The first-century church and the Orthodox Church ... are they truly the same?

[- DRA -]

Foreword: The following excerpt was taken from the thread entitled: “What are we? Heretics? Lost? Brothers/Sisters?”; page 1; post 8; by Orthosdoxa. My intent is simply to use this post to generate further discussion about the history of the Lord’s church. It’s not to pick at Orthosdoxa. Rather, it’s simply to discuss what I consider to be an accurate portrayal of the Orthodox Church. Here’s the excerpt …

I don't know how much you know about early Church history, but let's just look at a couple things (in an extremely oversimplified manner - we can do more in depth later).

The Church began at Pentecost, and began to spread. And there were no denominations - there was just the one Church. Unfortunately, sinful human nature being what it is, people began to stray from what the Apostles had handed down, and make up their own stuff. A man named Montanus began to teach that it was good and right to baptize people in the name of "The Father, the Son, and Montanus"! A man named Arius began to teach that Jesus wasn't REALLY God; just the highest of all created beings. And... people began to follow these teachings! The Church wasn't just going to sit idly by while such was happening, or say, "Oh, it's ok that we all believe drastically different things- we're all the same!" NO. (And aren't you glad they didn't?! I am!!!) It declared such things heretical, and fought vigorously against them. And these are just two examples.

What the Apostles handed down was pretty clear, and anytime it WASN'T clear, a council was called, for the leaders of the Church to discern the Holy Spirit. The first of these councils was described in Acts 15.

There were 5 ancient Patriarchal sees - Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople.

In 1054, Rome split from the other 4, and the Church of Rome has been adding to and subtracting from the ancient doctrines ever since. (Of course, Rome's side of the story is that the other 4 sees are the ones who messed up, and that all the changes that have been made are right, but this is the Orthodox board, so we're telling OUR side

And - we call what Rome did heresy. It left the ancient Church, and it left the ancient teachings. 500 years later, the Protestant Reformation was born, and while Martin Luther may have meant well, he went about it completely wrong. He was right that Rome was doing things that were NOT taught by the Apostles or practiced in the early Church, but...he was as wrong as Rome.... because just like Rome, he then invented new doctrines that had never been seen before, instead of returning to the Church that had held on to the ancient doctrines all along - the Orthodox Church. And since the Reformation, the western church has continued to splinter further and further and further. It was only at THIS time that the doctrine of an "invisible Church" became necessary, and was invented - it had never been heard of in all of Christianity before.

From another perspective …

First off, it is agreed that Jesus established His church at Pentecost in Acts chapter 2 as He promised in Matthew 16:18. From a scriptural perspective, His church was referred to in various ways. For example, it is “the church” in Acts 2:47, Acts 5:11, and Acts 8:1,3 NKJV; "the church of God" in Acts 20:28; "the body of Christ" in 1 Corinthians 12:27; "the bride of Christ" (based on the relationship between Christ and His church presented in Ephesians 5:21-32); and "the churches of Christ" in Romans 16:16 (each individual church alluded to in that context would have been a church of Christ). Although there is one body or church presented in the New Testament (per Ephesians 1:22-34; 4:4), the church can be viewed in two ways: 1.) the universal church is made up of Christians all across the world 2.) the local church is made up of individual Christians that worship and labor together in the Lord’s service in different geographical locations (e.g., Jerusalem, Corinth, Ephesus).
Approximately 30 years after the church was established in Jerusalem in Acts 2, the apostle Paul foretold of “some” that would depart from the faith in 1 Timothy 4:1-3. Forbidding to marry and abstaining from foods which God intended Christians to be able to consume are two notable characteristics of this falling away. Also, Luke, in the book of Acts, forewarned of elders who would become unfaithful and pull disciples away from the Lord to themselves (Acts 20:30). Before leaving this thought, I think two things should be noted: 1.) “some” departed from the faith, which meant “some” remained faithful 2.) those that departed developed the two obvious characteristics previously pointed out.

With these points in mind, we need to determine who fell away from truth, and who didn’t? To cut right to the chase, I believe it points to the rise of the Catholic Church. The scriptural role of the elder (or bishop) changed to oversight over multiple churches and further digression led to an unscriptural hierarchy of church leadership (priests, cardinals, pope). Those in church leadership roles were forbidden to marry, and restrictions were put in place about eating certain foods on certain days (e.g., no meat on Friday).

Overtime, the Catholic Church rose in power and merged with the Roman government. Thus, they became to be known as the Roman Catholic Church. In 1054, internal strife caused a division that resulted in some leaving Catholicism. To differentiate themselves, those that left Catholicism called themselves the Orthodox (right) Church as opposed to the Catholic (wrong) Church.

Later, others within the Roman Catholic Church became increasingly displeased with its teachings and practices and sought to reform it. We know this as the Protestant or Reformation movement. Given time, some within this movement realized their teachings and practices weren’t in harmony with the teachings of the New Testament. Thus, they sought to return to faithfulness by simply doing as the New Testament teaches.

Over time up to the present, other churches and cults have continued to arise who profess to follow the Lord. Overall, as one views this version of Christianity from a modern perspective, many are led to think the Lord established all these different churches and approves of their different teachings and different practices. On the other hand, when one picks up the Bible and begins to diligently search the Scriptures for themselves (Acts 17:11-12), the mystery of truth is revealed (Ephesians 3:3-6). The Lord combined both Jews and Gentiles together into His church and unified them (Ephesians 4:1-6). He did that in the first century. That is the church that we should be members of. The church that the Lord adds the saved to per Acts 2:47. The church He built. The church He purchased with His blood. His bride. His spiritual body. His church. The church of Christ.

With these things said, maybe it is just a little clearer now with my concerns over where the Orthodox Church fits into the scheme of things. Although in one sense its members can show a connection between this church and the New Testament church, I sincerely believe they fail to see their history is on the wrong side of truth – through those who departed from the faith in 1 Timothy 4:1-3.

In conclusion, my intent is not to be “mean-spirited” or “nasty,” but simply to express what I believe to be the truth.

Would anyone like to discuss these two different perspectives?

[Lukaris]

Perhaps an example of the interaction of scripture & tradition may help. In the area of fasting our Saviour clearly calls us to this in Matthew 6:16 & even reminds the apostles later of the need of prayer & fasting (Matthew 17:21). Details of fasting are not given in scripture but it is entirely scriptural to observe it as part of Christian life. There is an early catechism called the Didache (ca. 100) that says to fast on Wednesday & Friday; this is part of the early church. The sacrilege of abortion is also noted in the Didache (but not specifically in scripture); I know that proper understanding of the Bible should render this almost moot. Nonetheless, this issue fits within the framework of faith, scripture, & tradition. I do not know if you have read the Didache; I would recommend it, it is a general catechism of the early church you claim to know. None of it should conflict with the Holy Bible & yet shows that there is also Holy tradition that exist within the framework the apostle St. Paul mentions in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, "Therefore, brethren, stand fast & hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle." This is not intended to render any opinion towards your faith but to understand ours. As we have posted before, we do not see other Christians (or others) as being denied salvation per se nor do we exalt ourselves either. If any Orthodox Christians see anything mistken in this post please correct. Peace be to all.

[- DRA -]

Perhaps an example of the interaction of scripture & tradition may help. In the area of fasting our Saviour clearly calls us to this in Matthew 6:16 & even reminds the apostles later of the need of prayer & fasting (Matthew 17:21). Details of fasting are not given in scripture but it is entirely scriptural to observe it as part of Christian life. There is an early catechism called the Didache (ca. 100) that says to fast on Wednesday & Friday; this is part of the early church. The sacrilege of abortion is also noted in the Didache (but not specifically in scripture); I know that proper understanding of the Bible should render this almost moot. Nonetheless, this issue fits within the framework of faith, scripture, & tradition. I do not know if you have read the Didache; I would recommend it, it is a general catechism of the early church you claim to know. None of it should conflict with the Holy Bible & yet shows that there is also Holy tradition that exist within the framework the apostle St. Paul mentions in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, "Therefore, brethren, stand fast & hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle." This is not intended to render any opinion towards your faith but to understand ours. As we have posted before, we do not see other Christians (or others) as being denied salvation per se nor do we exalt ourselves either. If any Orthodox Christians see anything mistken in this post please correct. Peace be to all.

Thanks for responding and considering things from my perspective.

I haven't read the Didache, but I will.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm

Understand what you are saying about "traditions" in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 & 3:6. Those originated with the apostles' teaching back in Acts 2:42 and indicate the first-century Christians' willingness to follow the teachings of the Lord as given through His apostles - who were being guided by the Holy Spirit. I think one point needs to be clear. Following traditions isn't necessarily bad. Traditions based on the long-standing practice(s) of God's people doing what God directs isn't wrong. However, the traditions of men are a totally different matter. They are wrong. It is apparent they were in Matthew 15. See the contrast? What we have to do is decide where the traditions that arose outside of Scripture fall into the scheme of things. With that thought, I am reminded once again of 2 Timothy 3:16-17. Either all Scripture makes us complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work (borrowing from the language of the NKJV), or it doesn't. I believe the Scripture do exactly what this text says they do. Thus, my conclusion is that the traditions followed by the early church (the first-century church) as they continued to do what the apostle taught is acceptable and pleasing to God, but the traditions of men that rose later and outside of Scripture should be treated as such. Going back to the latter part of 2 Tim. 3:17, if God's work indeed can make us complete and thoroughly equip us, then why should we look elsewhere for spiritual guidance and direction.

As for fasting, as previously discussed with one of the Orothodox folks on the Restoration side of the Foru.ms, fasting was based on Jewish tradition carried over from their observance of the law of Moses. As you said, the New Testament doesn't provide direction for how to do it, where the later traditions (of men) try to give it more definition. As I understand, this is how folks get into trouble -- making up rules and regulations where God didn't. It's what the Jews tried to do with their oral tradition in Matthew 15. So, yes, the early disciples fasted .... and some ate meat ... and some didn't ... and some kept certain days ... and some didn't (borrowing from the thoughts of Romans 14 and similar discussions). It's like circumcision in Galatians 5:1-6. It was once required by God, but not under the gospel of Christ -- in a sense, but not literally - Colossians 2:11-13. The same is true for the other O.T. requirements. Since God was indifferent about those things under the gospel, meaning it didn't matter if they did them or not, we aren't at liberty to start speaking on God's behalf and saying how or when they should be done. Anyway, that's my understanding.

The early church I am interested in is the one we read about in the New Testament - the first-century church.

As for salvation, I believe that those who do what the Lord says to be saved will indeed be saved and added to His church (e.g. Acts 2:38,41,47). I make no apologies for believing that one has to actually do what the Lord said to receive the blessings. But, I leave the judging up to the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:10). Simply stated, I neither send folks to heaven or hell. I simply try to help them understand the truth of the matter according to God's word. However, when it comes to folks saying, "Lord, Lord," who clearly haven't done what God said to do to be saved from their sins, then out of concern for their spiritual well-being I feel compelled to try to reason with them of the truth from God's word. Given some thought, that's exactly what the apostles and first-century Christians did when they took the gospel to the world.

God bless. :bow:

[seashale76]

Part 1 (a response to your first post regarding marrying, food, elders pulling faithful away, etc.):

Orthodox priests can be married. Fasting is encouraged in the bible. People can eat anything they like during non-fasting times. You think that the scripture of Elders pulling people away refers to Orthodox Christianity? No.

9But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. (1 Peter 2 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=1+Peter+2))

We are all called to worship God and stand before Him in thanksgiving and in communion, which is what priests did/do. So, we are all part of the royal priesthood. Nothing of this scripture negates the role of priests in the Church. Our clergy co-celebrate with us in the Divine Liturgy. The sacramental role of our clergy/priests is done on behalf of the assembly and our worship is offered to God in a corporate way. A priest is an icon of Christ to his congregation.

Also, consider the matter of the New Testament itself. I’m sure you believe that the men who were at the Ecumenical Councils were guided by the Holy Spirit regarding the canon of scripture, but yet, who were they? What faith did they follow? They were Orthodox. But then, since this is the case, how can you trust that your bible is true? Because, the assumption would have to be that if you don't believe the Christians who were at the Ecumenical Councils were guided by the Holy Spirit, then your scriptures that you use must be suspect as well. Why is the faith they were traditioned, also wrong? Holy Tradition is the only way to interpret the Scriptures.



Part 2 (a rambling sort of post that I think is relevant because my brain doesn’t work like everyone else’s):

Here are some questions for you. How do you think one becomes a Christian and how is one part of the body of Christ? How does this body of Christ worship? What are their doctrines? Where do you get your authority to interpret Holy Scripture?

From our perspective, going to an altar call and saying a sinner's prayer doesn't save a person. Merely professing faith doesn't save a person. The Church is the saving ark. A person who is in full communion with the Church IS a Christian. We are Christians still running our race. We must daily pick up our cross and follow Christ.

Do you believe the following? It’s in the bible.

We must be born-again. What does this mean?


1 Peter 3:18-21 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=1+Peter+3%3A18-21)
18For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, 19through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ

It leaves no doubt that it speaks of water. But what does it mean in the context of being born again? It isn't a work that we do. We're told to do it (just look at the verses above). When we submit ourselves to this act it something that God Himself does.



John 3:3 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=John+3%3A3):8
3In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again." 4"How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"
5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.' 8The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

What does the Church do when it assembles together? We celebrate the Eucharist (and we don’t mean a symbolic one). It is both bread and wine and also the body and the blood. Eucharist literally means 'thanksgiving' and the entire purpose of our worship is when the Church gathers together and celebrates the life, death, and resurrection of our Lord. By doing this we are participating in the mystery of salvation.

Look at John 6:

52, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?” He went on to say starting at verse 53, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For My flesh is food indeed,[e] and My blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven—not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.”

Jesus did not contradict them at all when they questioned whether or not he was speaking literally. He actually clarified it for them! In verses 60-66, he actually lost disciples over his teaching.

The fact of the matter is, if it were just merely a sort of intellectual symbol, it would be impossible to eat and drink it unworthily. People have DIED from unworthily partaking of communion. Then, you also have history itself to contend with. Christians in the first century, such as Ignatius of Antioch believed in the Real Presence in the Eucharist.


Check out I Corinthians:
For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is broken for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death, until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread and drinks the cup in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord (1 Cor 11:23-26 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=1+Cor+11%3A23-26)).

Let me ask you another question, if the spiritual/intellectual things are the only things that matter/are of importance, then why was the physical incarnation necessary?

How are you sure/certain that your denomination contains the truth and preserved the right way of doing things? What things do your church do that might actually be wrong/incomplete/lacking?

[- DRA -]

Part 1 (a response to your first post regarding marrying, food, elders pulling faithful away, etc.): ... How are you sure/certain that your denomination contains the truth and preserved the right way of doing things? What things do your church do that might actually be wrong/incomplete/lacking?


















First, thanks for responding and sharing your concerns.

Yes, I understand a married man can become an Orthodox priest. However, can a single man get married after becoming an Orthodox priest? If not, where is the scriptural authority to forbid this?

Fasting is one thing. However, forbidding certain things that God hasn't is a totally different matter according to 1 Tim. 4:1-3.

I believe Acts 20:29-31 is alluding to the digression of the eldership where a chief elder was appointed to oversee other elders. I believe the role became to be known as a bishop. The term bishop in the New Testament is synonymous with elder, pastor, shepherd, or overseer. No, I don't believe Acts 20:29-31 is pointing to the Orthodox Church per se, but to the Catholic Church. As explained in both perspectives in the OP, the Orthodox Church arose years later from Catholicism. Frankly, I believe it is 1,000 years too late to the church established on Pentecost in Acts 2.

Glad you posted 1 Peter 2:9. All of God's people are priests. All have sacrifices to offer e.g., Romans 12:1, Heb. 13:15-16. There is no need for an office for someone to do this for us. Note the imagery in Heb. 10:19-20. When Jesus died on the cross, the veil in the temple was torn from top to bottom (Matt. 27:51). Therefore, when we enter the Holy Place to offer our sacrifices according to Hebrews 10, with the veil torn, we also have access to the Most Holy Place (i.e. the throne of God in Heb. 4:16). See the point? Unlike the O.T. Levitical system where only the High Priest entered the Most Holy Place, under the gospel of Christ each Christian has access through the veil, which is the body of Christ (Heb. 10:20) to come to the throne of God. Beautiful imagery.

I trust that my Bible is true because the Holy Spirit guided the writers and declared that their writings were Scripture. 1 Timothy 5:18 is an example. "Scripture" refers to both Deut. 25:4 and Luke 10:7, which are quoted in that passage. And, in 2 Pet. 3:16, the writings of Paul are declared to be Scripture. Know what I believe? I believe that God has done what He promised in Isaiah 40:8 and 1 Peter 1:23-24. God has preserved His word - both the Old and New Testament writings.

Please allow me to comment about this statement: "Nothing of this scripture negates the role of priests in the Church. Our clergy co-celebrate with us in the Divine Liturgy." As you said, all Christians are priests under the law of Christ. Where is the authority for the role of the "priests/clergy" you mention? It's not scriptural. Therefore, that means it came later. Think back to Acts 20:29-31. See any connection? Give it some thought. It's all I ask.

And, please allow me to address another statement: “Holy Tradition is the only way to interpret the Scriptures.” I beg to differ. I believe Jesus shows us a basic rule of Bible interpretation in Matthew 4:5-7. In essence, a correct understanding of one passage/text of Scripture must harmonize with others. And, I believe a person has to diligently apply themselves to studying God’s word and applying what is taught i.e. Acts 17:10-11, 2 Tim. 2:15, James 1:21-25.

How does one become a Christian? I believe that faith or belief is necessary (John 3:16, Mark 16:16, Hebrews 11:6), as is repentance (Luke 13:3,5; Acts 2:38, Acts 17:30), and confession of our Lord (Matt. 10:32-33, Acts 8:37, Romans 10:9-10), and being baptized in the name of the Lord (Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, Rom. 6:3-11). Those who are saved from their sins are added to the Lord’s church by the Lord Himself (Acts 2:47). I get my authority to “interpret” Scripture from numerous passages (e.g., Acts 17:10-11, 2 Tim. 2:15, Eph. 3:3-6, Matt. 22:23-33).

Yes, I believe that one must be born again. Jesus briefly introduces the thought in John 3, and more detail is provided in Romans 6:3-11. In essence, it occurs when a believer that repents and confesses Jesus is baptized. Baptism is God’s way for one to become united with the Lord’s death, burial, and resurrection. It is where one dies to sin, becomes freed from it, and becomes alive to God – thus, being born again.

When the Christians I worship come together, we observe the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:20). This supper is a reminder (“This do … in remembrance of Me” – 1 Cor. 11:25) of Jesus’ sacrifice for us. Sorry, but I don’t believe when partaking of the Lord’s Supper that we are literally eating His body and drinking His blood. Note the examples in the Gospel accounts of His institution of the supper. It wasn’t His literal body they ate. Nor did they drink His blood. The unleavened bread and fruit of the vine represented His body and blood, respectively. His intend was for the disciples to be reminded of His sacrifice when they partake.

I am not a part of a denomination. The denominational concept is based on the bottom number in a fraction, which represents a part of the whole. Denominationalism believes the church is made up of churches – with each different church (i.e. Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc.) a part of the whole. I believe the church is made up of individual Christians per 1 Corinthians 12:14-27. The Lord established but one church (Eph. 4:4), and it is obvious from history that the denominational churches all arose many years after Jesus established His church.

[AJB4]

I believe Acts 20:29-31 is alluding to the digression of the eldership where a chief elder was appointed to oversee other elders. I believe the role became to be known as a bishop. The term bishop in the New Testament is synonymous with elder, pastor, shepherd, or overseer.

I don't think that's completely true...

I can't remember what it is and I could never find it myself (someone here surely could), but there was an Apostolic-era writing by Clement of Rome that said something about the issue (can't remember what).

Also, there were of course the Apostles, who were the Bishops (whatever you want to call them, they were the head honchos over the churches). Of course, whether this was meant to continue (Apostolic Succession, I suppose), is another matter. It's most likely that it was meant to continue, because Ignatius of Antioch was a Bishop, and it's said that he was a student of the Apostle John (who was one of the Apostles/Bishops over the churches).

With that thought, I am reminded once again of 2 Timothy 3:16-17. Either all Scripture makes us complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work (borrowing from the language of the NKJV), or it doesn't.

You haven't quite answered my questions about this in the other thread (that I can remember):

A) What about rampant illiteracy and lack of printing presses (ie. copying by hand, which would only suit literate people anyway)?
B) What about not all scripture being written at that point?
C) What about the fact that the scriptures that were said that Timothy had read as a child were not the NT, as it was not written yet?

You've stated and restated that verse without being able to logically defend the position, due to the things above.

-DRA-, I hope that you can at least sympathize with me a little bit here. The idea that if the world ended right now, only 2 million people would be saved (actually, 1 million, counting the IM CoCs), really kind of repulses me. Of course, CoC people mostly say "It's not the CoC that is saved, it's those who obeyed the Lord". Yeah, but they think that only the CoC obeys the Lord. I go to the Christian Teens section sometimes, a lot of people in there are freaked out by the very idea that only Christians in general will be saved (most of the world are profession Christians, so that seems a little better). I on the other hand have been raised with the idea that if you take the 2 billion professing Christians of the world, and narrow it down to about 0.1%, that would be the population of the professing Christians of the world that would be saved. I don't believe that that paints God in a very favourable light at all.

There are more converts from the CoC to Orthodoxy than any other church that I can think of. Of course, that's not much to go on by itself, but it makes me wonder just what so many CoC people have discovered.

http://i.imdb.com/Photos/CMSIcons/emoticons/confused/giveup.gif

Need I point out that in the NCBC forum (as far as I know), you're the only one that seems to believe in CoC only salvation (thinking back, everyone else there (Splayd, JDIBe etc.) were disagreeing with that position. SO, you'd probably be the only 'CoC' member from NCBC that would be saved!

http://media.myspacepimper.com/content/smile/sick/sick_20.gif (not sick at you being saved, just sick at the number of people that would be saved).

[buzuxi02]

Yes some abandoned the faith while others started there own sects such as the Nicolatians. Others took elements of christianity and interpreted the events their way, the evangelist John says ,"For many decievers have gone out into the world, who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh..."(2Jn 1.7), This is a reference to the Docestists.

The reference of forbidding to eat has nothing to do with fasting. Fasting does not forbid the eating of specific food only the abstaining for a period of time, and all the apostles did indeed fast. It has to do with judaisers who attempted to force the jewish customs onto the gentile christians (Gal 2.12, Acts 11.6-9) In fact the Jerusalem council did indeed forbade judeo-christians from forcing the jewish diet onto the gentile-christians. The Jerusalem council though upheld certain kosher principles such as to abstain from foods from animals that were inappropriately slaughtered and if they were offered to pagan deities. (Acts 15.20)

One such judeo-christian group which fell away and lasted till the 5th century were the Ebionites. Another group of judaisers were the Cerinthians, Both groups rejected Paul as an apostate of the Law and encouraged their members to follow the Torah.

The forbidding of marriage was the practise of many sects. The jewish sect of the Essenes forbidded marriage as did the Manicheans. Tertullian who was actually a great theologian later apostacized put away his wife and joined the Montanists, they too forbidded marriage.

Pauls apocalyptic sign that some will forbid marriage, is based on the large scale practise of entire sects, which flourished during his time. It was not based on small scale asceticism. In fact Paul himself encouraged people to remain unmarried (1Cor 7.7-9) and even instructed married couples that if they could, they should remain celibate (1Cor 7.29)
The falling away of the western church is a complex issue. And western beliefs and attitudes have a share in this blame.

[AJB4]

And, please allow me to address another statement: “Holy Tradition is the only way to interpret the Scriptures.” I beg to differ. I believe Jesus shows us a basic rule of Bible interpretation in Matthew 4:5-7. In essence, a correct understanding of one passage/text of Scripture must harmonize with others.

Interesting that when that verse in that book was written, hey, no other New Testament book was, AND, it was the Old Testament they used on both occasions to refute each other. Who's to say that the system didn't change? After all, that verse was before Jesus administered the New Covenant in the Sermon on the Mount.

Just a thought.

[repentant]

DRA-

The early Church is what we now call the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Church that has been unchanged for 2000 years, Canonized and interpreted the Scripture you read, bred Saints and Martyrs, and has kept the teachings of the Apostles from heresy, old and new. I am sorry, but some new "church" created off the back of the RCC 1500 years after Christ is not the Church.. if you don't want to believe it, so be it. Just read the ancients, and actually learn what we believe and why we do the things we do..then come back here and talk to us. If you keep bringing up the "forbidding to marry and eat meat" stuff, but have no clue what the Apostles were talking about, it really doesn't matter what you think..

[repentant]

Also, before you ask for "Scriptural authority" for everything we do, such as married men cannot be ordained a Priest-show me where it says that all authority comes from Scripture....and you can't do anything that is not in it....I'll be waiting..

[SeraphimSarov]

[...]show me where it says that all authority comes from Scripture....and you can't do anything that is not in it....I'll be waiting..

You'll be waiting now and ever and unto ages of ages... ;)

[- DRA -]

I don't think that's completely true...

I can't remember what it is and I could never find it myself (someone here surely could), but there was an Apostolic-era writing by Clement of Rome that said something about the issue (can't remember what).

Sorry, but this isn't very impressive reasoning.

Also, there were of course the Apostles, who were the Bishops (whatever you want to call them, they were the head honchos over the churches). Of course, whether this was meant to continue (Apostolic Succession, I suppose), is another matter. It's most likely that it was meant to continue, because Ignatius of Antioch was a Bishop, and it's said that he was a student of the Apostle John (who was one of the Apostles/Bishops over the churches).

A bishop is another word for elder or pastor. The apostle Peter was an elder per 1 Peter 5:1, but Paul was not per the qualifications of Titus 1:6 - "husband of one wife, having faithful children" (NKJV).

A man becomes a bishop/elder/pastor of the church by meeting the qualifications - not by apostolic succession (Titus 1 and 1 Tim. 3).

You haven't quite answered my questions about this in the other thread (that I can remember):

A) What about rampant illiteracy and lack of printing presses (ie. copying by hand, which would only suit literate people anyway)?
B) What about not all scripture being written at that point?
C) What about the fact that the scriptures that were said that Timothy had read as a child were not the NT, as it was not written yet?

You've stated and restated that verse without being able to logically defend the position, due to the things above.


Sorry, but your questions don't negate what 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says. I suspect there have always been some folks around somewhere that couldn't read and write. Is there a scriptural basis for excusing them from obeying God?

If I understand the chronology of events correctly, most of the New Testament books were written before 2 Timothy was completed, as were most of the books before James' point about having the "perfect (complete) law of liberty in James 1:25. The issue is what do we do with the few books that followed e.g., the gospel of John and the book of Revelation. I personally believe they are inspired of God and a necessary part of God's message to mankind. I believe they are included in the scope of "all Scripture" in 2 Tim. 3:16-17.

As covered before, none of the New Testament books had been written when Timothy was a child. However, by the time of the writing of 2 Timothy, most N.T. books had been written.

-DRA-, I hope that you can at least sympathize with me a little bit here. The idea that if the world ended right now, only 2 million people would be saved (actually, 1 million, counting the IM CoCs), really kind of repulses me. Of course, CoC people mostly say "It's not the CoC that is saved, it's those who obeyed the Lord". Yeah, but they think that only the CoC obeys the Lord. I go to the Christian Teens section sometimes, a lot of people in there are freaked out by the very idea that only Christians in general will be saved (most of the world are profession Christians, so that seems a little better). I on the other hand have been raised with the idea that if you take the 2 billion professing Christians of the world, and narrow it down to about 0.1%, that would be the population of the professing Christians of the world that would be saved. I don't believe that that paints God in a very favourable light at all.

Matthew 7:13-14 says, "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

And, Matthew 7:21-23 says, ""Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'

Acts 2. Help me understand. Who was saved in verse 41? Was it the 3,000 who obeyed God or was it the Jews that didn't? And, which church were the saved added to per Acts 2:47 ... was it the Lord's church ... or was it the Orthodox Church that would come into existence some 1,000 years?

There are more converts from the CoC to Orthodoxy than any other church that I can think of. Of course, that's not much to go on by itself, but it makes me wonder just what so many CoC people have discovered.

Does it really matter where the majority of folks go that depart from the Lord and His church?

http://i.imdb.com/Photos/CMSIcons/emoticons/confused/giveup.gif

Need I point out that in the NCBC forum (as far as I know), you're the only one that seems to believe in CoC only salvation (thinking back, everyone else there (Splayd, JDIBe etc.) were disagreeing with that position. SO, you'd probably be the only 'CoC' member from NCBC that would be saved!

If you are comforted by following the majority, then by all means do what you must do. Meanwhile, just be reminded that God's word says what it says, and it's not going to change by whether or not you accept it. I suggest that all of us need to be assured that our reasoning is in harmony with God's word. If not, something's got to give. It did in Acts 2. Three thousand decided to do things God's way, and the other Jews decided to keep doing things their own way. You have to decide for yourself the path that you follow through life and the consequences of following that path.

http://media.myspacepimper.com/content/smile/sick/sick_20.gif (not sick at you being saved, just sick at the number of people that would be saved).
[/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT]

I suggest you take the issue up with God i.e. Matt. 7:13-14, 21-23, 1 Peter 4:17.

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by -DRA-

And, please allow me to address another statement: “Holy Tradition is the only way to interpret the Scriptures.” I beg to differ. I believe Jesus shows us a basic rule of Bible interpretation in Matthew 4:5-7. In essence, a correct understanding of one passage/text of Scripture must harmonize with others.



Interesting that when that verse in that book was written, hey, no other New Testament book was, AND, it was the Old Testament they used on both occasions to refute each other. Who's to say that the system didn't change? After all, that verse was before Jesus administered the New Covenant in the Sermon on the Mount.

Just a thought.


Uh ... who said the teachings under the New Covenant started with the sermon on the mount in Matthew 5? :)

[Lukaris]

DRA: Upon reading your posts & surmising as fast as I can, you seem to be applying a sort of pick & choose approach to fit your lynchpin of 2 Timothy 3:16-17. The Orthodox church maintains that the 2 epistles to Timothy were written by St.Paul by 67 AD & you maintain that the scripture you base your theology on is sola scriptura & yet acknowledge the later written scriptures of the GOSPEL (a whole gospel) of John, Revelation, epistle of James etc. as being mere addendums to your theology of sola scriptura? Your statements reject 1/3 of the basic requirements of Christian life our Saviour commanded in the area fasting and confirmed by ST. Paul, "Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self control." (1 Corinthians 7:5). While the passage deals with marital relations, the ordinances of prayer & fasting have multiple applications. To say that this only applies to fasting would say that prayer only applies to marital relations. This is not meant as a personal criticism, but the argument you are presenting is displaying deep flaw. In all respect, Lord have mercy.

[- DRA -]

DRA-

The early Church is what we now call the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Church that has been unchanged for 2000 years, Canonized and interpreted the Scripture you read, bred Saints and Martyrs, and has kept the teachings of the Apostles from heresy, old and new. I am sorry, but some new "church" created off the back of the RCC 1500 years after Christ is not the Church.. if you don't want to believe it, so be it. Just read the ancients, and actually learn what we believe and why we do the things we do..then come back here and talk to us. If you keep bringing up the "forbidding to marry and eat meat" stuff, but have no clue what the Apostles were talking about, it really doesn't matter what you think..

Sorry, but I have a differing view. The only "early church" I am concerned with is the New Testament church. As stated in the OP by a person of the Orthodox faith, the Orthodox Church didn't come on the scene until over 1,000 years later, when it split from Catholicism. As I state in the OP, I believe the Orthodox (right) designation was in contrast to the Roman Catholic Church (which they viewed as being wrong). The distinction is further contrasted by the Eastern versus Western designation.

As for the church of Christ, the name is at least scriptural, right? And, if it teaches what the first-century Christians taught to receive salvation under the gospel of Christ, and it teaches that Jesus built only one church, and it strives to follow the N.T. pattern of worshipping as the first-century church worshipped and is organized as the first-century church is organized, who is to say that it isn't a church of our Lord?

I have spent numerous hours the past several weeks studying with folks about the Orthodox faith and its associated beliefs, and I think I have a pretty good grasp of where folks are coming from. My counter proposal is to read the New Testament and learn about the Lord's church - and then return so we can discuss it.

If my understanding of 1 Timothy 4:1-3 is incorrect, maybe you could discuss the passage and help put things on the right track.

[- DRA -]

DRA: Upon reading your posts & surmising as fast as I can, you seem to be applying a sort of pick & choose approach to fit your lynchpin of 2 Timothy 3:16-17. The Orthodox church maintains that the 2 epistles to Timothy were written by St.Paul by 67 AD & you maintain that the scripture you base your theology on is sola scriptura & yet acknowledge the later written scriptures of the GOSPEL (a whole gospel) of John, Revelation, epistle of James etc. as being mere addendums to your theology of sola scriptura? Your statements reject 1/3 of the basic requirements of Christian life our Saviour commanded in the area fasting and confirmed by ST. Paul, "Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self control." (1 Corinthians 7:5). While the passage deals with marital relations, the ordinances of prayer & fasting have multiple applications. To say that this only applies to fasting would say that prayer only applies to marital relations. This is not meant as a personal criticism, but the argument you are presenting is displaying deep flaw. In all respect, Lord have mercy.

Sorry for giving you that impression, but I sincerely believe that "all Scripture" includes the few later books of God's word that were shortly afterward given. In all fairness to 2 Timothy 3:16, does the passage say, "All Scripture written at this time is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for ...?" I certainly don't believe it is written that way. However, I suspect that is the meaning being implied or inferred upon the passage.

BTW, 1 Corinthians 7 is dealing with avoiding sexual immorality. The context begins back in the latter part of 6:13.

[- DRA -]

Also, before you ask for "Scriptural authority" for everything we do, such as married men cannot be ordained a Priest-show me where it says that all authority comes from Scripture....and you can't do anything that is not in it....I'll be waiting..

Thank you for being so patient in waiting for me.

Jesus identified the two sources of authority in Matthew 21:25. Our beliefs and practices come either from heaven (from God) or from men.

As for the priest, I am looking for authority from heaven for a "priest" other than that described in Hebrews 3:1 or 1 Peter 2:5.

1 Peter 4:11a says, "If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles [words] of God." I understand the passage to be saying that we should speak where God has spoken. It works for me. That way we can be sure that it is really God speaking -- and not just men speaking where God hasn't.

Colossians 3:17 says, "And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus [i.e. by His authority] ..."

[Lukaris]

Sorry for giving you that impression, but I sincerely believe that "all Scripture" includes the few later books of God's word that were shortly afterward given. In all fairness to 2 Timothy 3:16, does the passage say, "All Scripture written at this time is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for ...?" I certainly don't believe it is written that way. However, I suspect that is the meaning being implied or inferred upon the passage.

BTW, 1 Corinthians 7 is dealing with avoiding sexual immorality. The context begins back in the latter part of 6:13.C'mon that is already a given here & the epistle progresses to marriage & parameters in one's sexual relations within marriage. I know sexual immorality was already forbidden (thou shalt not commit adultery).:sigh:

[Thekla]

A bishop is another word for elder or pastor.

the term episkipos (tr. bishop), is a role that well predates its use in the NT. Its first attested use -IIRC- is by Homer. During the reign of Philip of Macedonia, and moreso during the expansive reign of Alexander the Great, the "episkopos" was an assigned position; it was the responsibility of the episkopos to ensure that a conquered region complied with the law of the king.

there is no evidence that the NT use of this term in any way innovates its already accepted useage. The role or office of episkopos can be filled from the ranks of elder or presbyteros.

[nutroll]

The issue is what do we do with the few books that followed e.g., the gospel of John and the book of Revelation. I personally believe they are inspired of God and a necessary part of God's message to mankind. I believe they are included in the scope of "all Scripture" in 2 Tim. 3:16-17.

But on what basis do you believe that? Because they are in the same book? Why are they in the same book?

Sorry, but I have a differing view. The only "early church" I am concerned with is the New Testament church. As stated in the OP by a person of the Orthodox faith, the Orthodox Church didn't come on the scene until over 1,000 years later, when it split from Catholicism. As I state in the OP, I believe the Orthodox (right) designation was in contrast to the Roman Catholic Church (which they viewed as being wrong). The distinction is further contrasted by the Eastern versus Western designation.

As for the church of Christ, the name is at least scriptural, right? And, if it teaches what the first-century Christians taught to receive salvation under the gospel of Christ, and it teaches that Jesus built only one church, and it strives to follow the N.T. pattern of worshipping as the first-century church worshipped and is organized as the first-century church is organized, who is to say that it isn't a church of our Lord?

I have spent numerous hours the past several weeks studying with folks about the Orthodox faith and its associated beliefs, and I think I have a pretty good grasp of where folks are coming from. My counter proposal is to read the New Testament and learn about the Lord's church - and then return so we can discuss it.

If my understanding of 1 Timothy 4:1-3 is incorrect, maybe you could discuss the passage and help put things on the right track.

Did your book of ecclesiastical history come with crayons? or was it the one with the 3D glasses? I suggest that you reread the quote that you put in your OP, because nowhere does it say that the Orthodox Church started 1000 years after Pentecost. The Oriental Orthodox split off from us in the 5th century, so how did they split off from us if we didn't exist? I would love for you to point to the moment that our Church began if it is other than Pentecost, but you can't.

[the_Abbot]

Sorry, but I have a differing view. The only "early church" I am concerned with is the New Testament church. As stated in the OP by a person of the Orthodox faith, the Orthodox Church didn't come on the scene until over 1,000 years later, when it split from Catholicism. As I state in the OP, I believe the Orthodox (right) designation was in contrast to the Roman Catholic Church (which they viewed as being wrong). The distinction is further contrasted by the Eastern versus Western designation.



So according to this you are at least admitting to the Roman Church of being 2000 years old correct? So that Church goes back to the time of the Apostles if it is 2000 years old since you say the Orthodox split 1000 years later. Am I correct?

[repentant]

double post

[repentant]

Sorry, but I have a differing view. The only "early church" I am concerned with is the New Testament church. As stated in the OP by a person of the Orthodox faith, the Orthodox Church didn't come on the scene until over 1,000 years later, when it split from Catholicism. As I state in the OP, I believe the Orthodox (right) designation was in contrast to the Roman Catholic Church (which they viewed as being wrong). The distinction is further contrasted by the Eastern versus Western designation.

As for the church of Christ, the name is at least scriptural, right? And, if it teaches what the first-century Christians taught to receive salvation under the gospel of Christ, and it teaches that Jesus built only one church, and it strives to follow the N.T. pattern of worshipping as the first-century church worshipped and is organized as the first-century church is organized, who is to say that it isn't a church of our Lord?

I have spent numerous hours the past several weeks studying with folks about the Orthodox faith and its associated beliefs, and I think I have a pretty good grasp of where folks are coming from. My counter proposal is to read the New Testament and learn about the Lord's church - and then return so we can discuss it.

If my understanding of 1 Timothy 4:1-3 is incorrect, maybe you could discuss the passage and help put things on the right track.


I think you completly missunderstood. The EOC was always there, not in name, but in function. The Church was called the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church". The term "Orthodox" was also used to describe it. Orthodox means "correct" or "right" belief, to contrast it from the various heretical "churches" that have come around through the years..in 1054, The Roman See of the "OHCAC" decided to leave the other four Sees of Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople and Alexandria. Rome (The west) became "Roman Catholic" and the other four Sees, "the east" became the Orthodox Church..but is still and always was "The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" The EOC didn't jsut "show up" 1000 years later as you claim. It is the heretical Protestant Churches that "just showed up".

Please don't go into the reading Scripture thing..we Canonized it afterall..

You are playing name semantics, and the reason being is because you pridefully fail to actually look at the early Church. Just because you use the name "Church of Christ" doesn't make you anymore the Church than if any Joe Schmo started some heretical Church and called the "New Testament Church from Acts of Christ" names mean nothing. If you wish to stay in the 'CoC' because you feel the name is Scriptural, then so be it. But if you actually wish to be in the Scriptural Church of Christ, tehn I suggest you lookk at what was the early Church, and stop trying to interpret everything for yourself. When will Protestants realize that "self interpretation" is what has led to so many protestant 'churches' who all believe different things, yet all claim to be sola scriptura. You think one time common sense would just kick in. Yet if you look at the EOC, no matter what language or what country, we ALL believe the same things..you guys can't even make up yor mind in one langauge...well I gues it kind of isn't fair..we have the original language of Scripture to work with, and you have bad english translation...


As far as 1 Timothy 4:1-3 is concerned, I have no clue what you think. All I know is we are not forbidden to marry or forbidden from eating anything..so I don't get your point...

We just know that sexual abstinence and fasting is important to Spiritual discipline, according to Paul and Christ Himself. Fasting is about controlling ourselves, I mean if we can't control what we eat, how can we control our passions?

Let me ask you, do you even fast at all?

[repentant]

Thank you for being so patient in waiting for me.

Jesus identified the two sources of authority in Matthew 21:25. Our beliefs and practices come either from heaven (from God) or from men.

As for the priest, I am looking for authority from heaven for a "priest" other than that described in Hebrews 3:1 or 1 Peter 2:5.

1 Peter 4:11a says, "If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles [words] of God." I understand the passage to be saying that we should speak where God has spoken. It works for me. That way we can be sure that it is really God speaking -- and not just men speaking where God hasn't.

Colossians 3:17 says, "And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus [i.e. by His authority] ..."

Yea...that really answered the question...:doh:

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Sorry, but I have a differing view. The only "early church" I am concerned with is the New Testament church. As stated in the OP by a person of the Orthodox faith, the Orthodox Church didn't come on the scene until over 1,000 years later, when it split from Catholicism. As I state in the OP, I believe the Orthodox (right) designation was in contrast to the Roman Catholic Church (which they viewed as being wrong). The distinction is further contrasted by the Eastern versus Western designation.

So according to this you are at least admitting to the Roman Church of being 2000 years old correct? So that Church goes back to the time of the Apostles if it is 2000 years old since you say the Orthodox split 1000 years later. Am I correct?

No, that is not correct. My reasoning from the OP has been that Jesus established His church in the first century, and the churches built by men arose later i.e. Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, etc. Therefore, none of the churches of men can be the church of our Lord. Concisely stated, that's my point.

As for connecting the N.T. church to the Roman Catholic Church, the closest I think you can get is 1 Timothy 4:1-3. Those who "departed from the faith" gave rise to Catholicism. Personally, I don't see any value in being on the wrong side of truth. But, that's just the way I look at it.

[seashale76]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Sorry, but I have a differing view. The only "early church" I am concerned with is the New Testament church. As stated in the OP by a person of the Orthodox faith, the Orthodox Church didn't come on the scene until over 1,000 years later, when it split from Catholicism. As I state in the OP, I believe the Orthodox (right) designation was in contrast to the Roman Catholic Church (which they viewed as being wrong). The distinction is further contrasted by the Eastern versus Western designation.

It's very simple. One Church, five patriarchs. One left (Rome). The other four still were/are in communion with each other. Who left whom?



No, that is not correct. My reasoning from the OP has been that Jesus established His church in the first century, and the churches built by men arose later i.e. Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, etc. Therefore, none of the churches of men can be the church of our Lord. Concisely stated, that's my point. Well, the onus is on YOU to prove that YOUR church is the same as that in the New Testament. Because that is what you're claiming, is it not? I've not seen anything that you've posted that would seem to hold that your church is IT. If you're going to be making the claim that the Orthodox Church isn't what it claims to be, then where is the overwhelming evidence to back up your assertions?

As for connecting the N.T. church to the Roman Catholic Church, the closest I think you can get is 1 Timothy 4:1-3. Those who "departed from the faith" gave rise to Catholicism. Personally, I don't see any value in being on the wrong side of truth. But, that's just the way I look at it. Yes, you never really did delve too deeply into the whole, what the New Testament Church did before they had the New Testament all typed out and bound nicely for general use like we do today. They had Tradition. What Church gave us the canon of the NT again?

[Thekla]

SO, is it the name of the Church that matters ?

Could you describe what the worship of the 1st century Church looked like ?

[the_Abbot]

I just went to the Churches of Christ website to see if there is any historical information to prove to myself it is the original church. I cannot find any historical proof that it is the same church as the first century church not even on their own website.


The Historical background of the Restoration Movement

One of the earliest advocates of the return to New Testament Christianity, as a means of achieving unity of all believers in Christ, was James O'Kelly of the Methodist Episcopal Church. In 1793 he withdrew from the Baltimore conference of his church and called upon others to join him in taking the Bible as the only creed. His influence was largely felt in Virginia and North Carolina where history records that some seven thousand communicants followed his leadership toward a return to primitive New Testament Christianity.
In 1802 a similar movement among the Baptists in New England was led by Abner Jones and Elias Smith. They were concerned about "denominational names and creeds" and decided to wear only the name Christian, taking Bible as their only guide. In 1804, in the western frontier state of Kentucky, Barton W. Stone and several other Presbyterian preachers took similar action declaring that they would take the Bible as the "only sure guide to heaven." Thomas Campbell, and his illustrious son, Alexander Campbell, took similar steps in the year 1809 in what is now the state of West Virginia. They contended that nothing should be bound upon Christians as a matter of doctrine which is not as old as the New Testament. Although these four movements were completely independent in their beginnings eventually they became one strong restoration movement because of their common purpose and plea. These men did not advocate the starting of a new church, but rather a return to Christ's church as described in the Bible.

Members of the church of Christ do not conceive of themselves as a new church started near the beginning of the 19th century. Rather, the whole movement is designed to reproduce in contemporary times the church originally established on Pentecost, A.D. 30. The strength of the appeal lies in the restoration of Christ's original church. http://church-of-christ.org/who.html

So even from this it says they are only trying to reproduce the first century church. Not enough proof to convince me.

The only Churches that I have found that I see that can prove any historical ties to the 1st century church are the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, and Roman Catholic. I believe these were the Churches of Christ founded by His Apostles. The reasons for the different names as far as I can tell were due to location and jurisdiction, but were all the Church of Christ.

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Sorry, but I have a differing view. The only "early church" I am concerned with is the New Testament church. As stated in the OP by a person of the Orthodox faith, the Orthodox Church didn't come on the scene until over 1,000 years later, when it split from Catholicism. As I state in the OP, I believe the Orthodox (right) designation was in contrast to the Roman Catholic Church (which they viewed as being wrong). The distinction is further contrasted by the Eastern versus Western designation.

As for the church of Christ, the name is at least scriptural, right? And, if it teaches what the first-century Christians taught to receive salvation under the gospel of Christ, and it teaches that Jesus built only one church, and it strives to follow the N.T. pattern of worshipping as the first-century church worshipped and is organized as the first-century church is organized, who is to say that it isn't a church of our Lord?

I have spent numerous hours the past several weeks studying with folks about the Orthodox faith and its associated beliefs, and I think I have a pretty good grasp of where folks are coming from. My counter proposal is to read the New Testament and learn about the Lord's church - and then return so we can discuss it.

If my understanding of 1 Timothy 4:1-3 is incorrect, maybe you could discuss the passage and help put things on the right track.

I think you completly missunderstood. The EOC was always there, not in name, but in function. The Church was called the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church". The term "Orthodox" was also used to describe it. Orthodox means "correct" or "right" belief, to contrast it from the various heretical "churches" that have come around through the years..in 1054, The Roman See of the "OHCAC" decided to leave the other four Sees of Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople and Alexandria. Rome (The west) became "Roman Catholic" and the other four Sees, "the east" became the Orthodox Church..but is still and always was "The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" The EOC didn't jsut "show up" 1000 years later as you claim. It is the heretical Protestant Churches that "just showed up".

Please don't go into the reading Scripture thing..we Canonized it afterall..

You are playing name semantics, and the reason being is because you pridefully fail to actually look at the early Church. Just because you use the name "Church of Christ" doesn't make you anymore the Church than if any Joe Schmo started some heretical Church and called the "New Testament Church from Acts of Christ" names mean nothing. If you wish to stay in the 'CoC' because you feel the name is Scriptural, then so be it. But if you actually wish to be in the Scriptural Church of Christ, tehn I suggest you lookk at what was the early Church, and stop trying to interpret everything for yourself. When will Protestants realize that "self interpretation" is what has led to so many protestant 'churches' who all believe different things, yet all claim to be sola scriptura. You think one time common sense would just kick in. Yet if you look at the EOC, no matter what language or what country, we ALL believe the same things..you guys can't even make up yor mind in one langauge...well I gues it kind of isn't fair..we have the original language of Scripture to work with, and you have bad english translation...

As far as 1 Timothy 4:1-3 is concerned, I have no clue what you think. All I know is we are not forbidden to marry or forbidden from eating anything..so I don't get your point...

We just know that sexual abstinence and fasting is important to Spiritual discipline, according to Paul and Christ Himself. Fasting is about controlling ourselves, I mean if we can't control what we eat, how can we control our passions?

Let me ask you, do you even fast at all?

Okay ... please direct us to the Scripture(s) that says the N.T. church was called the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church."

And, your statement: "Orthodox means 'correct' or 'right' belief, to contrast it from the various heretical 'churches' that have come around through the years," confirms the point made in the OP -- the Eastern Orthodox Church designation came about to differentiate it from the Western Roman Catholic Church. First, does calling yourself the "right" church make a church the right church? Second, does calling yourself the "univeral" (catholic) church make the church the one church that Jesus built? Third, how does identifying yourself with a group that is characterized as "departing from the faith" translate (in any language) to the church that Jesus built?

Once again, Jesus established His church in Acts 2. Any church that came along later, whether Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, cult, etc. is simply a man-made church.

I don't believe I am playing "name semantics." The New Testament provides the scriptural designations for the church Jesus built, as it does for those who follow the Lord. Take a passage like 1 Peter 4:16? Is it fair with that passage to delete "Christian" from the passage and substitute another name in its place? That's what you are proposing we do with the Lord's church. I don't think such reasoning leads one to the truth. It may lead one to the answer he/she wants, but not the answer God gave in His instructions. It's not hard to see how the name "Christian" glorifies God's Son. Likewise, it's not terribly hard to see whom the church of Christ glorifies. On the other hand, we have the Orthodox Church. An unscriptural name. One that gives God no glory. I certainly see a problem with this idea.

As for my "prideful failures," I certainly would appreciate helping me get back on track. If by "early church," you mean the church of the New Testament, I assure you it is not overlooked in my studies. However, if mean the church of the second, third, fourth-centuries, etc., then you are probably correct in presuming that I don't spend a lot of time studying them or giving value to their practices. Can you please help me understand why I should?

Not sure what your method of "interpreting" Scripture is all about. Thinking out loud ... I sure hope it doesn't mean you have to believe what the church tells you, as opposed to studying for yourself. That idea sure doesn't hold much water as far as my understanding of Scriptures goes (i.e. Acts 17:10-11, 2 Timothy 2:15, Ephesians 3:3-6). Take that last passage. It is in the context of God joining both Jews and Gentiles together in one church ... which has one faith ... one Lord ... etc. in Eph. 4:1-6. There's no problem with this message translated accurately into any language. Just with the hearer. For whatever reason, folks choose to ignore this text. I know the Protestants I study with sure don't want to address the text. But the passages are right there in the Bibles they are using.

It's funny how people sometimes use the term "common sense." Actually, I have found that it involves a certain amount of knowledge in a particular area before one really obtains common sense. In this instance, with division under consideration, I suspect folks don't diligently study for themselves. Instead, they believe what their "Father," "Pastor," or "Reverend" tells them, generally speaking. Therefore, with very limited knowledge of the Bible, it's easy to envision a church that is made up of different churches with different beliefs and different practices. In essence, this is the denominational concept of the church. Within their way of thinking, "common sense" is different from the way you and/or I think. With that said, it's the "sense" that we should share in "common" that I'm concerned about - the sense that comes from studying God's word and gaining the correct understanding. I don't think it is as hard as people try to make it. Rather, the hard part is accepting what the Bible teaches when it the conflicts with our practices or pre-conceived beliefs. I believe all of us have to be on guard to prevent this from happening.

For the record, I believe folks are very capable of accurately translating God's word from its original language(s) into a different language. As an example, the Old Testament writings were translated from Hebrew and Aramaic into Greek in about 300 B.C. (i.e. the Septuagint Version). And, Jesus and the apostles quoted from it. And, since I'm not aware of any instances where Jesus made any corrections to it, I suspect is was translated accurately.

Since the New Testament books were written in Koine Greek -- the common language of the Roman Empire during the first century, I see two (simplified) possibilities: 1.) We all learn Koine Greek to discern what God's word says 2.) We have the Koine Greek translated into the various languages of the people. Personally, as most others would seem to agree with, I choose option #2. However, that doesn't mean that I don't do word studies to assure I understand the correct meaning of the word as used in the first century. One of the most useful aspects I have found is to look at the particular word or phrase being studied to see how it is used elsewhere in the Scriptures. An example would be the word "mansion" in the KJV & NKJV of John 14:2. The Koine Greek word "mone" means abode or dwelling place - not a specific type of dwelling place. This is an instance where the translators did not give a clear meaning of the word, but by a word study we can determine what was meant. Another problem arises with language changes. Take the KJV. English speaking people today don't speak in Elizabethan English. Therefore, it takes time to learn the outdated words and different sentence structure. And, some words have drastically changed meanings since 1611 when the KJV first appeared. "Gay clothing" in James 2:3 is an example. It meant something totally different back in the early 1600s than it does today. So, those using the KJV have to know its strengths and weaknesses. One thing is for sure, even if I learn Koine Greek, most people I talk with won't know that language. Therefore, I'm going to have to translate into a language that we both have in common, right? Having a fairly accurate English translation that both of us can read sure expedites the process for me.

My point concerning 1 Tim. 4:1-3 is that it foretold of those who would depart from the faith ... and even gave a few characteristics by which we would recognize them. I believe it is referring to the Catholic Church, from with the Orthodox Church split from.

I'm getting mixed signals by what you mean by fasting. I think of it as abstaining from food. However, You say, " If we can't control what we eat." That seems to me like you're saying that you practice selective fasting i.e. some versus all foods. Either way, can you direct me to the New Testament passages that teach about your practices. I am familiar with 1 Corinthians 7. It doesn't specify if the fast is to be selective, or the duration, or anything else about it. In my studies, the practice is a carryover from the Jews observance of the law of Moses. I am of Gentile descent. My people were never under the law of Moses. Why should I adapt a practice that falls into the category of things discussed in Romans 14, and is omitted from the things under the law of Moses that Gentiles need to heed in Acts 15? To answer your question, the answer is, "No. I do not fast for religious purposes per se." However, I do set time aside for religious purposes where food intake is delayed (e.g., meet with other elders on Sunday night after services). That usually makes it about 8-9 hours between lunch and a late dinner. Would that qualify as fasting?

[- DRA -]

I just went to the Churches of Christ website to see if there is any historical information to prove to myself it is the original church. I cannot find any historical proof that it is the same church as the first century church not even on their own website.

http://church-of-christ.org/who.html

So even from this it says they are only trying to reproduce the first century church. Not enough proof to convince me.

The only Churches that I have found that I see that can prove any historical ties to the 1st century church are the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, and Roman Catholic. I believe these were the Churches of Christ founded by His Apostles. The reasons for the different names as far as I can tell were due to location and jurisdiction, but were all the Church of Christ.

Glad to see you're searching.

Here's what I suggest. The Lord's church was established in Acts 2. Spend some time with the teaching and see what was taught, and especially note what people were told to do to be saved ... and how they responded (verses 37-41). Then, note the spread of the church from Jerusalem to Judea and Samaria in Acts 8, and beyond in Acts 13-28. It was simply a matter of preaching the word, and when people obey it they are saved and added to the Lord's church by the Lord Himself (Acts 2:47). And, we can see from the book of Acts and the N.T. epistles how the church worshipped, how it was organized, and what it was called. Today it is no different. Take the word of God. Preach it. And, when people obey the gospel of Christ. They are saved and added to His church. It's how the Lord set up His church and it is how it expanded from one location to another. It's God's way. His plan. His church. The church of Christ.

Sorry, but churches of Christ in the New Testament were those in different cities e.g., Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, Antioch (of Syria), and other locations as the gospel was preached to the world. They weren't Orthodox Churches ... as in right versus wrong. That designation came about from a division within the Catholic Church. To differentiate themselves, some declared they were the "Right" Church, which meant the Romans Catholics were the "Wrong" Church. Going back to the first century, there was only one church (Eph. 1:22-23, 4:4). The church Jesus built. His church. The church of Christ. It wasn't the "Right" Church versus a "Wrong" Church. Rather, there was only the one church. I humbly suggest spending some time with the New Testament to consider the church it presents. That is the church I'm interested in. I want to please God as they pleased God. And, when they didn't, I want to avoid the mistakes they made (e.g., 1 Cor. 1:10-17).

[- DRA -]

SO, is it the name of the Church that matters ?

Could you describe what the worship of the 1st century Church looked like ?

First, could you address these previous questions from our discussion on the thread: "Those knowledgable of the Bible - please help me out!!!" (see Post 146 on Page 15). I really need to better understand where you are coming from. Here are the questions I asked in that post ...

Could you translate for me what you are trying to say -- or not to say, please?

For instance, I understand "pas graphe" translated "all/every Scripture" in 2 Tim. 3:16a to include both the Old and New Testament passages. Agree or disagree? If you disagree, can you be specific and tell me exactly what you think "pas graphe" includes?

[SeraphimSarov]

Sorry, but churches of Christ in the New Testament were those in different cities e.g., Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, Antioch (of Syria), and other locations as the gospel was preached to the world. They weren't Orthodox Churches ... as in right versus wrong. That designation came about from a division within the Catholic Church.

How are we to take you seriously when you make statements like this? Have you no grasp of Church history?

[the_Abbot]

Sorry, but churches of Christ in the New Testament were those in different cities e.g., Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, Antioch (of Syria), and other locations as the gospel was preached to the world. They weren't Orthodox Churches

:doh:

How can they not be Orthodox. Did they not have the right or correct teaching?

[the_Abbot]

I don't even know why I am debating this here. I am neither Orthodox or CoC. I should just be lurking and learning.

Forgive me

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Sorry, but I have a differing view. The only "early church" I am concerned with is the New Testament church. As stated in the OP by a person of the Orthodox faith, the Orthodox Church didn't come on the scene until over 1,000 years later, when it split from Catholicism. As I state in the OP, I believe the Orthodox (right) designation was in contrast to the Roman Catholic Church (which they viewed as being wrong). The distinction is further contrasted by the Eastern versus Western designation.

It's very simple. One Church, five patriarchs. One left (Rome). The other four still were/are in communion with each other. Who left whom?

Uh ... help me out. What was the name of the that one church before the split? And, was there a new name/designation that arose which those who followed the four "patriarchs" called themselves by? If so, what the new name? And, where can I read about the role of the "patriarch" in the New Testament church?

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

No, that is not correct. My reasoning from the OP has been that Jesus established His church in the first century, and the churches built by men arose later i.e. Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, etc. Therefore, none of the churches of men can be the church of our Lord. Concisely stated, that's my point.


Well, the onus is on YOU to prove that YOUR church is the same as that in the New Testament. Because that is what you're claiming, is it not? I've not seen anything that you've posted that would seem to hold that your church is IT. If you're going to be making the claim that the Orthodox Church isn't what it claims to be, then where is the overwhelming evidence to back up your assertions?

Not to be offensive, but I don't have a church. I was contrasting the church of the New Testament with the churches of men that arose later. If we want to get into particulars the church hierarchy that arose after the first century would be as good a place to start as any. Therefore, please show me the Scriptural basis for the pope, cardinals, and priests.

Yes, you never really did delve too deeply into the whole, what the New Testament Church did before they had the New Testament all typed out and bound nicely for general use like we do today. They had Tradition. What Church gave us the canon of the NT again?

Let's not forget something. The original inspired letters were copied ... and copied ... and passed around... and passed around. No, they weren't typed. Side note: If I understand things correctly, that didn't occur on any large scale until ole Gutenburg fired up the printing press in 1456. His first product was the Latin Vulgate. Going back to the originals and copies floating around, I believe the knowledge of what was and what wasn't inspired was there. For sure, Paul said the gospel of Luke was Scripture in 1 Timothy 5:18. And, Peter said the writings of Paul were Scripture in 2 Peter 3:15. So, it wasn't that God left things up to men to decide what was and wasn't inspired.

Tradition in and of itself isn't bad. It just depends on what type it is. Tradition based on what the apostles taught and recorded in Scripture is just fine (2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6; 2 Tim. 3:16-17). However, traditions of men are a totally different matter (e.g., Matt. 15).

As for the canon of N.T. Scriptures, here's something you might find interesting ...
http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/council_of_nicea.htm

[nutroll]

we were called Orthodox well before the Schism in 1054. And we also refer to ourselves by all the various scriptural names. You are barking up the wrong tree with this line of reasoning.

[SeraphimSarov]

Uh ... help me out. What was the name of the that one church before the split? And, was there a new name/designation that arose which those who followed the four "patriarchs" called themselves by? If so, what the new name?

Good grief... we'll know them by what they call themselves, right? If you call your church the Church of Christ, that means you obviously must be the church of the NT, right? :doh:

PS -- the title page of my big service book calls the Church the Catholic Orthodox Church of Christ [emphasis mine]. Church of Christ... do we win now? Is that the name you were looking for?

(Maybe it's best that I don't make anymore posts in this thread... ridiculous.)

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Sorry, but churches of Christ in the New Testament were those in different cities e.g., Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, Antioch (of Syria), and other locations as the gospel was preached to the world. They weren't Orthodox Churches ... as in right versus wrong. That designation came about from a division within the Catholic Church.

How are we to take you seriously when you make statements like this? Have you no grasp of Church history?

Well, if not too much trouble, open your New Testament and turn to the book of Acts. Then, go to chapter 2. The setting is the city of Jerusalem. The church was established there on Pentecost. The church continued in Jerusalem for some time until Stephen was stoned in Acts 7. Then, following that event, the disciples dispersed to Judea and Samaria. Check out Acts 8:1-5. I'm not just making up this stuff. And, turn over to Acts 11:26-30 to read about the church in Antioch of Syria (not to be confused with Antioch of Pisidia in Acts 13:14). And, please take the time to check out the rest of the book of Acts, especially noting Paul's 3 journeys in which he preached the gospel and established churches in various locations. None of those churches were called Orthodox Churches.

I think I have a pretty good grasp of church history. Obviously, you disagree. So, please help me understand what is so wrong in my understanding.

[seashale76]

First, thanks for responding and sharing your concerns.

Yes, I understand a married man can become an Orthodox priest. However, can a single man get married after becoming an Orthodox priest? If not, where is the scriptural authority to forbid this? Not everything is spelled out in the New Testament. Tradition came first. The NT is part of Tradition.

Fasting is one thing. However, forbidding certain things that God hasn't is a totally different matter according to 1 Tim. 4:1-3. Eh? Let's look at 1 Timothy 4: 1-3 more closely, shall we?

1Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

2Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 3Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

See, the thing is, priests aren't forbidden to marry. Nobody is forbidden to marry. People make a choice. Just because one can't marry after they are ordained doesn't prove your case here. The Orthodox Church also doesn't forbid people to eat meat either. We have fasting periods, which, as we all know, is encouraged by scripture. People can eat ANYTHING they like whenever they aren't fasting. Nothing is forbidden.

I believe Acts 20:29-31 is alluding to the digression of the eldership where a chief elder was appointed to oversee other elders. I believe the role became to be known as a bishop. The term bishop in the New Testament is synonymous with elder, pastor, shepherd, or overseer. No, I don't believe Acts 20:29-31 is pointing to the Orthodox Church per se, but to the Catholic Church. As explained in both perspectives in the OP, the Orthodox Church arose years later from Catholicism. Frankly, I believe it is 1,000 years too late to the church established on Pentecost in Acts 2.
Acts 20: 29-31
29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. 31Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

What a stretch on your part! Where do you get the authority to interpret Holy Scripture in this fashion? People followed after men. Their movements even took on the names of the men they were following. Why, even today, we have such movements as the Campbellite movement, named after men and their own unique doctrines.

Glad you posted 1 Peter 2:9. All of God's people are priests. All have sacrifices to offer e.g., Romans 12:1, Heb. 13:15-16. There is no need for an office for someone to do this for us. Note the imagery in Heb. 10:19-20. When Jesus died on the cross, the veil in the temple was torn from top to bottom (Matt. 27:51). Therefore, when we enter the Holy Place to offer our sacrifices according to Hebrews 10, with the veil torn, we also have access to the Most Holy Place (i.e. the throne of God in Heb. 4:16). See the point? Unlike the O.T. Levitical system where only the High Priest entered the Most Holy Place, under the gospel of Christ each Christian has access through the veil, which is the body of Christ (Heb. 10:20) to come to the throne of God. Beautiful imagery. You're not seeing mine.

I trust that my Bible is true because the Holy Spirit guided the writers and declared that their writings were Scripture. 1 Timothy 5:18 is an example.
1 Timothy 5:18
18For the scripture saith, thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.

Uh, this doesn't make sense in light of what you're saying.


"Scripture" refers to both Deut. 25:4 and Luke 10:7, which are quoted in that passage. And, in 2 Pet. 3:16, the writings of Paul are declared to be Scripture. Know what I believe? I believe that God has done what He promised in Isaiah 40:8 and 1 Peter 1:23-24. God has preserved His word - both the Old and New Testament writings. You're still not seeing that the Church that you've claimed to be untrue and not guided by the Holy Spirit is the same Church that determined which books were in the canon of Scripture. There were plenty of books that also claimed to be Scripture as well. Just because they claim to be isn't good enough. The Holy Spirit guides the Ecclesia 100%. It's what happened at the Ecumenical Councils.

Please allow me to comment about this statement: "Nothing of this scripture negates the role of priests in the Church. Our clergy co-celebrate with us in the Divine Liturgy." As you said, all Christians are priests under the law of Christ. Where is the authority for the role of the "priests/clergy" you mention? It's not scriptural. Therefore, that means it came later. Think back to Acts 20:29-31. See any connection? Give it some thought. It's all I ask. Scripture doesn't at all condemn the role of priests. There are even guidelines set out in scripture. Give that some thought.

And, please allow me to address another statement: “Holy Tradition is the only way to interpret the Scriptures.” I beg to differ. I believe Jesus shows us a basic rule of Bible interpretation in Matthew 4:5-7. In essence, a correct understanding of one passage/text of Scripture must harmonize with others. And, I believe a person has to diligently apply themselves to studying God’s word and applying what is taught i.e. Acts 17:10-11, 2 Tim. 2:15, James 1:21-25.
What has this to do with interpreting scripture?

Matthew 4: 5-7
5Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,

6And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. 7Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

How does one become a Christian? I believe that faith or belief is necessary (John 3:16, Mark 16:16, Hebrews 11:6), as is repentance (Luke 13:3,5; Acts 2:38, Acts 17:30), and confession of our Lord (Matt. 10:32-33, Acts 8:37, Romans 10:9-10), and being baptized in the name of the Lord (Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, Rom. 6:3-11). Those who are saved from their sins are added to the Lord’s church by the Lord Himself (Acts 2:47). I get my authority to “interpret” Scripture from numerous passages (e.g., Acts 17:10-11, 2 Tim. 2:15, Eph. 3:3-6, Matt. 22:23-33).
I fail to see how this applies to YOU specifically.
Acts 17: 10-11
10And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
11These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.



Yes, I believe that one must be born again. Jesus briefly introduces the thought in John 3, and more detail is provided in Romans 6:3-11. In essence, it occurs when a believer that repents and confesses Jesus is baptized. Baptism is God’s way for one to become united with the Lord’s death, burial, and resurrection. It is where one dies to sin, becomes freed from it, and becomes alive to God – thus, being born again.

When the Christians I worship come together, we observe the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:20). This supper is a reminder (“This do … in remembrance of Me” – 1 Cor. 11:25) of Jesus’ sacrifice for us. Sorry, but I don’t believe when partaking of the Lord’s Supper that we are literally eating His body and drinking His blood. Note the examples in the Gospel accounts of His institution of the supper. It wasn’t His literal body they ate. Nor did they drink His blood. The unleavened bread and fruit of the vine represented His body and blood, respectively. His intend was for the disciples to be reminded of His sacrifice when they partake. Well, it's a pretty useless ordinance for you then. One can contemplate without saltine crackers and Welch's grape juice and get the same results.

I am not a part of a denomination. The denominational concept is based on the bottom number in a fraction, which represents a part of the whole. Denominationalism believes the church is made up of churches – with each different church (i.e. Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc.) a part of the whole. I believe the church is made up of individual Christians per 1 Corinthians 12:14-27. The Lord established but one church (Eph. 4:4), and it is obvious from history that the denominational churches all arose many years after Jesus established His church. Yes, there was one Church established. The Churches of Christ aren't it. Just a nice attempt at historical revisionism. Commendable, but lacking.

[Thekla]

First, could you address these previous questions from our discussion on the thread: "Those knowledgable of the Bible - please help me out!!!" (see Post 146 on Page 15). I really need to better understand where you are coming from. Here are the questions I asked in that post ...

Could you translate for me what you are trying to say -- or not to say, please?

For instance, I understand "pas graphe" translated "all/every Scripture" in 2 Tim. 3:16a to include both the Old and New Testament passages. Agree or disagree? If you disagree, can you be specific and tell me exactly what you think "pas graphe" includes?
this is a new thread. The NT was not yet compiled when this verse was written.
Was Campbell inspired by God ?

[- DRA -]

we were called Orthodox well before the Schism in 1054. And we also refer to ourselves by all the various scriptural names. You are barking up the wrong tree with this line of reasoning.

Really? When?

Anyway, if it's after the first-century and apart from the Holy Scriptures, it's too late and not approved of God -- which is my primary concern.

Please allow me to make an observation: You say, "And we also refer to ourselves by all the various scriptural names." To me, the word "also" is worth noting. In its context, it means in addition to the unscriptural name, the Orthodox Church also refers to itself by the scriptural names. It's amazing to me that a church that claims to be the church of the New Testament carries as its primary name one that isn't even found in the N.T. ... which means it's lacking in authority from the Lord per Colossians 3:17.

[nutroll]

Really? When?

Anyway, if it's after the first-century and apart from the Holy Scriptures, it's too late and not approved of God -- which is my primary concern.

Please allow me to make an observation: You say, "And we also refer to ourselves by all the various scriptural names." To me, the word "also" is worth noting. In its context, it means in addition to the unscriptural name, the Orthodox Church also refers to itself by the scriptural names. It's amazing to me that a church that claims to be the church of the New Testament carries as its primary name one that isn't even found in the N.T. ... which means it's lacking in authority from the Lord per Colossians 3:17.
Well the Oriental Orthodox use the name Orthodox as well and we haven't been in communion with each other since the 5th century. And why would there have been a need for the name Orthodox Church in the NT times when no one had yet split off from the One Church (which is our Church)? We mostly use the name Orthodox when we are talking to heterodox. Most commonly within our Church we just say "the Church." If there weren't churches that taught false teachings, we would have no need for an adjective to differentiate between them.

[- DRA -]

this is a new thread. The NT was not yet compiled when this verse was written.
Was Campbell inspired by God ?

Thanks for clarifying things :confused:.

So, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 only applies to the Old Testament. Therefore, you are serving God under the law of Moses, right? If not, you should be. If "all Scripture" makes one "complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" (NKJV) and refers to the Old Testament, then the New Testament was NOT needed. After, if one is complete and is thoroughly equipped with the Old Testament, it's hard to improve upon that, right?

I believe "all Scripture" is inspired by God per 2 Tim. 3:16a. I am not aware of any writings by anyone named Campbell in the Scriptures. Therefore, the answer is, "No." Campbell wasn't inspired (i.e. God-breathed), and neither were any of the things that he wrote.

Now, how 'bout those traditions that came along after "all Scripture" was written? Were they inspired of God?

[Thekla]

Really? When?

Anyway, if it's after the first-century and apart from the Holy Scriptures, it's too late and not approved of God -- which is my primary concern.

Please allow me to make an observation: You say, "And we also refer to ourselves by all the various scriptural names." To me, the word "also" is worth noting. In its context, it means in addition to the unscriptural name, the Orthodox Church also refers to itself by the scriptural names. It's amazing to me that a church that claims to be the church of the New Testament carries as its primary name one that isn't even found in the N.T. ... which means it's lacking in authority from the Lord per Colossians 3:17.
just to clarify; is any Church that uses the nomenclature "Church of Christ" or "Church of God" the authentic NT Church ?

[- DRA -]

just to clarify; is any Church that uses the nomenclature "Church of Christ" or "Church of God" the authentic NT Church ?

I believe a careful consideration of Matthew 7:21-23 should answer your question. The principle would apply not only to those who say, "Lord, Lord," but also to those who profess to be a church of Christ.

[Thekla]

Thanks for clarifying things :confused:

I thought this was a new thread ...

So, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 only applies to the Old Testament. Therefore, you are serving God under the law of Moses, right? If not, you should be. If "all Scripture" makes one "complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" (NKJV) and refers to the Old Testament, then the New Testament was NOT needed. After, if one is complete and is thoroughly equipped with the Old Testament, it's hard to improve upon that, right?

I provided a more accurate translation, which was almost exactly like one you provided. I then stated that the NT was not compiled prior to the writing of the epistle to Timothy.

I believe "all Scripture" is inspired by God per 2 Tim. 3:16a.

the "complication" is that graphe refers to written works. To arrive at the conclusion you have drawn requires "interpretation".

I am not aware of any writings by anyone named Campbell in the Scriptures. Therefore, the answer is, "No." Campbell wasn't inspired (i.e. God-breathed), and neither were any of the things that he wrote.

so, Campbell did not have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit ?

Now, how 'bout those traditions that came along after "all Scripture" was written? Were they inspired of God?

This would require a "comparison" of all early Church Traditions with later ones: so, I ask again, please describe what the worship of the early Church looked like.

[Thekla]

I believe a careful consideration of Matthew 7:21-23 should answer your question. The principle would apply not only to those who say, "Lord, Lord," but also to those who profess to be a church of Christ.
so the real Church:
1. professes Christ
2. can only have the name "Church of Christ" or "Church of God".

[repentant]

DRA -;41490076 Okay ... please direct us to the Scripture(s) that says the N.T. church was called the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church."

In one, (Matthew 16: 18)
holy, (I Peter 2: 5-9)
catholic (Mark 16: 15)
and apostolic Church; (Acts 2: 42; Ephesians 2: 19-22)


Now please answer my question which is-can you show me in Scripture where its says that whatever is written as Scripture is the only source of Doctrine, belief, things we can and can't do, etc...

And, your statement: "Orthodox means 'correct' or 'right' belief, to contrast it from the various heretical 'churches' that have come around through the years," confirms the point made in the OP -- the Eastern Orthodox Church designation came about to differentiate it from the Western Roman Catholic Church. First, does calling yourself the "right" church make a church the right church? Second, does calling yourself the "univeral" (catholic) church make the church the one church that Jesus built? Third, how does identifying yourself with a group that is characterized as "departing from the faith" translate (in any language) to the church that Jesus built?

Sorry unlike you, we don't play name semantics. Call us whatever you want...

Once again, Jesus established His church in Acts 2. Any church that came along later, whether Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, cult, etc. is simply a man-made church.

You obvioulsy have no clue and are lost..


I don't believe I am playing "name semantics." The New Testament provides the scriptural designations for the church Jesus built, as it does for those who follow the Lord. Take a passage like 1 Peter 4:16? Is it fair with that passage to delete "Christian" from the passage and substitute another name in its place? That's what you are proposing we do with the Lord's church. I don't think such reasoning leads one to the truth. It may lead one to the answer he/she wants, but not the answer God gave in His instructions. It's not hard to see how the name "Christian" glorifies God's Son. Likewise, it's not terribly hard to see whom the church of Christ glorifies. On the other hand, we have the Orthodox Church. An unscriptural name. One that gives God no glory. I certainly see a problem with this idea.

Above I gave you the criteria for what the Church is..and the Scripture to back it up. Our entire Creed can be backed by Scripture..our statement of belief..

As for my "prideful failures," I certainly would appreciate helping me get back on track. If by "early church," you mean the church of the New Testament, I assure you it is not overlooked in my studies. However, if mean the church of the second, third, fourth-centuries, etc., then you are probably correct in presuming that I don't spend a lot of time studying them or giving value to their practices. Can you please help me understand why I should?

And that is your fault, and your missing a few years...but tell me, where was the Church of the NT, if it was not the Church of the 2nd, 3rd or 4th centuries?



For the record, I believe folks are very capable of accurately translating God's word from its original language(s) into a different language. As an example, the Old Testament writings were translated from Hebrew and Aramaic into Greek in about 300 B.C. (i.e. the Septuagint Version). And, Jesus and the apostles quoted from it. And, since I'm not aware of any instances where Jesus made any corrections to it, I suspect is was translated accurately.

It was translated accurate, and we use it to this day BUT the NT has discrepenices...take it from a Greek speaker..


My point concerning 1 Tim. 4:1-3 is that it foretold of those who would depart from the faith ... and even gave a few characteristics by which we would recognize them. I believe it is referring to the Catholic Church, from with the Orthodox Church split from.

So what you ae saying is the RCC IS the Church, and WE split from it? I think you need to get your facts of history straight..

I'm getting mixed signals by what you mean by fasting. I think of it as abstaining from food. However, You say, " If we can't control what we eat." That seems to me like you're saying that you practice selective fasting i.e. some versus all foods. Either way, can you direct me to the New Testament passages that teach about your practices. I am familiar with 1 Corinthians 7. It doesn't specify if the fast is to be selective, or the duration, or anything else about it. In my studies, the practice is a carryover from the Jews observance of the law of Moses. I am of Gentile descent. My people were never under the law of Moses. Why should I adapt a practice that falls into the category of things discussed in Romans 14, and is omitted from the things under the law of Moses that Gentiles need to heed in Acts 15? To answer your question, the answer is, "No. I do not fast for religious purposes per se." However, I do set time aside for religious purposes where food intake is delayed (e.g., meet with other elders on Sunday night after services). That usually makes it about 8-9 hours between lunch and a late dinner. Would that qualify as fasting?

Do whatever you want my friend. Obviously you, who are so sola scriptura, don't even follow the basic commandment of fasting, which is in it several times..but like most hypocrtical Protestants..you think that Scripture is a buffet in which you get to "pick and choose" what you believe, and what you don't..what you do and what you don't do..


Matthew 6:16
Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

When not if..

Matthew 9:15
And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast.

They shall fast..

Matthew 17:21
Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.

The ONLY way to get rid of demons...

Acts 13:2
As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.

Acts 13:3
And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.

Acts 14:23
And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.

The Apostles fasted, but I guess you don't have to since you are so much better than they..

Acts 27:9
Now when much time was spent, and when sailing was now dangerous, because the fast was now already past, Paul admonished them,

"The fast was now already past"-the "fast" being a period of time in which you "fast"..such as Lent..

etc, etc, etc, there are many more....but you see the point. You act all high and mighty saying that your church is correct because of a name in scripture, yada yada...yet you ignore Scripture which may seem a little hard for you. Yea fasting isn't easy, and that is why people seem to leave that part out of their worship and theology...

[seashale76]

Uh ... help me out. What was the name of the that one church before the split? And, was there a new name/designation that arose which those who followed the four "patriarchs" called themselves by? If so, what the new name? And, where can I read about the role of the "patriarch" in the New Testament church? Are you talking about the Universal Church? You know all those cities that were Christianized? Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Constantinople, etcetera? I wonder what form of Christianity was practiced in those places? I wonder if the Christians in those cities follow the Campbellite Church of Christ model or perhaps a different one? Have you read anything from the Early Church Fathers in the first century? Also, have you heard of the Liturgy of St. James? It's from the first century as well.

Do you believe the Church went underground as soon as the last apostle died only to emerge after the Restoration Movement? Because, I'd like to see your evidence of the existence of this Campbellite inspired Church of Christ type organization before the Restoration Movement, if you don't mind. Shouldn't be too hard to prove if it really happened this way.


Not to be offensive, but I don't have a church. I was contrasting the church of the New Testament with the churches of men that arose later. If we want to get into particulars the church hierarchy that arose after the first century would be as good a place to start as any. Therefore, please show me the Scriptural basis for the pope, cardinals, and priests. You don't have a church? You're not part of the body of Christ? Ah, yes, there were lots of churches of men that arose later. Arianism, Campbellites, etc. The Church hierarchy was established in the NT. Also, it continued during the first century itself and up until this present time.


Let's not forget something. The original inspired letters were copied ... and copied ... and passed around... and passed around. No, they weren't typed. Side note: If I understand things correctly, that didn't occur on any large scale until ole Gutenburg fired up the printing press in 1456. His first product was the Latin Vulgate. Going back to the originals and copies floating around, I believe the knowledge of what was and what wasn't inspired was there. For sure, Paul said the gospel of Luke was Scripture in 1 Timothy 5:18. And, Peter said the writings of Paul were Scripture in 2 Peter 3:15. So, it wasn't that God left things up to men to decide what was and wasn't inspired. We have an Ecumenical Council in Acts, so it isn't a stretch to believe that more happened. The Holy Spirit guides the Ecclesia. It wasn't left up to men. It was ALL God. And no, regardless of what you believe, without those Ecumenical Councils, you WOULDN'T have your NT canon. That was the Church. The only show in town.

Tradition in and of itself isn't bad. It just depends on what type it is. Tradition based on what the apostles taught and recorded in Scripture is just fine (2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6; 2 Tim. 3:16-17). However, traditions of men are a totally different matter (e.g., Matt. 15). I quite agree. Glad the Orthodox Church has the real deal.

As for the canon of N.T. Scriptures, here's something you might find interesting ...
http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/council_of_nicea.htm Ah! You've gotten all of your Orthodox information from non-Orthodox sources, eh? Delightful.

[repentant]

Looking back at this, I realized how stupid of a debate this is..I mean seriously...we are debating with a guy whos main arguement is that any church called "church of Christ" has to be the Church. This is crazy..he is playing name semantics..not worth debating over. He has no evidence backing up his crazy arguements. I just know that we have the Truth, and in having the Truth we are secure that are faith is the Truth. This is why we are the only Church on here that actually lets people try to debate with us...we have nothing to fear..

[SeraphimSarov]

Looking back at this, I realized how stupid of a debate this is..I mean seriously...we are debating with a guy whos main arguement is that any church called "church of Christ" has to be the Church. This is crazy..he is playing name semantics..not worth debating over.

I was starting to wonder if anybody else was noticing this... :P

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

I believe a careful consideration of Matthew 7:21-23 should answer your question. The principle would apply not only to those who say, "Lord, Lord," but also to those who profess to be a church of Christ.

so the real Church:
1. professes Christ
2. can only have the name "Church of Christ" or "Church of God".

I still encourage you to spend a few minutes and diligently consider the suggested text. "The folks under consideration said, "Lord, Lord," but lacked something. See if you can determine what they lacked in verse 21. Once you find what they were lacking, you can apply the same principle to the church. Any group can say they are the Lord's church, but according to this passage (Matt. 7:21), there's something else that should also be considered.

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Thanks for clarifying things

I thought this was a new thread ...

The thread is new, but our interaction isn't. I am concerned with what I perceive to be attempts to undermine the meaning of 2 Tim. 3:16a. You seem reluctant to acknowledge whether or not "all Scripture" includes both the Old and New Testament writings. Either way, it presents a dilemma for anyone trying to find a scriptural basis for traditions that originated after the first-century and were totally separate and apart from the inspired writings. Why? The last part of verse 17 clearly declares what "all Scripture" does for us -- it makes us "complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." Thus, if you think "all Scripture" means the Old Testament writings, then that is what you should be following. If both Old and New, then they are sufficient to do for us what the text says. Either way, later traditions aren't helpful or necessary.

Originally Posted by - DRA -

So, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 only applies to the Old Testament. Therefore, you are serving God under the law of Moses, right? If not, you should be. If "all Scripture" makes one "complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" (NKJV