are Orthodox in name only, and do not bear the requisite fruit or evidence of saving faith.)

So, from an "individual" standpoint, the Spirit is not limited by the Orthodox Church, and often works outside of it. But the Orthodox Church is the ordained means through which God intended to save the world, and it is not valid to pursue salvation in any other church. The Church is where Christ and the Spirit are found, and when the Spirit works outside of the Church in the lives of other individuals, He is doing so because He is merciful, not because he is somehow validating their churches.

From a corporate standpoint, churches outside Orthodoxy have not manifested the requisite fruits of the Holy Spirit, as they are all products of schism.

The individual/corporate distinction is essential to consider as we discuss these issues... The Orthodox are obligated to remain firm, in humility, in the defense of the Orthodox Tradition as that belonging to Christ and His Holy Spirit. Yet, we are also to extend mercy by acknowledging that God can (and has) saved individual persons outside the elect community, as He did by saving individuals outside the nation of Israel under the Old Covenant, for example.

The balance here is to be no more strict, nor more lax than God when it comes to the question of salvation. We are fallible humans, and as such are obligated to defend N.T. claims about the nature of the Church, while also recognizing that neither do we possess the authority or power to judge men's souls.

This, in a nut shell, is the Orthodox view - and I say this with absolute confidence that if my younger sister and mother are unable to make the transition to Orthodoxy from Protestantism in their lifetime, knowing them as I do, I will enjoy sweet fellowship them in heaven for all eternity. And from what I have observed of you in this discussion, I have no doubt that one day, you and I will be greeting each other as well... :)

repentant

9th September 2007, 10:49 PM

Well, just one :) Do you believe that the Holy Spirit is active outside of the Orthodox Church, in some way? ..in what way?

In bringing those outside, in.

MoNiCa4316

9th September 2007, 10:55 PM

not for nothing Monica, but I do know some pretty good aethists. Some of whom can check off everything in that list in Galatians. The fact is, Satan knows his time is up, and is working overtime to bring people with him. If his way is to make people seem like good people, then that will be his way. Even Scripture says that he will use Scripture if it suites him. So in the end, it comes down to alot more than what is considered fruits of the Spirit in Galatians.

I'm not saying that Protestants have the Holy Spirit because they are good people. I'm saying that they have the Spirit because they are changed people. They became better once they became Christian. It is the change in a person that testifies to God's grace. I know some good atheists too. Well if they ever become Christian, they would be ever better.

The Bible says that we shall know everyone by their fruits. This implies that the 'fruits' don't lie. I don't think that satan would make people more loving, unless it was a fake, twisted kind of love that deceives them into thinking that they are good. But real, self sacrificial type of love never comes from him, it only comes from God. And there are Protestants and Catholics who display this 'fruit', as a result of a change in their lives, not because they were born naturally good people (like the 'good atheists'). I don't see how it could be anything but the Holy Spirit...

paleodoxy

9th September 2007, 11:01 PM

Some of the corporate fruits of Protestantism that we see have manifested themselves more recently (in modern times), and represent concessions to many and various heresies, some Trinitarian (such as the modalism of United Pentecostals and others), some more gnostic, and verging on Trinitarian heresy (Word/Faith movement), etc. There is also entertainment centered (man centered) worship; secular nominalist Christianity; Dispensationalism/Zionism which sees the nation of Israel as the chosen nation and the N.T. Church as a mere "parenthesis" in history; Liberalism with its concessions to abortion, homosexuality, women ordination to the priesthood, etc.; the increasing recognition of non-Trinitarian cults (e.g., Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses), etc. And the cults themselves (Unitarians, Christian Science, Seventh Day Adventists, the two previously mentioned, etc.) were all offshoots of Protestantism.

All of this can be attributed to the rampant individualism started at the Protestant Reformation under the seemingly innocent call for "Sola Scriptura" (i.e., every man with a Bible in hand is now competent to determine its teaching).

repentant

9th September 2007, 11:04 PM

I'm not saying that Protestants have the Holy Spirit because they are good people. I'm saying that they have the Spirit because they are changed people. They became better once they became Christian. It is the change in a person that testifies to God's grace. I know some good atheists too. Well if they ever become Christian, they would be ever better.

The Bible says that we shall know everyone by their fruits. This implies that the 'fruits' don't lie. I don't think that satan would make people more loving, unless it was a fake, twisted kind of love that deceives them into thinking that they are good. But real, self sacrificial type of love never comes from him, it only comes from God. And there are Protestants and Catholics who display this 'fruit', as a result of a change in their lives, not because they were born naturally good people (like the 'good atheists'). I don't see how it could be anything but the Holy Spirit...

You are saying that the fruits are outward manifistations, are you not? Something people can percieve. The changing of a person is something you, I or anyone cannot determine. What exactly is changed about them? How did they change? What makes you think they are better? Do you see it? Do they tell you?

By there fruits you shall know them, yes. But what fruits? The fruits of faith. The fruits that pertain to the fruit of His teachings.* They are not what you think they are, good deeds.

*See Matthew ch 7 verses 14-23

MoNiCa4316

9th September 2007, 11:04 PM

I think that the Spirit works inside individual persons outside Orthodoxy, and brings them to the fullness of salvation on the Last Day. However, as "churches", these other establishments do not constitute the Body of Christ on earth.

Ok, thanks for clarifying. :)

But remember that these passages occur within a context - the context of the baptized community which Christ established, the Apostles founded, and their successors preserved and defended - prior to any schism.

Yes, but it says "having believed"..they got the Holy Spirit because of their faith. Remember in Acts, the unbaptized Gentiles received the Holy Spirit, and everyone were surprised? But of course yes, it's always good to look at context.

There are surely genuine spiritual fruits for display within the lives of many individual Protestant and Roman Catholic persons, and we do not doubt that many will enjoy eternal salvation with faithful Orthodox Christians in heaven. (BTW, neither do we believe that every Orthodox Christian will automatically be saved on the last day - those who are Orthodox in name only, and do not bear the requisite fruit or evidence of saving faith.)

:) ok.

From a corporate standpoint, churches outside Orthodoxy have not manifested the requisite fruits of the Holy Spirit, as they are all products of schism.

What do you mean by the 'requisite fruits'? Why do you think they have not manifested them?

This, in a nut shell, is the Orthodox view - and I say this with absolute confidence that if my younger sister and mother are unable to make the transition to Orthodoxy from Protestantism in their lifetime, knowing them as I do, I will enjoy sweet fellowship them in heaven for all eternity. And from what I have observed of you in this discussion, I have no doubt that one day, you and I will be greeting each other as well... :)

:) I hope.
God bless

monica

MoNiCa4316

9th September 2007, 11:06 PM

In bringing those outside, in.

Ok, I won't argue :) thanks for answering my question.

It's kind of like how I believe the Holy Spirit to be working in the world in general..He draws unbelievers to Himself and gives them faith.

Breaking Babylon

9th September 2007, 11:08 PM

Monica, I'd like to add that questions such as whether or not the Holy Spirit is active outside of Orthodoxy is best answered by a Priest. While laymen may have a good knowledge of the Church, a Priest is best suited for this type of discussion.

I personally do believe the Spirit is working outside of the Church. As I said before, He led me home while I was outside searching. We also can't forget the story of the three Saints in Orthodoxy who lived on an island, knowing no prayer other than "Three are Ye, three are we, have mercy on us." These holy men were in such a state of grace that they walked upon water to meet the Bishop.

Let's not forget either that the Zoroastrian Magi [three wise men] followed the star to Bethlehem, they weren't even Christian at the time.

My Grandfather, a Protestant, is the most saintly man I have ever met in my life. In my whole life I have never seen him speak a word in anger, there was never a time I saw him pray that tears didn't flow from his eyes, he shines with joy and peace and trusts fully in the Lord. He is a better man than I could hope to be. I definitely believe the Spirit is with him. I don't believe he possesses the fullness of the Truth of the Church, but that doesn't make him less spiritual than any of us.

As my spiritual father told me, as Orthodox Christians we will be held more accountable for our sins for possessing a greater knowledge. Father once told me that in a way, it's a blessing for those who have never heard of Orthodoxy, because the Lord will be more patient with them in His mercy. However, we, possessing the fullness of truth, should we choose to ignore it, will have more to answer for. More knowledge, more responsibility.

I believe the Church is Christ's Body, I believe it's the only Church He built, I believe it preserves the fullness of Truth and the succession of the Apostles. I believe that our Merciful Father is more present within the Church, within the Mysteries, within the prayers of the Fathers, than any other place in the world -- but He is not hidden from anyone. If I lay my head even in hell, behold, You are there

Should we truly, humbly search for the faith of the Apostles we will find Orthodoxy. But God is exceedingly merciful and loving to all and the Spirit goes where He will.

So, from an "individual" standpoint, the Spirit is not limited by the Orthodox Church, and often works outside of it. But the Orthodox Church is the ordained means through which God intended to save the world, and it is not valid to pursue salvation in any other church. The Church is where Christ and the Spirit are found, and when the Spirit works outside of the Church in the lives of other individuals, He is doing so because He is merciful, not because he is somehow validating their churches.
Totally agreed. I don't believe that our God of mercy would ignore anyone who practiced the Christian virtues with love because of a particular denomination they attend, however, just because He is working in His mercy for the salvation of one's soul, not willing that anyone should perish, it doesn't validate the church that person attends. There is One Church.

To further elaborate...

While the Holy Spirit, I believe, is at work within individuals outside of the Church; those individuals lack guidance. This is why I could never agree with 'home church' or any such thing. In Orthodoxy we are blessed with a treasure house of knowledge from the early pillars of the Church, the Theologians, and the Desert Fathers. Their Spirit-inspired interpretations of Scripture and their discernment guides us even today, and will continue to guide the Church until He comes in glory. Outside of the Church there isn't much guidance, other than what Pastor Steve has to tell you. There are over 20,000, perhaps closer now to 30,000 sects today calling themselves Christian, and they all have different interpretations of what the Bible 'really means.'

My point here is that although people may live right according to the Bible, are they really living right according to the Bible? Who or what is giving them their interpretation of the divine words therein? Discernment is a virtue not easily acquired and is always best checked by a Priest. We as humans are too gullible, egotistical and prideful to ever hope to have a 'personal take' on the Bible. We need to look back at how the Apostles and Martyrs knew the Bible.

Acts 8:30 So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah, and said, "Do you understand what you are reading?" 8:31 And he said, "How can I, unless someone guides me?" And he asked Philip to come up and sit with him.

Who did Philip run to?

We have to earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the Apostles[Jude 1]. Not the faith according to Pastor Steve, or Calvary church, or Linda's Bible study, etc etc.

MoNiCa4316

9th September 2007, 11:19 PM

You are saying that the fruits are outward manifistations, are you not? Something people can percieve. The changing of a person is something you, I or anyone cannot determine. What exactly is changed about them? How did they change? What makes you think they are better? Do you see it? Do they tell you?

Well, only God knows people's hearts. I don't go around trying to see if people are 'really Christian' or not ^_^ but I've known people who changed quite dramatically after their conversion. If a person is helping to establish the Kingdom of God and doing His will, they are bearing fruit, and only God knows if they are doing so in goodness and in truth.

By there fruits you shall know them, yes. But what fruits? The fruits of faith. The fruits that pertain to the fruit of His teachings.* They are not what you think they are, good deeds.

*See Matthew ch 7 verses 14-22

"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'"

Well all the stuff about prophesying and driving out demons, etc, is 'deeds'. I'm not talking about 'deeds', even 'good deeds' as you said. I was talking about the goodness in a person, as a result of the Holy Spirit...not those who perform miracles, but those who, as it says, do God's will. What is His will? I'm not qualified to answer this question, but I'm guessing a part of it is following the Commandments, for example.

What would you say the 'fruits' are?

edit:

By the way, I found something in 1 John 2:

"We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But if anyone obeys his word, God's love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did."

Basically, if we do what He commands, we know that we are His. And if we do as He commands, we shall have the 'fruits of the Spirit' (Galatians) displayed in our lives, and they shall be real fruits. I am quite certain that there are all types of Christians - Orthodox, Protestant, Roman Catholic - who follow Christ in this way. This sort of life can only come from the Holy Spirit - it's a result of Him living in us and making us 'new creations'. I'm just trying to clarify what I was saying before.

MoNiCa4316

9th September 2007, 11:33 PM

Isaac the Syrian thanks for the post, it is helpful :)

One question..

As my spiritual father told me, as Orthodox Christians we will be held more accountable for our sins for possessing a greater knowledge. Father once told me that in a way, it's a blessing for those who have never heard of Orthodoxy, because the Lord will be more patient with them in His mercy. However, we, possessing the fullness of truth, should we choose to ignore it, will have more to answer for. More knowledge, more responsibility.

If Orthodoxy is the fulness of truth, then it's understandable that those who reject it have more to answer for. But what if a person doesn't actually reject it, they just don't become Orthodox, because they don't feel that God is telling them to convert? Would you say that they are just not hearing God? I readily accept Orthodox Christians as my brothers and sisters, and I don't have anything against the faith...I just feel like God is alright with me being Protestant...the reason I was researching Orthodoxy is because it's my family's faith, and I am interested in what other Christians believe. But after this whole discussion, I must confess that I don't know what to think anymore. I want to make the decision that's in line with God's will, and I guess the best thing to do now is to seek His will in prayer.

MoNiCa4316

9th September 2007, 11:46 PM

While the Holy Spirit, I believe, is at work within individuals outside of the Church; those individuals lack guidance. This is why I could never agree with 'home church' or any such thing. In Orthodoxy we are blessed with a treasure house of knowledge from the early pillars of the Church, the Theologians, and the Desert Fathers.

Yes, but this information is not taught during the church service..is it? I mean, you still have to go and read the works of the Church Fathers, etc on your own. Protestants also have access to this information and can read it, if they want to (I'm planning to, at least). But in your everyday life, you don't have saints and theologians advising you, you just have the Holy Spirit. So can't He not also advise you while you're reading the Bible? I'm not actually debating you, I'm just wondering if you'd agree... I mean, I think the Church Fathers understood lots of stuff that I don't, but the Holy Spirit has perfect wisdom. Isn't His guidance the best type of guidance? I do think that the reading material and of course the Bible is extremely useful, but the Holy Spirit plays a major part in every Christian's life...

What about 1 John 2:27?

"As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him."

repentant

9th September 2007, 11:52 PM

Well, only God knows people's hearts. I don't go around trying to see if people are 'really Christian' or not ^_^ but I've known people who changed quite dramatically after their conversion. If a person is helping to establish the Kingdom of God and doing His will, they are bearing fruit, and only God knows if they are doing so in goodness and in truth.

that is the problem, you have a missunderstanding on what bearing fruit is..you think it is what you say here-people changing, establish the Kindgom of God, etc-the fact is- Jesus said "by their fruits you will know them", and that they are "wolves in sheeps clothing". So if the people look like sheep, but are truly wolves, then what are the "fruits" they will be known by? Can it be something such as them being nice? Giving to a poor person? What can it be? Well it can't be any of that *because* Jesus said they will look like sheep. Therefore, their outward appearnce, and actions will look like a sheep, or in other words a true teacher of God. Therefore everything you said above CANNOT be what Jesus is reffering to. I.E. change, *trying* to establish the Kingdom of God . BUT, Jesus says what their fruits are. in Matt ch 7.

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'"

Not everyone who claims *or looks* like a good Christian, truly is. Only those who do His Will. What is His Will? His Will is passing on His correct teachings and Church, thus producing fruit. Sometimes an apple looks all nice outside, but when you cut it open, it has a worm...

Well all the stuff about prophesying and driving out demons, etc, is 'deeds'. I'm not talking about 'deeds', even 'good deeds' as you said. I was talking about the goodness in a person, as a result of the Holy Spirit...not those who perform miracles, but those who, as it says, do God's will. What is His will? I'm not qualified to answer this question, but I'm guessing a part of it is following the Commandments, for example.

What would you say the 'fruits' are?

How else do YOU judge the goodness of a person (in your opinion anyway) OTHER than deeds.....you can't.

As far as what the fruits are, like I said above, fruits are knowing, practicing and teaching the correct Faith of and in Jesus Christ our Savior.

Like I said before, there are aethists that can produce fruits as you say they are, as in obeying the commandements-except for the believing in God part. Atheists can look like sheep, can they not? But what are the fruits that you will know they are false? The lie that God doesn't exist. Bad fruit. Same with Muslims, JW's, Mormons, etc...

Breaking Babylon

9th September 2007, 11:53 PM

Isaac the Syrian thanks for the post, it is helpful :)
My pleasure. May God help us both. :crosseo:

One question..Absolutely.

If Orthodoxy is the fulness of truth, then it's understandable that those who reject it have more to answer for. But what if a person doesn't actually reject it, they just don't become Orthodox, because they don't feel that God is telling them to convert? Would you say that they are just not hearing God? I readily accept Orthodox Christians as my brothers and sisters, and I don't have anything against the faith...I just feel like God is alright with me being Protestant...the reason I was researching Orthodoxy is because it's my family's faith, and I am interested in what other Christians believe. But after this whole discussion, I must confess that I don't know what to think anymore. I want to make the decision that's in line with God's will, and I guess the best thing to do now is to seek His will in prayer.The first thing I would tell you aren't my words at all.

Jeremiah 17:9 "The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked, who shall know it?"

Feelings are never to be a basis for truth. Ever. I know that this is a bold statement and hard to grasp, believe me, I had been involved with a charismatic church for awhile and feelings were just about the basis for everything.

Humility, accompanied with prayer, is what will give you answers. Whoever will humble himself will be exalted, and whosoever will exalt himself will be abased. The problem with so many of us today is we base the truth on what I think, what I feel. Who are we to contend with the faith and teachings that the Martyrs died for? The answers you've given us in your thread, the foundation that's held you up for this long, would you lay your life down for that as the millions of martyrs for the Church have?

To go on to your next part, "would you say that they are just not hearing God", yes. I believe that. I believe that because I've been there. It goes back to the essence of egotism, "I". We've become so