Denominationalism

What happened to becoming a monk?

Yes it is. just because the Orthodox church denies it(being a denomination), does not change the fact. In fact according to the True Church, the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox church was excommunicated from the table of Christ. The orthodox church still needs to repent of its schismatic ways and return to the Church for forgiveness. 

The doctrinal formulations of the church were all originally written in Greek. All the ecumenical councils before the schism of Rome took place in the east. 

So what? It was the Eastern Church who was judged by God with the Islamic hordes.  They were decimated. The orthodox church turned its back on the truth. 

Is it really so hard to believe that western Christianity is corrupt? 

LOL! All humanity is corrupt. All people are corrupt. And all churches are corrupt.  Are you really saying that you think there is no corruptness in the Orthodox church? Why then are there numerous denominations within its fold - and why do their views differ across the various countries - including even some denying others the table of the Lord. 

God bless you all for trying, but the historical church never ceased to be, and we certainly pray for reunion. The ecclesiastical anarchy of western Christianity is a legitimite threat to keeping the integrity of the faith. 

Although it is true that often forces come from both outside and inside, it is those who abandon the Word of God in favour of their non-biblical traditions who are the primary threat to the Church

Denominationalism is strictly a protestant/"evangelical" Christianity phenomena.

What does it really mean?

That the entirety of the church is not present here, it is not truly catholic.

Some say they are "nondenominational", but do any so called "nondenominational " churches have the entire faith? No, they like all the other denominations only contain a piece of the pie.

The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is truly nondenominational, not nondenominational in pretense. That is, the fullness of the faith is there. It is complete. It is universal. It is catholic.

The Orthodox Catholic Church is the complete church. 

Denominationalism is just acknowledging that there are differences within the church that reflect culture, geography,  and history. These sometimes intensify into factions. Originally, the Church was in Jerusalem. But soon because of the movement of the Spirit of God it began to stretch into different places. The epistle to the Romans written by Paul revealed there were different factions in that church, both Jewish and Gentile.  In each of Paul's various letters these factions arise - but so do different things in different locations and cultures.  He took aim at those different factions which were trying to change the gospel, but he embraced the liberty of others that took a strictly legalistic approach to the law. Denominationalism in its current form is really the development of this idea. As the Church moved West, and East, it encountered different cultures and it needed to learn whether to embrace or not embrace particular ideas. The rise of denominations in one sense started with Paul and the Jewish Church - it developed further with the division of East and West. It developed even further around the time of the Reformation and the protestant movement. Yet its roots are from the beginning. It is no small thing that God gave Jacob 12 sons who all had different agendas yet formed the one nation. And it is no small thing that Israel divided later on into two separate divisions of the same nation.

Denominationalism allows for differences in culture, geography, history, and non-essential doctrines while at the same time remaining true to those things which are true and essential to be Christian. There are certain non-negotiables in Christianity.  One of the great strengths of denominationalism is its safeguards against heresy and cults. 

The church is present on earth and in heaven. It is one Catholic church. On earth we have the visible local churches - and we have the invisible church as a whole - making up of past and present and even future Christians. That is the true Catholic Church. As Hebrews puts it - the testimony of the Saints and as John puts it in Revelation - "a number which cannot be counted.

The church is a family. Families do not always live in the same house - but they do share the same values.  And they do share the same ancestry.

I agree that the term non-denominational is a furphy. It is like saying "we have no liturgy". It is a nonsense. As for whether they have the entire faith that is a different question. I would take the view that all churches have the entire faith. Yes, even the Eastern Orthodox church. Even the Catholic Church. But what is the entire faith? That is the bigger question. For a church to be a church it must have the entire faith. This is why I would say that the LDS and the JW are not part of the church because they do not have the entire faith. Yet entire in this context is not saying everything about every doctrine in relation to God and everything because then no church would have the entire faith - for we are all sinful, and we are not God. Only God has the entire faith - if that entire means absolutely everything.

Entire therefore must relate to the faith as handed down by the Apostles from Jesus and which is recorded in the Scriptures according to Hebrews 1:1-3. This is why the Church universal accepts there are certain non-negotiables in relation to doctrine relating to the Trinity, Christ's death and resurrection, Christ's divinity, and the teaching on the atonement. The Creeds are the benchmark. Fall away from this and you fall away from the entire faith.

Yet "entire" does not relate to the negotiables that very often arise from culture, geography, and other means including how to interpret. Issues relating to baptism mode, wearing of robes, married priests, holy communion, music, forms of church government, the role of woman in the church, etc al tend to be tied to culture, geography and local customs.  Yes, some are more important than others, but none are of a non-negotiable form.

If people are not baptised or not do take communion even though they are sacraments, they do not risk salvation, otherwise the thief on the cross was fooled by Jesus. And for the record, I think that the bible does provide much insight into mode and use of each of the above. Yet, although each is obviously communicated in faith and understood by faith, there usage or misusage are not the unforgiveable sin. Whereas each of the doctrines of essentiality about God - relate directly to the unforgiveable sin of denying Christ in his person, his deity, and his work on this world.

When we talk of the invisible church in history and eternity - this is absolutely correct. Yet there is the now and the hereafter. On earth sin still exists. And while sin exists, humanity will continue to err, including the church. It is only in the Next Life that the church will truly be universal and without denomination.

The Orthodox Catholic Church is the complete church. 

If you are referring to the Eastern Church you only reveal your arrogance. You seem to lack one of the essentials - humility

That is if the church even recites the creed at all. 

Many martyrs and confessors came out of defending the creed of the church.

You are not speaking to anything the church teaches.

The visible church on Earth is as the human nature in Christ. The church in heaven is as the divine nature of Christ. They are One Church.

The view you are expressing is an ahistorical understanding of the church.

There is no "eastern" church, there is simply the church. There is nothing arrogant about submitting to the apostolic church. If I was truly arrogant, I would start my own church and add to the list of 30,000+ denominations that constitute the churches of rebellion that go under the umbrella of protestantism.

It is not a false narrative just because you say so. We use denominationalism because that it what it is. The Eastern Orthodox church has various national churches - each which considers themselves the supreme church of God. They are denominations in the same way that there are 160 different denominations of the Episcopalian church. The Episcopalian church however does not have its head in the sand like those in the Eastern Orthodox Churches when it comes to denominations. The Episcopalian church still acknowledges where its authority is derived - indeed as all members / congregations of the true church.

I reject your assertion that this narrative serves to unequally yoke heretics with the church. We reject any who are heretics, hence why the LDS and the JW do not worship with the Churches of Christ.

Protestant Churches hold various views on holy communion. None would deny its represents truly the body and blood of Christ. It clearly is not THE blood and body of Christ as when it was instituted by Jesus was very much still alive and all of his own body and blood was present in  his own physical body. You can dispute this if you like, as you would probably will, but that is irrational and not faith. In fact it is one of the superstitions that the Orthodox is unable to differentiate from the reality of God. It is a custom and one that follows the mysticism traits of the pagan eastern religions.

Many churches recite the creeds. We frequently recite the creeds in our church.

I reject your lies and misconceptions about protestant churches.  Church history has always debated about the one council your church rejects. history as I said above is full of bias. This is one of these parts. The West rejects the East as heretics and the East were excommunicated from the True Church. And on the other hand, the East did the same to the West. I hold to the position of the West and reject the East's position as weak and ill conceived.

Yes, and this includes many protestants.(died for the creed of the church)

It is not in line with your understanding - and possibly because your church refuses to provide the reasoning which is found in the West.

They are historical. They might not agree with your position but that is because your church is prejudiced against what the West taught from the beginning.

There are not 30,000 protestant denominations in any event.  And many of the so called denominations today are not under the umbrella of Protestantism.  The Baptists, the churches of Christ, the Salvation Army, the brethrens are not protestant churches. The only churches which actually fall under the protestant banner are Episcopalian, Luthran, Presbyterian, and the Reformed churches. the others you refer to along with the Charismatic movement and Pentecostal churches are what is known as dissidents. Your ignorance misses the point that Protestant Churches are Confessional churches.

The self governing Orthodox Churches are not denominations, we are all in communion with eachother and recognize eachother as Orthodox and Catholic.

I don't need to dispute the eucharist with you, it is unnecessary. All I will say concerning that is we see things very differently, and it is irreconcilable with what we accept as reality.

Remember, Christ Himself said this was a hard teaching.

The church teaches Christianity, not eastern paganism. 

The Anglican or Episcopalian church invented the branch theory of the church to justify the existence of a church that broke communion with Rome for the pettiest reason. Martin Luther at least had some good reasons. The Anglican Church exists because some king didn't like being told how to conduct his married life!

There is no "protestant church", so making broad ststements about it is difficult. What can I say? They are all denominations, not catholic.

So you believe in papal supremacy? You think it was right of Rome to alter the creed of the church that it had no right to alter?

If Rome was on the right side of the issue, I might not be Orthodox. I accidently found the Orthodox Church. I had never given it.much thought before. Studying Church history and the writings of the saints is what lead me to Orthodoxy. When it comes to the great schism, it is irrefutable to me that Rome is on the wrong side of history.

The history of the Latin church only gets more blood thirsty and political after the schism. How can you, a self declared protestant even defend the church you claim to be the true church when you yourself are not even a part of it? Of you believe in Rome so much, why don't you join their church?

The Latin Church is heterodox for no arbitrary reason. They demonstrably corrupted the faith.

The Nicean-Constantinople creed is the creed of the church. What does it say? The Holy Spirit proceeds, that is, originates from The Father. The Father is the fountainhead of divinity. To say that the spirit originates in The Father and The Son is an alteration of the creed, and it totally confuses The Trinity. Double procession is a corruption of the faith.

If this is true at all, it was no doubt the corrupted Latin creed, because protestants did not inherit the creed that to this day is used by every Orthodox Church.

May God bless the martyrs who were killed to translate the bible into common vernacular! Something The Orthodox Church has ALWAYS done. Rome on the other hand insisted that everything be done in Latin up until the 1950s. 

As you know, I do not acknowledge the reasonings of the west to be the reasonings of the church because the west broke away from the church precisely because they perverted the faith. In no small part due to their reasonings! 

Most of the church fathers spoke Greek. Very few spoke Latin. That is why the west has disproportionate influence from Augustine of Hippo. Augustine, while undoubtedly a church father, was not right about everything. In the west, he was taken as the authoritative church father. 

The fact of the matter is, Church history before the great schism shows very clearly that everything important happened in the east. All the councils were held in the east. Rome was one of many patriarchates, never ruler over all the others.

Evangelical, protestant, whatever label they go by, they are not catholic.

Actually, the Anglican(Episcopalian) church likes to say it is catholic. I don't think they like the protestant label that much. The Lutheran Church here in America is so liberalized and wishy washy it hardly stands for anything any more. If Martin Luther were alive to see the church that goes by his name today, he would be hopping mad, I guarantee it. John Calvin was a straight up heretic, and his influence in protestantism is toxic at best. His teachings are definitely not in.line with what the church has always taught, and the presbytarian and reformed churches are his legacy.

What about the methodists? I actually like the Wesleys. They seemed like they were really trying for orthodoxy.

But this is not true is it? Consider the current lack of communion with the Oriental Orthodox churches. Consider the current lack of Communion between the Orthodox church in Ukraine and in Russia. Consider the lack of communion with other Orthodox churches. Why is it that you consider the Episcopalian church in England a different denomination than the Episcopalian church in Scotland? It is the same church, run by the same rules and the same God. You need to do some more research in relation to how the Orthodox denominations relate to each other. Oh by the way, when 30,000 different denominations are mentioned in lump sums, there appears to be many orthodox churches which are given as separate denominations.

Really? Do you deny that it is one of the sacraments of our Lord. (The Eucharist)

I agree that the Church should teach Christianity, but very often as in the case of your church's mysticism, it teaches things that are not Christian

Whether Rome is on the right of history altogether is one matter. But in relation to this particular issue - it was in the right. Your concession that you accidently found the Orthodox church does not mean a lot in the scheme of things. Given your conclusion that you believe it is irrefutable, again displays prejudice not reason.

Speaking Greek or Latin is an irrelevancy. It is only relevant to show the lack of scholarship in the East. Augustine is a doctor in the church. Interestingly, the Roman Catholic Church does not make as much of it as you might think. I am reasonably sure that the Eastern church despite its assertion that he is ok, only takes the part it likes. Ironically, Calvin who you seem to dislike, is in almost total agreement with Augustine in his doctrines, hence to reject Calvin is to reject Augustine. I wonder if you have taken the time to read either Augustine or Calvin.

Well that settles it then doesn't? But wait there is more. Everything in the OT that was important happened in Israel, therefore everything else is unimportant. similarly, anything that was important in the NT happened in Jerusalem. It is not an argument of any substance to say that everything important happened in the East therefore the West is wrong. Far out Mopac, surely your brain does not work that way. Remember the gospel was first in Jerusalem, then in Samaria and then to the ends of the earth. As the gospel grows its kingdom extends to all the nations of the world and to all cultures. Only a Jew would say - everything important happened in Israel. You need to get a grasp of the grace of God.

for the record I have met atheistic Orthodox believers

The history of the Latin church demonstrates only that when the leaders in the church accepted as "ordained by God" because they follow some kind of apostolic succession rather than by faith that there will be corruption. It also demonstrates that all people this side of glory will continue to sin even when they are Christians or in places of importance in the church. The Orthodox church is not clean of blood on its hands either as a cursory look of its involvement over the era of the soviet union will demonstrate

It should be obvious that the devil wants to destroy the true church, but it won't happen because Christ Himself said that the gates of hell will not overcome the church!

By all means, abandon your traditions first and I will still hold to the Holy Tradition of the church, as saint Paul wrote to saint Timothy, bishop of Ephesus...

"we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."

Advancing Kingdom, as if God already doesn't reign over all, even death! You don't know what you are saying!

As st Paul wrote, "the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven"

And surely it is written on the hearts of all that The Truth is God, and The Truth is what sets free. What do we do but confirm what is written on the hearts of all?

We train the heart in righteousness. Because we understand that faith without works is no faith at all, and the first and foremost act of faith is to align the heart to God in order to be cleansed and perfected by The Holy Spirit. This is built into everyrhing we do. Something you can't discern, because in your zealous and misguided iconoclasm, you would crucify Christ here on Earth, the church itself!

You protestants take for granted the napkin of peter you hold, the scraps off the table that fell into your laps. You try in vain to recreate the church which never went away. 

There is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, and a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. The heterodox are united in their rejection of The Orthodox Catholic Church, the very Apostolic Church. The historical church.

What do we say about the heterodox? That they have a piece of the pie, they are denominations. The grace of God extends through all of creation, but the faith of the apostles is preserved in the church that Christ himself left to the apostles. 

And our apostolic succession is not valid simply because we can trace our ordinations back to Jesus and the apostles, but because we have the pearl of great price, and we do not trample over it like swine.

what is written on our hearts?  This by the Spirit of God.

Christ was crucified here on earth. Do you deny he was crucified? We take the view that until we are born from above, that our hearts and minds cannot understand the spiritual things of God. Do you think otherwise? Our hearts must be reconciled to God or all else is nought. Do you reject this thinking?

Whatever do you mean? It is not our church to recreate. It is the church where the Lord Jesus is the head of it. Do you understand grace? DO you think that you deserve grace? Do you think that your church deserves Grace? Do you think that the protestants don't deserve Grace? Do you think that we think we deserve grace? The Lord Jesus is transforming his people into the people he wants them to be - more and more like himself. He is our head, we are his body.  It is he who transforms us - not we ourselves. It is by his Spirit that we have life and it is by Jesus that we upheld by his word. Don't you believe this? We abide in him and love him because he first loved us. He holds us in the palm of his hands. We know his voice because we belong to him. He has made us part of his family by faith in Christ Jesus through the atoning work of his blood. He commands us to come boldly into his presence because Jesus is our great high priest.  We could not do so unless his Spirit draws us to him.

Yes totally agree.  So why do you seek to divide the church? It is you who call us divided. It is you who think you are right and we are wrong. I have said on numerous occasions that I see us as one church. I see the denominations as a good thing. You choose to see it as wrong and in error and subsequently, you then say it is divided. I say that the church is one body - made up of many parts. Do you recall the disciples saying to Jesus - "do you want us to call down fire on those others?"  Jesus said, "they who are not against us are with us."  Why do you reject Jesus' words? Why do you act in accordance with the disciples in this picture?

I say you are making a mess of things by acting against the Lord Jesus. Despite his commands to not be divisive - and despite Peter's words that provide a test of those who belong to God, you and it appears your church, are spreading misconceptions and trying to divide the body of Christ. I am pleased however that the Lord Jesus is bigger than your church and that his kingdom is extending to cover all the world embracing all cultures, tongues, and peoples. Praise Jesus.

I am not persuaded by apostolic succession because firstly, it is not in the Scriptures, and secondly, the papacy and indeed the OC have both used it to prove their authority. Both churches have sought authority in tradition and superstition and not the Word of God which explicitly tells us that authority is found in Christ and in faithful men - full of the Spirit. You and the Roman Catholic Church make your apostolic succession the basis of authority - not faith, not Christ but a tradition. This is probably one of the primary reasons both the OC and the Catholic church have fallen into liberalism and become irrelevant to the world. They rely on their tradition; not the Holy Spirit.

Orthodox priests are more often than not married.

Jews were circumcised on the 8th day. Infants are baptized with the understanding that they will be raised in the faith.

The western church rebelled against Orthodoxy, which is why it is in schism. The ecumenical councils are very clear that altering the creed of the church is an act of schism. The Latin speaking church demonstrably did this in the addition of the filoque. In addition to this, the church has never accepted the authority of Rome to interfere in the affairs of other self governing churches, and even before the schism there are examples of the bishop of Rome being rebuked for attempying this. Even examples of the Alexandrian Patriarch being rebuked for this! 

There is a difference between rejecting a church as being a legitimate, and rejecting sincere Christians who are in these heterodox churches. We do the former, not the later. In fact, writings of our church have plenty examples of us acknowledging the good we see in western saints. We even recognize as saints some who were technically in heretical churches. For example, Saint Isaac of Nineva was a monastic who for a brief time was even a bishop in the nestorian church.

It is important also to note that we understand the difference between Holy Tradition and custom. We have customs, and these we recognize as being cultural things that are not integral to the faith. However, that does not make customs bad. It is only harmful when these customs are taken for something other than what they are.

So can you explain the difference in role between those (priests) who marry and those who don't?

I don't have a problem with infant baptism per se. I agree with its biblical consistency. Nevertheless, submerging an infant three times in the name of the Trinity seems to be overthetop and not authorised by Scripture.

This is your opinion. The Western Church states it was the Eastern Church which rebelled against Orthodoxy, and therefore went into schism. The Western Church did not alter the creed despite your repetition of the same. Each creed from the beginning changed - so must be altered according to your understanding. I would suggest that each development was a clarification. I tend to agree that Rome nor Alexandria ought interfere in the affairs of other self-governing churches.  The Council at Nicaea was an ecumenical council and acted in accordance with the rules of the Church at the time. Again the East chose not to attend. That was a waiving of the East's opportunity to contribute. 

I can see how you make a difference between a legitimate church and also sincere Christians. Yet, given it was the East who went into schism it is difficult to sustain your argument fully.  I am pleased the East has not rejected all of the sincere Christians in the West, although I find it amusing that you seem to elevate persons to Saints whereas Paul describes all sincere Christians as Saints. Also, I don't have a particular problem recognising the Eastern Orthodox, at least in theory, is a legitimate, despite its own heresies such as the rejection of the filioque.

I also accept the biblical teaching on covenant and its teaching of appeal. When a proper authority loses its way, then an appeal is made to another legitimate authority to provide the security of renewing or continuing the former ways.  Hence, when the Roman Catholic Church lost its way, an appeal was made to properly instituted God ordained authority to renew or continue the former ways.  If the Protestants had not appealed to such properly ordained institutions, then its authority would be illegitimate. Hence, why I would dismiss those who did not follow similar paths and went it alone on their own authority. If you knew church history as you suggest, then you would know the ways of the covenant and how people who are being oppressed by their authorities are able to appeal in such a manner as to not be subversive in their manner towards proper authorities.

I am glad to read that. Although I suspect that like most people - what makes something a custom and what makes something more than that such as  holy tradition is not so easy to define.

What makes wearing a robe tradition or custom? What makes a priest celibate tradition or custom? What makes incense and images in the church building a tradition or a custom? These are the questions you ought to address - at least for me. 

I certainly said above- we should not get rid of traditions for the sake of getting rid of traditions. I do think we ought to understand why we have traditions - and even customs. Many people unfortunately in EVERY church do not know why they stand or sit or kneel at different times in the service. For many it is what they have always done - why do Catholics eat fish on Fridays? Why do people genuflect when they enter a building or pray? Why do the priests finish of completely all of the wine - but not the bread after communion? Why do the Catholics not let their parishioners drink the wine anymore? Why do Charismatics raise their hands?