Apostasy from true Christianity

Author: Mopac
Orthodox survival course

Posts

Total: 193
Topic's author
#31
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
It is in the anti-Christians best interest that self declaration is proof of identity, because then they can identify Christianity with every abominable heresy you find outside the church.
Protestants in particular don't know how their denominationalism undermines Christianity.

Skipped dinner to respond to this topic. Will be here more solidly on Sunday hopefully.


#32
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@Mopac
i'm sympathetic to the apostolic succession claim you're making. but if i look i might be able to find like four quotes from church fathers who say it matters. it's a lot to devout your whole self to a religion because you can find like four quotes about apostolic succession. it's a big jump. i dont see where it says what happens if you arent part of apostolic succession, just that it's a good thing. orthodoxy is good, i'll give you that.... but a whole religion dedicated to the idea of a true church? it's a big leap. also, i still say there were no teachings in the early church that i know of, that said the church is inerrant. maybe if a person could be a liberal orthodox, do your own thing as long as the fundamentals aren't violated. and yeah orthodoxy has problems with being arbitrary.... they often can't even agree with themselves about what is official doctrine. take contraception for example. or divorce. that sorta stuff. 
#33
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Mopac
No, you misunderstand your own axiom.  A Christian is typically defined as someone who believes in the Christian faith. 
#34
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@Mopac
what do you think of the idea of being a liberal catholic? that has apostolic succession and keeps the pope as first amoung equals, yet doesnt make him infallible. the early church didn't talk much of a pope being inerrant, but they did talk about the pope being the head of the church, perhaps first among equals. clement in the first century told other churches what to do, even if they didn't always want to listen to him. and here are more snippets that strengthen the idea....


there are quotes below to support the idea that rome should be included in decision making. note that i am not arguing rome should be considered infallible acting unilaterally as that sort of evidence is not very strong in the early church. note that these are pretty early and important, such as iranaeous and cyprian, and an important apostolic canon recognized by the orthodox. i realize some are pretty far removed from the early church, but it is still evidence. 

should rome be considered in decision making?

thoughts?

Apostolic Canon 34
"The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit."

Iranaeous, early church historian. "It would be too tedious, in a work like this, to go through the succession lists of all the Churches.  We shall, therefore, take just one, the greatest, most ancient Church, the Church known to all, the Church founded and established in Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul.  By showing that the tradition which she received from the apostles, the faith which she proclaims to men, has come down to us through the succession of bishops, we confute all those who, in whatever manner,...set up conventicles.  With this Church, because of its more excellent origin, every Church (in other words, the faithful everywhere) must convene."

cyprian. "the Church of Rome is the root and matrix of the Catholic Church"

Pope Damasus I
"Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

Hormisdas formula in 519
“... in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved immaculate.” 

Pope Sixtus III “all know that to assent to [the Bishop of Rome’s] decision is to assent to St. Peter, who lives in his successors and whose faith fails not.”(433 AD)

"Flavian Patriarch of Constantinople to Pope Leo, AD 449  "The whole question needs only your single decision and all will be settled in peace and quietness. Your sacred letter will with God's help completely suppress th heresy which has arisen and the disturbance which it has caused; and so the convening of a council which is in any case difficult will be rendered superfluous."

Pope St. Innocent I "...whatever is done, even though it be in distance provinces, should not be ended until it comes to the knowledge of this see, that by its authority the whole just pronouncement should be strengthened, and that from there the other churches, like waters proceeding from their natal source and flowing through the different regions of the world, the pure streams of an in-corrupt Head, should take up what they ought to believe” (P.L. 33.780)

#35
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac


 Would you say  that the New Testament is reliable concerning the birth,  life and death of The Christ ?

I am not avoiding the question. My answer is yes,



 Well then  I cannot see why you are making a distinction between yourself,  that agrees that the NT is  reliable concerning the birth,  life and death of The Christ,  and  the Christians that believe the exact same?  Why are you elevating yourself above these Christians?  Why do you arrogantly believe that you are somehow privy to a greater knowledge that they? 
 If this is the case, then surely this "knowledge" was meant for all men, believers and nonbelievers alike? If not, why not?
#36
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
You say southern Baptists aren't real Christians southern Baptists say you aren't a Christian. You and the southern Baptist say that mormons and jehovah witnesses aren't real Christians and they day neither of you are. 

Without some clear objective definition we can all accept all your claims are subjective to the point of being useless. 

Maybe there are no true Christians because there is no Christian god. Reality is certainly not what is being described in the bible as near as we can make put from the physical evidence regarding the formation of the solar system.

Anyway discussion with you is mostly pointless you can't even give useful definitions that was mostly for the other Christians (by the way in this context I am defining a christian as a person who claims to be Christian but whom other self identified Christians disagree with so you all fit my definition) who are trying to claim some objective standard and sticking to their definition of the Yahweh (however logically contradictory it becomes rather than moving the goal post back and forth rather than having an actual conversation) so no actual reply is needed. 
Topic's author
#37
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Theweakeredge
In the ancient Christian creed, creed meaning "I believe", we confess "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church".

If you are not in the church, you do not have the Christian faith. You are not an "orthodox" or "right faith" Christian. You are rather "heterodox" or having "different faith".

The Orthodox Catholic Church is the original Christian Church, the one church. There are no valid churches outside of it. Rather, these churches are all schismatic and heretical.

Topic's author
#38
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@n8nrgmi
If the pope wasn't a heretic, he would be orthodox and we would respect him as first among equals when he is in council with the other patriarchs and bishops. All Patriarchs are considered first among equals within their jurisdictions, as are metropolitans(big city bishops) to other bishops(country or small town bishops) in more local synods. This is not the same as papal supremacy. The leading is supposed to be by example, not despotism.

Apostolic canon 34 that you quoted says everything. The church at large did not accept the bishop of Rome's addition to the creed. They changed the creed without church consensus and have thus seperated themselves from the church. The church at large also rejected the bishop of Rome's attempts to meddle in the affairs of the other self headed churches.

Topic's author
#39
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Stephen
I am not elevating myself above other Christians. Rather I am elevating the church over those who are not truly Christian as they are not with the church. The ones who are arrogant are the self guided. They make themselves out to be their own bishops. I submit to the church. This is not something that can be used to accuse me of arrogance.

During our liturgy before partaking of eucharist, we sing

"I will not speak of thy mysteries to thine enemies, neither will I give thee a kiss as did Judas."

Why is this? Because historically people like you would accuse us of being cannibals, which would lead to our persecution. You do not accuse us of being cannibals, but rather you spread misinformation about our faith. You are deceitful with what is available to you, and you take it upon yourself the mission to undermine the faith. Thus you and those like you who are full of pride and absent of charity are not worthy of the mysteries.

The Arians had the same gospels, but their beliefs were heretical. The interpretations you yourself have of scripture are so unique to yourself that no one ever seems to agree with you. You are the best evidence against sola scriptura. As if the hundreds or maybe thousands of churches who believe in sola scriptura and disagree with eachother weren't!

Who actually believes in sola scriptura? You yourself and even most nominal Christians look to other sources.

If someone who calls themselves a Christian believes the same about the birth, life, death, and ressurection of Jesus as us, what can I say? Their belief on these things are at least orthodox.

Someone with just a bible is at a great disadvantage though when it comes to other things. It can be shown in scripture that God is one with his Word and Spirit, but is The Trinity expressly stated in the bible? It isn't, yet this is very important. The faith is in Trinity. Christology certainly can be shown in scripture, that Christ is The Word of God made incarnate, that the nature of the incarnate Christ is fully man, fully God, and these 2 separate natures are united without confusion in one hypostasis or person. That the energies and wills of these 2 natures are distinct but that the human will and energy is in total synergy with the divine will and energy.

It can be shown through scripture that salvation is unification with God, partaking of what God is by nature through grace. It can be shown through scripture that without works, faith is dead and effectively not faith at all.

Yet those who have just the bible struggle with the most basic things pertaining to salvation, because there was never a point where the bible was supposed to be used to teach the faith independently of the church. The New Testament canon wasn't even settled until hundreds of years after Christ! It is our book, and we use it to teach what it is we teach.

The body of Christ is not divided. Denominationalism is a heresy. The church is Catholic, that is, whole, and complete.


Topic's author
#40
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
Silly wizard, no reply is ever really needed. Nevertheless, I must pick up the mic you dropped lest you in your conceit believe that your thoughtless opinions carry any actual weight.

What is the Christian God? The church fathers are very clear that we recognize The Truth as God. Our God exists. If you say The Truth doesn't exist, you are an idiot.

To take self declaration as proof of identity reduces Christianity to something meaningless. You make it into an arbitrary thing that is easily dismissible.

Where does the idea of self identification being proof of identity lead to? It leads to men identifying as pangendered giraffes being humored by a society that thinks it is loving to lie to someone and feed into their delusions.

Fallacy misidentification is in itself a fallacy. It is not a fallacy to say someone who calls themselves a Christian but is not in the Christian Church is not a Christian anymore than it is a fallacy to say that no true cube is spherical. For something to be a fallacy, it cannot be true. This is where over reliance on reason leads you, to conclusions that are false and even stupid but allegedly come from reason. That is why nihilism is the fruit of men putting an over reliance on reason. They managed to reason themselves into a black hole that destroys everything, even the foundations of reason itself.

So where is the Christian church? Common sense makes it clear which churches cannot be the Christian Church.

Were there any baptist churches even 500 years ago? The answer is a clear no. Were there any mormons or jehova witnesses even more than 200 years ago? The answer is a clear no.

But The Christian Church is an historical reality, and only through willful ignorance can one dismiss this being the case.

You want an objective criteria for what constitutes a Christian? The first question on the flow chart is "Are you a member of The historical Christian Church, that is, The Orthodox Catholic Church?". If you answer "No", follow the arrow to all the way to "You are not a Christian".

And truly, if we stop concerning ourselves with offending others, what I am saying is consistent with historical opinion of the church regarding this manner. Schismatics do not divide the church, they cut themselves off from it. There is One Church.

#41
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
you are an idiot.
Ad hominem attack is  in my opinion a concession of defeat in debate.
#42
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac



Why are you elevating yourself above these Christians? 

I am not elevating myself above other Christians. Rather I am elevating the church over those who are not truly Christian as they are not with the church.

Same thing. Maybe I should have said YOU AND your church?  But at least you have admitted to "elevating yourselves "and your church above other Christians.  



The ones who are arrogant are the self guided.

Guided? By whom or what?



They make themselves out to be their own bishops.
Example please.



I submit to the church. This is not something that can be used to accuse me of arrogance.

That is your opinion. You have admitted above that "the church" -  YOUR church - elevates itself and its position above all those that call themselves Christians. 



During our liturgy before partaking of eucharist, we sing - "I will not speak of thy mysteries to thine enemies,
Enemies?  Those that disagree with you is what you actaully mean.  Or is it that in actuality there are no mysteries at all?  



neither will I give thee a kiss as did Judas."


 Yes well even that is debateable isn't it?  I mean which was it, did Judas identify Jesus with a kiss (all unnecessary he could have just pointed to him)  or did Jesus  identify himself.? Lets look at what you agree above at #35 is the accurate account of  the scriptures.  

Mark14:45 " “And as soon as he was come, he goeth straightway to him, and saith,Master, master; and kissed him”. 

But John tells us different does he not?

John 18:5 “They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them”.

So those  above ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ are from the very same scriptures that you claim are true, accurate and reliable.


Why is this? Because historically people like you would accuse us of being cannibals,
 I haven't.  But I will say that  "drink this"  because it is [representative of] my blood and and "eat this" because it is[representative of] my body, all sounds cannibalistic.



which would lead to our persecution.

 I don't remember that last time  monks were persecuted in the west, but I do have genuine concerns for your future with Islam on the rise all around the world.


 You are deceitful with what is available to you..

 That would be the  bible, the very scriptures that you agree are a reliable source of the birth , life and death of the Christ. here>>>  #35


and you take it upon yourself the mission to undermine the faith.

 No. But I do take it upon myself to  scrutinize and questions those things that you have faith IN such as the scriptures. 


Thus you and those like you who are full of pride and absent of charity are not worthy of the mysteries.

Your arrogance knows no bounds. 


The interpretations you yourself have of scripture are so unique to yourself that no one ever seems to agree with you.
No one here maybe. But I have found many that do. Not to mention those that have come around to "my interpretation" of the  scriptures.



Who actually believes in sola scriptura?


You. And that is your big problem in my opinion. The bible and the New Testament in particular -  makes absolutely no sense on the surface. It is contradictory and ambiguous and is  full of half stories.


You yourself and even most nominal Christians look to other sources.

I do.  Its called research. 
 



Someone with just a bible is at a great disadvantage though when it comes to other things.

This appears to be contradictory to what you claims above. Still, tell me,  what "other things"? 


is The Trinity expressly stated in the bible?

Well any christian that has read these scriptures - for themselves - would have noticed that the one core belief that they  have seems to be totally missing from the bible...…the word  trinity cannot even be found in the bible.


The New Testament canon wasn't even settled until hundreds of years after Christ! It is our book, and we use it to teach what it is we teach.

And who is it that you teach while being hidden away in your isolation as a monk? Yourselves? 









Topic's author
#43
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
you are an idiot.
Ad hominem attack is  in my opinion a concession of defeat in debate.


I said, "If you say The Truth doesn't exist, you are an idiot."

Since you are implying that you don't believe The Truth exists, your opinion is not only irrelevent, but you have lost the debate whether you concede or not.

If you say The Truth doesn't exist, but claim that you can win a debate, that not only makes you an idiot, but a pretentious idiot.





Topic's author
#44
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Stephen
You do not even identify as a Christian. That being the case, what can you be but the mouth piece of demons?

This topic isn't for you. After all, the difference between heterodoxy and orthodoxy is an arbitrary one to you. 

#45
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
I don't say that truth doesn't exist. I say that the truth has nothing to do with any god(s) including yours. There is a difference. That is your cue to retreat into tautologically defining your preferred God as truth until pressed on what that means at which point you will begin ascribing truth attributes I have no reason to accept and then back and forth and back and forth and you know what you don't need me for this. Just pretend I'm still paying attention. You seem good at pretending. 
Topic's author
#46
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
If younaren't saying The Truth doesn't exist, then you shouldn't be offended that I say anyone who says The Truth doesn't exist is an idiot.


And for you, you do not know my God so your opinion is uneducated.


The Ultimate Reality is God. You want me to present you information in place of God. Younwant something created to latch on to. You have The Word. If that is not sufficient for you, then nothing will be. The Word is Truth.

Information is not Truth. 

To you there is no difference between orthodoxy and heterodoxy. Since you do not even care, you will remain bewildered. What can I tell you? You won't believe.
#47
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
You do not even identify as a Christian.

Irrelevant.  Just because I read the scriptures for myself  without kneeling and repeating chants of hommmmmm,  over and over doesn't mean I cannot read or understand the bible.



That being the case, what can you be but the mouth piece of demons?

Demons?  John the Baptist had a demon didn't he?  And he was said to be the greatest prophet of all according to Jesus.  Well now I don't know if I should take that as compliment or an insult or with a pinch of salt.



This topic isn't for you.

 You mean it is turning out to be awkward for you, don't you?




After all, the difference between heterodoxy and orthodoxy is an arbitrary one to you. 

 You have said yourself that you believe that the New Testament scripture is a reliable account of the birth, life and death of the Christ.  Well, so do others that call themselves Christians. 

Christian belief in the scriptures is all the same to me.  It is you and YOUR church that are doing the  arbitration and separating yourself above other Christians. You are all the same to me. . you all believe the scriptures to be reliable. That's all I need to know.


Topic's author
#48
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Stephen
If it was such an arbitrary matter, the church fathers wouldn't have made such a big deal about the distinction between The Church, heretics, and schismatics.

You are not in The Church. You lack the grace of The Holy Spirit. You are an admitted anti-Christ, a mouthpiece for demons.

No, this topic isn't for you. It is moreso aimed at those who love Christ who are looking to find The Church. Those who unknowingly belong to heretical churches. Those who unknowingly belong to schismatic churches.

Being that the difference between heterodoxy and orthodoxy is irrelevent to you, there is little chance that you will take away anything positive from this discussion. It is also not likely that anything productive could come from engaging you. 




#49
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
You are an admitted anti-Christ, a mouthpiece for demons.

 Have I? And where have I admitted this . 


No, this topic isn't for you. 

 I think you mean it has turned out to be far too challenging for you, is my guess.


After all, the difference between heterodoxy and orthodoxy is an arbitrary one to you. 

 You have said yourself that you believe that the New Testament scripture is a reliable account of the birth, life and death of the Christ.  Well, so do others that call themselves Christians. 

Christian belief in the scriptures is all the same to me.  It is you and YOUR church that are doing the  arbitration and separating yourself above other Christians. You are all the same to me. . you all believe the scriptures to be reliable. That's all I need to know.

Topic's author
#50
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Stephen
My church wrote the scriptures and compiled them.

As the creed states, "One holy catholic and apostolic church". There is no such thing as a Christian outside the church. Rather, these are simply the congregations of heretics. 

It is our book to interpret. It is certainly not the property of the heretics. It is also certainly not yours to interpret.






Topic's author
#51
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
Stephen here acts as an evidence against protestant ecclesiology. When the distinction between Orthodox Christianity and heterodoxy or heresy becomes arbitrary, The Church itself is undermined.



#52
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
My church wrote the scriptures and compiled them.

That is interesting to me , Mopac. It really is.  So correct me If I am wrong, but you are saying that you / your church have the only true interpretation of the New Testament?  


As the creed states, "One holy catholic and apostolic church". There is no such thing as a Christian outside the church. Rather, these are simply the congregations of heretics.
Well I am sure some "other type" calling themselves Christian will be long shortly to contradict and challenge and correct  you on that bold statement. I shall keep a close eye on this thread from now on. 
 

It is our book to interpret.
  So you keep insisting on repeating, but I see very little evidence of this. I only hear your arrogant lips flapping claiming a monopoly on all tings Christian.


It is certainly not the property of the heretics.

From the day your church started ramming  their interpretation of the scriptures down the throats of infant school children they became the property of any one that cared enough to claim them as their own. 



It is also certainly not yours to interpret.

If I own a copy of these scriptures the YOU have accepted to be the true account of the Birth, Life and Death of the Christ then the words there in are mine to interpret as I please and you have the same  right to correct my interpretation as much as I have yours.


Topic's author
#53
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Stephen
There is one Christian Church, Stephen. You might think it arrogant to say otherwise, but this is what we have always believed.

"There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism"

"By the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment."

Denominationalism is a heresy. The very church that has been around since the start, the apostolic church, is The Orthodox Catholic Church.

It is no arrogant thing for us to claim a monopoly on Christianity, rather, it is an arrogant thing to claim Christianity apart from us. The Church is Christianity. Anything outside of the church has a different spirit.

That is why especially someone like you cannot be a valid interpreter of scripture. You do not have the key, the decoder ring, so to speak. You do not have the seal of The Holy Spirit.

Certainly, heretics, schismatics, and even anti-Christs such as yourself can interpret scripture. In fact, as long as you are reading scripture, you will be interpreting it. The problem is, you will be interpreting it out of context, because The Bible is a part of our Holy Tradition. Detached from The Church and what we teach and use the bible for it is not being used in its proper context.

Is it not evident that people use scripture as a prop to justify all sorts of erroneous beliefs? The idea that every man is their own interpreter of scripture is an idea that undermines the faith itself. The apostles appointed their successors for a reason, that is, to preserve the integrity of the faith.

The Orthodox Catholic Church from the very beginning has been the rightful guardian of the faith. No church outside of The Church is a valid church.

You certainly have a right to be wrong. Your accusations fall flat however, because humility would lead someone to The Church, while pride and even arrogance would lead someone to acting apart from The Church.

If you hadn't noticed, the other self identifying Christians on this website are nowhere to be seen. What can I do but hope that they one day be united to The Church?

The great majority of my time on this forum I have avoided making conflict with the heterodox for the reason that Christ says, "Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.", and even now I still say, to those who do good deeds in the name of Christ, may they have their reward. However, the time has come now to be plain about the truth of the matter. There is only One Church, and to acknowledge the heretics as being members of that church, or to remain silent about their deviations only serves to undermine the faith. This is especially the case because it is those very deviations from the faith that created modern atheistic anti-Christianity. It is not possible that what caused this apostasy from Christ in the west can act as its cure, for the reasonings of the heterodox lead to this situation to begin with. For us to be unevenly yoked would cause disgrace to The Church.

Make no mistake, we Orthodox do not share faith with protestants or Roman Catholics. The type of unity that they desire with us will never happen, because they desire unity at the expense of Truth. They will get no validation from us. Their type of ecumenism is misguided. If they desire unity with us, the only proper course is to become Orthodox. No compromise can be made on this issue. The Church is an historical reality, and it can be plainly demonstrated that all heterodox churches can trace themselves back to us. The Roman Papists broke away from us, the protestants broke away from them, and all the rest of the multitudes of ever splintering sects eat the crumbs off the table of the true church.



#54
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
If you hadn't noticed, the other self identifying Christians on this website are nowhere to be seen. What can I do but hope that they one day be united to The Church?

 Yes that is puzzling I have to admit. Where are they to defend themselves  and the beliefs of their respective  churches?

 As a rule you cannot get them to shut up. With their rewriting of  the scripture and putting words into the mouths of the gospel authors characters.


Make no mistake, we Orthodox do not share faith with protestants or Roman Catholics. The type of unity that they desire with us will never happen, because they desire unity at the expense of Truth.
Can you expand on that in Bold? Are you saying they lie about the scriptures and produce false/lying interpretations for their own reasons?


Their type of ecumenism is misguided.
 In what way? 


And all the rest of the multitudes of ever splintering sects eat the crumbs off the table of the true church.

 I will take that to mean that  all "the rest of the multitudes  of sects" only have snippets of the "true church"?  Correct me if I am wrong.

Topic's author
#55
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Stephen
When I say they desire unity at the expense of Truth, I mean that the unity they want isn't based on a common creed. Rather, they want a unity that validates their heresy. The church hasn't gone away, it has been the same church since the beginning. It is unneccesary to try and re-create the church, and to do so is even an attack against the church itself. Ecumenism to the heterodox is an attempt at unity for unity sake.


At best, the various Christian based sects could be said to have a partial revelation of the faith. If I were to say they only have snippets of the true church, I wouldn't be implying that the church is broken or divided, nor would I imply that these sects in anyway make up the church. What I would say is that what they have is incomplete.

"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us."







#56
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac



At best, the various Christian based sects could be said to have a partial revelation of the faith.
As I said,  snippets?


If I were to say they only have snippets of the true church, I wouldn't be implying that the church is broken or divided, nor would I imply that these sects in anyway make up the church. What I would say is that what they have is incomplete.

That is what I have said. Snippets of the truth. To not have a complete picture and only some parts of said picture means to only have snippets.  Unless they have more than you want to admit to? That they may be as closer to what you deem to be "the truth" that you want them to be? 


"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us."

 This could just as easily apply to you and your church  as it does to another.  Your church could just as easily be said to have "went out from us" i.e the original meaning and purpose of the Jewish Jerusalem church of which James, the brother of Jesus, was said to have become head of after the death of John and Jesus.  You just simply believe that you are privy to information that others aren't. There is nothing new about this. You, all Christian churches make exactly the same claim.


Topic's author
#57
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Stephen
It may simply be the case that your method can only be effective against protestants, who  all interpret the scriptures as individuals as you do. Your tactic of tearing down Christianity does not work against The Orthodox Church.

Me being "privy to information that others aren't" as you say would be a direct challenge to your so called gnosticism.


#58
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
Your tactic of tearing down Christianity does not work against The Orthodox Church.
That's a bit strong,to say - "tearing down Christianity"  don't you think. I could hardly  "tear down"  Christendom simply by highlighting these ambiguous scriptures that contradict themselves more often than they don't. 



Tactic
Showing these scriptures for what they are has been going on from the time they were complied. I am not this first and it is not a "tactic",  but the result of one's findings after  research and study . Years in my case and I didn't have to shut myself away from the rest of the world to do so either. How would I ever share and  test my views or opinions? 


Me being "privy to information that others aren't" as you say would be a direct challenge to your so called gnosticism.

 It may be, if you were indeed privy to unknown archaic  knowledge as you always appear to always be claiming.


#59
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
Apostasy occurs when the Holy Spirit departs from anyone who once had it, but the departure is not the doing of the Holy Spirit. It is the person whose own attitude goes contrary to obedience to God. And once the Spirit has withdrawn, those men and women are left unto themselves, and a man alone, from whom the Holy Spirit has withdrawn is dumb to its influence and conjures all manner of wickedness, thinking he is still doing the will of God. That's apostasy.

You bicker back and forth that such and such is the true Christian principle. Where is the Holy Spirit in that dispute? Not a participant, or you would be of one accord. Yes, the scriptures have contradictions, but consider how they have been treated over centuries of use. Not one single book of the Holy Bible is directly from an original written text. And not one of those original texts was written by God, or Jesus, but by men. Fallible men, even though endowed with the Holy Spirit. Add to that centuries of transliteration and translation one language to another. What occurs in these activities? Copy errors. Dictionary-to-dictionary comparisons. But dictionaries are poor teachers of culture, and language is the direct result of culture. Without understanding ancient culture, your translations will be flawed. Do that over and over again [how many generations away from the original text?] and what do you have? You don't need to guess. So, how to make understanding out of all that?  Y'all refuse to simply go to the source. Ask God. 

Part of your problem is that you try to figure it out on your own. There's no problem with that; we're expected to study with trial and error. But, it's not enough. As you cite scripture, what do you cite? One verse here and there, cherry-picking. Is that how your research in scientific inquiry? No, you read a text, you observe the whole of a system, not just its parts. So read more than one verse. I've read the Bible cover to cover numerous times. In four languages. I'll point you to James 1: 5, but don't start and finish there. Read the whole chapter for context. One verse seldom gives context. Start with verse 2: "My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into diverse temptations;"   Joy? in temptation" What? Read on: "3. Knowing this, that the trial of your faith worketh patience." Aren't temptations trials of faith? And what is faith. Read the entire book of Hebrews, but, in particular, ch. 11]. That is probably the best passage on faith in the Bible. So, having faith works patience. You're not going to get it all in one five-minute read.  "4. But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing." Give patience a chance while you study and... and what? Not yet, patience will have a perfect work. You will ultimately understand all, and become perfect in that understanding. Now, here's the answer to my question. faith, and what? "5. If a man lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him." How simple, and profound is that? Have faith, and pray. Ask the source of all this. You want to know something, go to someone who knows, yeah? God doesn't know? Wrong. But, what if you're full of doubt. Also wrong. "6.But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea, driven with the wind and tossed." Appears to me, y'all are pretty tossed. You cannot ask God for wisdom unless you are prepared to handle what you receive. When you ask for something, have you prepared a place to put it? If I'm a basketball coach, and I need basketballs, and I order them in a volume of space larger than my locker, I'll be overwhelmed. I must make room for them. That is an act of faith. [Read Paul's Hebrews, yet?] Same with blessings from God. Read Malachi 3; the whole chapter [it's short]. The kicker is verse 10, and then lets talk about about room to receive answers from God.  This is not done by a lacking attitude. Be serious. Be faithful. Be ready to receive. Be humble. Time to engage James at his word, yeah? Or do you think this is all supposed to be given without consistent effort? No one ever said following Christ is easy, but it's worth it.
Topic's author
#60
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@fauxlaw
I think it would be worth noting that the New Testament was written in Greek, and well... not only do Greeks tend to be Orthodox, but Orthodoxy is even their state religion.

Sola Scriptura is bad teaching, because it leads people to do things like try to figure it all out on their own. The Church did not always have the benefit of a complete New Testament, neatly packed and sealed as being official, but the Church has always had Bishops, heirs to the apostles themselves, to rightly discern the word of truth, to preserve the ancient faith, and teach The Church.

The bible is a part of The Church's Holy Tradition. Detaching the bible from The Church and its liturgical life is taking scripture out of context.

It might seem proud to someone who doesn't have an understanding of The Church that is consistent with what has been taught since the beginning, but truly it is the humble thing to be a Christian who is in The Church rather than one who works independently from it.

As I stated earlier, protestant ecclesiology, that is, denial of the historical and visible church, is one of the greatest threats to the Christian mission there is. People are confused by the contradictions of protestants, and as a result it hardens their hearts against orthodoxy, that is, true Christianity. The difference between heterodoxy and orthodoxy becomes an arbitrary one, because all Christianity is the same, the identifying mark of a Christian being self identification rather than baptism, chrismation, communion in the church, and observing the command of Christ. The identifying mark of a Christian teacher is self declaration rather than a proper ordination to teach.

The "Christians" who set themselves apart from The Church will be used and are indeed being used by anti-Christ for the purpose of undermining the church, confusing the masses concerning true Christianity, and even to harden people's hearts in fear and hatred of Christ.