Christianity In The USA

[Lawrence87]

Church discipline has been a feature in every Reformed church from the beginning. It is a Biblical precept. What you are complaining about is not something that you can prevent either. If someone doesn't like your church's teaching, they will leave and start a new one. Does that mean your church is to blame for the apostasy? Likewise, the Bible is not to blame for any apostate, whether they be individuals or churches.

These days, yes someone who is Orthodox could leave the Orthodox church and start their own thing if they could find enough support for it, because that is the state of affairs since the Reformation, where anyone can just start their own denomination, or weird cult or whatever. Prior to that if you wanted to do that, you'd be unlikely to get as far. Arianism for example was stamped out, because the Church had the authority and power structure to ensure that heresy could be dealt with effectively. And now it's back, because that no longer exists.

The world where there are denominations and this is a perfectly acceptable state of affairs is a modern phenomena. If you lived in Anglo Saxon Britain and you didn't like the church, starting your own was not an option that would get you very far.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

These days, yes someone who is Orthodox could leave the Orthodox church and start their own thing if they could find enough support for it, because that is the state of affairs since the Reformation, where anyone can just start their own denomination, or weird cult or whatever.

Hate to break it to you, but your church apostatized from Rome well before the Reformation. Even if you want to spin it the other way and say "Rome apostatized from us," the fact remains that schisms have been a reality from the beginning. Ever heard of the Second Council of Ephesus which spawned Oriental Orthodoxy? All of this points to the need for an objective standard, God provided one for us with the Scriptures. But if you say that the Scriptures aren't good enough and that your church's interpretation is, then there isn't anything I can do to stop you.

 

[Lawrence87]

Hate to break it to you, but your church apostatized from Rome well before the Reformation. Even if you want to spin it the other way and say "Rome apostatized from us," the fact remains that schisms have been a reality from the beginning. Ever heard of the Second Council of Ephesus which spawned Oriental Orthodoxy? All of this points to the need for an objective standard, God provided one for us with the Scriptures. But if you say that the Scriptures aren't good enough and that your church's interpretation is, then there isn't anything I can do to stop you.

It's evident that they are not good enough in and of themselves based simply off the fact that there exist countless interpretations of them.

People read the Scriptures and conclude that they do not contain the Holy Trinity and so they dismiss it. People read them and conclude that it never explicitly says Christ is God.

You can go "well they didn't read them properly" but according to who? To you? To your understanding? Why should anyone care about your understanding over anyone elses? Anyone can just say to anyone else that they aren't reading it properly.

If you say those who deny Christ's divinity or the Holy Trinity are a fringe case, then you are appealing to a consensus outside of Scripture itself.

If the Bible is sufficient how can so many different people read it and come to so many different conclusions? And furthermore by what measure do we assess them for their accuracy? Who gets to decide. You already alluded to this several times. You do. That's all. Every individual gets to decide what they think it means, and they are right because they say so.

It is also demonstrably untrue that the Scriptures are sufficient. Christ did not hand out the New Testament, He started a church. The New Testament did not exist at the inception of the church so there is no way that it can possibly be said to be sufficient for Christianity because Christianity preceeded it.

 

[Samseau]

In addition to what Lawrence wrote, I would add the question, "What makes for a Church?"

Christ tells us where two or more are gathered in his name, he is there, but what makes someone present in Christ's name? How can one be said to be a Christian? Merely because they claim it so? Is that what Christ taught? Or did he not expect good fruits from good trees?

Thus in order to make sure people could understand how to follow Him, Christ created a Church, whose foundation is written in the Bible, particularly in the Book of Acts. The Pentecost is described, upon how the Holy Spirit infused the Apostles with Power after Christ had departed. The laying of hands is described as how the Apostles gave authority to men to represent their words. The laying of hands ceremony has been used, without interruption, for every Apostolic Church until to this day.

And the term "Christian," was coined by these exact same people, which anyone can read in Acts 11:

19 Now those who were scattered because of the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoeni′cia and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word to none except Jews. 20 But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyre′ne, who on coming to Antioch spoke to the Greeks[a] also, preaching the Lord Jesus. 21 And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number that believed turned to the Lord. 22 News of this came to the ears of the church in Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas to Antioch. 23 When he came and saw the grace of God, he was glad; and he exhorted them all to remain faithful to the Lord with steadfast purpose; 24 for he was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith. And a large company was added to the Lord. 25 So Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul; 26 and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with[b] the church, and taught a large company of people; and in Antioch the disciples were for the first time called Christians.

How can anyone be a Christian, unless they know Christ, from those Christ appointed to spread the word in His name?

The only time Apostolic Church's schism'd, up until the reformation, was between Bishops who had disagreements. Damage was minimized and infighting was kept to a minimum. Compare that to Protestant Churches and their 20K denominations, and it's easy to see why Jesus created an Apostolic order to preserve His commandments (jn 14).

The idea that anyone can make a Church is, quite frankly, unBiblical. It directly contradicts the Bible. I don't know how Protestants can make it through the Bible and reach their conclusions, it seems to me that Protestants aren't fully reading the Bible despite them claiming to be reading the Bible.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Given that the Eastern Orthodox Church has a Biblical Canon that cannot be found in the first millennium of Church History, not until the post-Reformation as a point of fact. It has practices and beliefs that cannot be found in the New Testament, and doesn't even pretend to derive it's doctrine from the New Testament. It cannot be said, in any meaningful way, to be the Church that Jesus Christ founded.

Anyone can claim to be the Church that Jesus founded. Mormons can do it. Jehovah's Witnesses can do it. By Divine Providence, you will be able to judge any individual or church on that claim by the standard that the Apostles themselves left, which are the Holy Scriptures. In fact, this is the method that the Apostles themselves advocated for in the inevitability of false teachers rising up in the Church. They commended us to the Word of God, not to people who claim to represent the Apostles, then deny everything they stood for.

I do not understand how anyone can claim to be a follower of the Apostles and deny their teaching that the Scriptures are sufficient to make you complete in Godliness.

 

[scorpion]

Why should anyone care about your understanding over anyone elses?

Why should anyone care about the understanding of the Orthodox Fathers, in that case? This is circular reasoning.

The Reformed view is that the Word of God is true and inerrant regardless of how men interpret it. The fact that many interpret it incorrectly says nothing about God or the Scriptures, and everything about human fallibility.

It is also demonstrably untrue that the Scriptures are sufficient. Christ did not hand out the New Testament, He started a church. The New Testament did not exist at the inception of the church so there is no way that it can possibly be said to be sufficient for Christianity because Christianity preceeded it.

God's Divine Providence ensured the existence of the Bible as we know it today. The fact that the Bible did not exist at the time of Christ is as irrelevant as the fact that Christ did not exist (in bodily human form) at the time of Moses. God's plan unfolded as He willed it.

Thus in order to make sure people could understand how to follow Him, Christ created a Church, whose foundation is written in the Bible, particularly in the Book of Acts. The Pentecost is described, upon how the Holy Spirit infused the Apostles with Power after Christ had departed. The laying of hands is described as how the Apostles gave authority to men to represent their words. The laying of hands ceremony has been used, without interruption, for every Apostolic Church until to this day.

Christ directly empowered the Apostles with the power to heal and cast out demons (Matt. 10:1). This was a divine gift imparted to help establish the early church and demonstrate the power and authority of the Apostles as Christ's agents. But that gift was not theirs to bestow upon others. The Apostolic Age was a unique time in the history of Christianity, one that God made special provision for by divinely empowering the Apostles. Their successors did not receive the same power, thus the entire concept of Apostolic succession as bestowing some sort of divine sanction and authority is extremely shaky. All genuine believers in Christ are the successors of the Apostles.

The idea that anyone can make a Church is, quite frankly, unbiblical. It directly contradicts the Bible. I don't know how Protestants can even make it through the Bible and reach their conclusions, it seems to me that Protestants aren't fully reading the Bible despite them claiming to be reading the Bible.

I'm honestly curious what verses you're referring to by saying it contradicts the Bible, especially since you just quoted Matthew 18:20 in your post, which seems very clear and incontrovertible ("For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there"). Christ himself says He is there, who are you or any other man to say otherwise?

 

[Aboulia]

@GodfatherPartTwo @scorpion

You guys have probably never come across this, but have you read the Epistles of St Ignatius the God-Bearer (Tradition says he's given that name because he was the boy whom Christ was referring to in Matthew 18:4) St Ignatius was a disciple of St John (who wrote the Gospel).

Epistle to the Ephesians

Chapter V.-The Praise of Unity.

For if I in this brief space of time, have enjoyed such fellowship with your bishop-I mean not of a mere human, but of a spiritual nature-how much more do I reckon you happy who are so joined to him as the Church is to Jesus Christ, and as Jesus Christ is to the Father, that so all things may agree in unity! Let no man deceive himself: if any one be not within the altar, he is deprived of the bread of God. For if the prayer of one or two possesses such power, how much more that of the bishop and the whole Church! He, therefore, that does not assemble with the Church, has even by this manifested his pride, and condemned himself. For it is written, "God resisteth the proud.” Let us be careful,then, not to set ourselves in opposition to the bishop, in order that we may be subject to God.

Chapter XX.-Exhortations to Stedfastness and Unity.

If Jesus Christ shall graciously permit me through your prayers,and if it be His will, I shall, in a second little work which I will write to you, make further manifest to you [the nature of] the dispensation of which I have begun [to treat], with respect to the new man, Jesus Christ, in His faith and in His love, in His suffering and in His resurrection. Especially [will I do this]if the Lord make known to me that ye come together man by man in common through grace, individually, in one faith, and in Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David according to the flesh, being both the Son of man and the Son of God, so that ye obey the bishop and the presbytery with an undivided mind, breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote to prevent us from dying, but [which causes] that we should live for ever in Jesus Christ.

Epistle to the Magnesians
Chapter IV.-Some Wickedly Act Independently of the Bishop.

It is fitting, then, not only to be called Christians, but to be so in reality: as some indeed give one the title of bishop, but do all things without him. Now such persons seem to me to be not possessed of a good conscience, seeing they are not stedfastly gathered together according to the commandment.

Chapter VI.-Preserve Harmony.

Since therefore I have, in the persons before mentioned, beheld the whole multitude of you in faith and love, I exhort you to study to do all things with a divine harmony, while your bishop presides in the place of God, and your presbyters in the place of the assembly of the apostles, along with your deacons, who are most dear to me, and are entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the beginning of time,and in the end was revealed. Do ye all then, imitating the same divine conduct, pay respect to one another, and let no one look upon his neighbour after the flesh, but do ye continually love each other in Jesus Christ. Let nothing exist among you that may divide you ; but be ye united with your bishop, and those that preside over you, as a type and evidence of your immortality.

Chapter XIII.-Be Established in Faith and Unity.

Study, therefore, to be established in the doctrines of the Lord and the apostles, that so all things, whatsoever ye do, may prosper both in the flesh and spirit; in faith and love; in the Son, and in the Father, and in the Spirit; in the beginning and in the end; with your most admirable bishop, and the well-compacted spiritual crown of your presbytery, and the deacons who are according to God. Be ye subject to the bishop, and to one another, as Jesus Christ to the Father, according to the flesh, and the apostles to Christ, and to the Father, and to the Spirit; that so there may be a union both fleshly and spiritual.

Epistle to the Trallians
Chapter III.-Honour the Deacons, Etc.

In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the sanhedrim of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church. Concerning all this, I am persuaded that ye are of the same opinion. For I have received the manifestation of your love, and still have it with me, in your bishop, whose very appearance is highly instructive,and his meekness of itself a power; whom I imagine even the ungodly must reverence, seeing they are also pleased that I do not spare myself. But shall I, when permitted to write on this point, reach such a height of self-esteem, that though being a condemned man,I should issue commands to you as if I were an apostle?

Chapter VI.-Abstain from the Poison of Heretics.

I therefore, yet not I, but the love of Jesus Christ, entreat you that ye use Christian nourishment only, and abstain from herbage of a different kind; I mean heresy. For those [that are given to this] mix up Jesus Christ with their own poison, speaking things which are unworthy of credit, like those who administer a deadly drug in sweet wine, which he who is ignorant of does greedily take, with a fatal pleasure leading to his own death.

Chapter VII.-The Same Continued.

Be on your guard, therefore, against such persons. And this will be the case with you if you are not puffed up, and continue in intimate union with Jesus Christ our God, and the bishop, and the enactments of the apostles. He that is within the altar is pure, but he that is without is not pure; that is, he who does anything apart from the bishop, and presbytery, and deacons, such a man is not pure in his conscience.

Keep in mind he's writing about Christians in his day, Christians nowadays are rarely exposed to writings like this, and we can only act in good conscience in accordance with what we know, but after we know things, it's to our own detriment if we ignore them.

 

[Lawrence87]

Why should anyone care about the understanding of the Orthodox Fathers, in that case? This is circular reasoning.

Because Orthodox ecclesiology doesn't just assert a personal interpretation of the Bible as being paramount, it claims that Christ, and the Church of whom He is the head is the source of authority. Therefore it's interpretation has authority. This ecclesiology by the way is in the Bible.

God's Divine Providence ensured the existence of the Bible as we know it today. The fact that the Bible did not exist at the time of Christ is as irrelevant as the fact that Christ did not exist (in bodily human form) at the time of Moses. God's plan unfolded as He willed it.

But it throws shadow on this idea that all you need for Christianity to exist and flourish is the Bible because the book of Acts describes the development of the Church pre-Scripture. I.e: the Church preceeds and supercedes Scripture.

The Apostolic Age was a unique time in the history of Christianity, one that God made special provision for by divinely empowering the Apostles.

Interesting, where does it say that in the Bible? I mean specifically that the power given to the Apostles was only for a while and that it just went away with them.

 

[Rodion]

Hate to break it to you, but your church apostatized from Rome well before the Reformation. Even if you want to spin it the other way and say "Rome apostatized from us," the fact remains that schisms have been a reality from the beginning. Ever heard of the Second Council of Ephesus which spawned Oriental Orthodoxy? All of this points to the need for an objective standard, God provided one for us with the Scriptures. But if you say that the Scriptures aren't good enough and that your church's interpretation is, then there isn't anything I can do to stop you.

The problem with scripture as the objective standard is the matter of interpretation though? Arius quoted from scripture to say that Jesus Christ was a created being, and the tradition and voice of the Church denounced it. Arius could say “scripture is the objective standard and it says thus” and then you have no recourse but to let Arius have his church and lead people to perdition.

I don’t wish to be uncharitable but sometimes it seems like Protestants don’t understand this concept

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

The problem with scripture as the objective standard is the matter of interpretation though?

This has already been dealt with. Someone twisting the Scriptures is an indictment of them, not an indictment of the sufficiency of the Scriptures. If your definition of "orthodoxy" necessarily includes doctrines that cannot be found in the Scriptures, then it only makes sense for you to say, against the Apostles, that the Scriptures are insufficient.

Arius quoted from scripture to say that Jesus Christ was a created being, and the tradition and voice of the Church denounced it. Arius could say “scripture is the objective standard and it says thus” and then you have no recourse but to let Arius have his church and lead people to perdition.

Since the Bible doesn't say "Jesus Christ was a created being," this is only an example of someone twisting the Scriptures. Even after being anathemetized, Arianism was the voice and tradition of the Church in the time of Athanasius, who rejected it on the grounds that the Scriptures say Jesus Christ is God.

 

[OrthoSerb]

This has already been dealt with. Someone twisting the Scriptures is an indictment of them, not an indictment of the sufficiency of the Scriptures.

Your definition of what the twisting of the Scriptures is your subjective opinion. You're presenting your interpretation as being the self-evidently correct interpretation. The whole point is anyone can do the same thing and state others are twisting the Scriptures.

If your definition of "orthodoxy" necessarily includes doctrines that cannot be found in the Scriptures, then it only makes sense for you to say, against the Apostles, that the Scriptures are insufficient.

Sola scriptura is itself a doctrine not found in the Scriptures.

Since the Bible doesn't say "Jesus Christ was a created being," this is only an example of someone twisting the Scriptures. Even after being anathemetized, Arianism was the voice and tradition of the Church in the time of Athanasius, who rejected it on the grounds that the Scriptures say Jesus Christ is God.

Ironcially to explain why your interepretation of the Scriptures is the correct one you've just referenced the anathema of a heresy by the Church and a specific Saint.

 

[Lawrence87]

This has already been dealt with. Someone twisting the Scriptures is an indictment of them, not an indictment of the sufficiency of the Scriptures. If your definition of "orthodoxy" necessarily includes doctrines that cannot be found in the Scriptures, then it only makes sense for you to say, against the Apostles, that the Scriptures are insufficient.


Since the Bible doesn't say "Jesus Christ was a created being," this is only an example of someone twisting the Scriptures. Even after being anathemetized, Arianism was the voice and tradition of the Church in the time of Athanasius, who rejected it on the grounds that the Scriptures say Jesus Christ is God.

Just a question. Supposing you lived in a totalitarian state, that banned Christianity, and copies of the Scriptures were impossible to get your hands on. The state of affairs had persisted for long enough that there was a generation of underground Christians, who had received the faith and teachings in secret from the previous generation, but had themselves never had access to the Scriptures and could not get hold of them. Would it be sufficient for Christianity to persist without Scriptures in such a situation, that people were passing on the Gospel and teachings of Christ via word of mouth? Or does Christianity fall completely without them?

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Sola scriptura is itself a doctrine not found in the Scriptures.

If by Sola Scriptura, you mean that the Scriptures are sufficient to make you complete in Godliness and Doctrine, then the doctrine is plainly found in the Scriptures.

Your definition of what the twisting of the Scriptures is your subjective opinion. You're presenting your interpretation as being the self-evidently correct interpretation. The whole point is anyone can do the same thing and state others are twisting the Scriptures.

How is one church claiming to have the self-evidently correct interpretation a solution to this?

Ironcially to explain why your interepretation of the Scriptures is the correct one you've just referenced the anathema of a heresy by the Church and a specific Saint.

I don't need Athanasius to point out that the Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is God. The point of bringing him up was to show that he was convinced of the same as a Biblical truth, despite the rest of the Church in his time telling him he was wrong.

 

[OrthoSerb]

The same can be said for anyone who identifies themselves by the Five Solae, or anyone who identifies themselves by the Bishop of Rome.

I don't see how Orthodox doctrinal unity can be compared to that of Protestants. One simple example is Communion where there is a kalaidoscope of views in Protestantism and one very clear view in Orthodoxy. Would you say that those that identify by the Five Solae have a unifed view of the Sacrament?

 

[Rodion]

This has already been dealt with. Someone twisting the Scriptures is an indictment of them, not an indictment of the sufficiency of the Scriptures. If your definition of "orthodoxy" necessarily includes doctrines that cannot be found in the Scriptures, then it only makes sense for you to say, against the Apostles, that the Scriptures are insufficient.

Okay, but that guy says you’re the one twisting scripture so…

 

[Cornelius V.E.]

I think one of the primary reasons for the decline of Christianity in the West is that Western Christianity has often preached a comfortable Christianity that demands no personal sacrifices. Unfortunately, this has also happened at times in Orthodox lands, and it's always been accompanied by a decline. At the end of the day, deep down, I think we as humans sense the lack of authenticity in someone claiming to follow Christ while simultaneously being a slave to pleasure and comfort. The Latins, for example, abolished most of their fasting practices about 100 years ago. And we all have images of obese protestant pastors driving their range rovers and sipping their Starbucks iced mocha and caramel frappucinos.

As St. Justin Popovic once wrote, the ascetics are the Church's only missionaries: http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/inwardmission.aspx

We immediately respect those who are able to show with their lives that they love God more than the pleasures and comforts of this world. Very, very few are able to actually show this. As a result, a lot of people sense hypocrisy and lack of authenticity, and decline ensues, because people just can't take it seriously anymore.

 

[OrthoSerb]

I think one of the primary reasons for the decline of Christianity in the West is that Western Christianity has often preached a comfortable Christianity that demands no personal sacrifices. Unfortunately, this has also happened at times in Orthodox lands, and it's always been accompanied by a decline. At the end of the day, deep down, I think we as humans sense the lack of authenticity in someone claiming to follow Christ while simultaneously being a slave to pleasure and comfort. The Latins, for example, abolished most of its fasting practices about 100 years ago. And we all have images of obese protestant pastors driving their range rovers and sipping their Starbucks iced mocha and caramel frappucinos.

As St. Justin Popovic once wrote, the ascetics are the Church's only missionaries: http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/inwardmission.aspx

We immediately respect those who are able to show with their lives that they love God more than the pleasure and comforts of this world. Very, very few are able to actually show this. As a result, a lot of people sense hypocrisy and lack of authenticity, and decline ensues, because people just can't take it seriously anymore.

Asceticism is actually another good point of comparison. There's many references in the Scriptures to fasting, not least "this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting". And yet the practice of fasting seems to be all but non-existent in Protestantism.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Okay, but that guy says you’re the one twisting scripture so…

So... what?

Pick a church and pretend it's infallible?

 

[Lawrence87]

So... what?

Pick a church and pretend it's infallible?

The Orthodox church has an unbroken line that goes back to the Apostles. Its not arbitrary. The Ecclesiology is in the Bible too if you insist on only using that. There is one Church. The body of Christ cannot be divided. Christ is the head of the Church. The Lord promised that the gates of Hades would not prevail against the Church.

You consider the edict "Christ the same yesterday today and forever." Go look at the Catholics and Pope Francis with his pronouncements that gays and trannies can be baptized. Go look at the countless Reformed churches with faggots in the pullpit and gay pride flags everywhere. The Anglicans with their priestesses. Then go to Mount Athos and tell me which has best preserved something ancient and unchanging. That if you care to look goes back to the Apostles.

Protestant ecclesiology basically entails the gates of hades almost immediately prevailing against the church (although it still somehow managed to codify the Scriptures). It claims Scripture alone is sufficient and that churches based on anything else are unbiblical and wrong, even though the church existed without the canon of Scripture for 3 centuries. The Book of Acts literally describes a church existing and flourishing without the Scriptures.

Then rather than preserving the Church like the Lord promised in the Scriptures, He allowed it to drift into error for over a thousand years. Only for people to finally get things back on track with the Reformation which then divided the church into thousands of denominations who all claim that the same book is their basis, and is sufficient in itself.

Its just a fact that when you allow everyone to be their own Pope and interpret Scripture how they want, you open the path to gay pride flags in churches. You can say they are doing it wrong until you are blue in the face but the only standard you have to appeal to is "muh interpretation is best"

 

[analyst_green]

If by Sola Scriptura, you mean that the Scriptures are sufficient to make you complete in Godliness and Doctrine, then the doctrine is plainly found in the Scriptures.

I always ask Protestants to show the Scripture verses saying Scripture is the only or primary source of authority. They can never come up with anything, because it doesn't exist. But please do show us if you still believe the contrary.