Christianity Lounge

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Everything is not subjective and relative. Sometimes there is one correct answer.

When you guys give a history of the church to show how it leads to Eastern Orthodoxy, you tend to assume that your version of events is the objective truth. Objectively, there are indeed many early churches not in communion with each other that make this same exclusive claim, all right in their own eyes. This happened because "Apostolic Succession" isn't sufficient to preserve one church and mark it out above all the rest. Functionally, the argument gets reduced to "Orthodoxy is true because Orthodoxy says it's true." Or "Catholicism is true because Catholicism says it's true." Etc.

I submit that the church should not be limited to a mere earthy institution and recognize that it is indeed a spiritual kingdom, as the Apostles taught. The scrupulosity that comes from being obsessed with "being in the right church" is totally obliterated, since it is clear that God is saving many Christians, not just Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant.

 

[Servant of Christ]

When you guys give a history of the church to show how it leads to Eastern Orthodoxy, you tend to assume that your version of events is the objective truth.

It is the objective truth. On what basis do you say it isn't? Please make your case. If I'm in the wrong Church I want to know!

Objectively, there are indeed many early churches not in communion with each other that make this same exclusive claim, all right in their own eyes.

It doesn't matter if there is 1 or 1000 so-called "churches" who make this claim. That doesn't change the fact that the EO Church is the original Church founded by Christ and His Apostles. Again if you have a case to make, please do so. I'm happy to debate this topic and open to learning something new. I don't care about being right, I just want to know and follow the truth. That is why I am Orthodox in the first place. Not because it is cool, or I think it makes me better than someone, or any other reason. I wasn't born into it, I have no pre-existing bias for or against it (actually I have a fairly rebelious protestant background and at first I was very reluctant, and it took me a long time to accept certain aspects of it, and some things I'm still working on).

This happened because "Apostolic Succession" isn't sufficient to preserve one church and mark it out above all the rest.

That is another bold claim. Christ Himself gave the Apostles their power and authority and said the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church, which was founded on what? An Apostle. Are you saying He was wrong? What exactly are you saying? Sometimes I think folks take this claim lightly and don't think it's true or fully understand its importance. Please allow me to show you something.

Apostolic Succession of the Orthodox Church in America (OCA)​

The OCA traces its apostolic succession through the Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate), which in turn received it from Constantinople, and ultimately from the Apostles. Here’s the main episcopal succession relevant to the OCA:

1. From Constantinople to Russia​

• 988 AD: St. Vladimir of Kiev is baptized; the Church of Kievan Rus’ receives Christianity from Constantinople.
• Metropolitan of Kiev: The line of bishops for Rus’ begins under Constantinople’s authority.
• Metropolitan of Moscow (15th c.): As Moscow rises, the line continues there, remaining in communion with Constantinople until the 15th century.
• Patriarchate of Moscow (1589): Established, with full apostolic succession recognized by the other patriarchates.

2. From Russia to Alaska / America​

• 1794: The first missionaries (including St. Herman of Alaska) arrive, sent by the Russian Church.
• 1840: St. Innocent (Veniaminov) consecrated Bishop of Kamchatka, the Kuriles, and the Aleutians — becomes the great organizer of the Church in America.
• 1870: Diocese of the Aleutian Islands and Alaska established, later renamed Diocese of the Aleutian Islands and North America (1870s).

3. Key Hierarchs in North America​

• Bishop Innocent (Veniaminov) → later Metropolitan of Moscow (1868).
• Bishop John (Mitropolsky) (1870–1876).
• Bishop Nestor (Zass) (1879–1882).
• Bishop Vladimir (Sokolovsky-Avtonomov) (1888–1891).
• Bishop Nicholas (Ziorov) (1891–1898).
• Bishop Tikhon (Bellavin) (1898–1907) — later Patriarch of Moscow and glorified as St. Tikhon.
• Bishop Platon (Rozhdestvensky) (1907–1914, 1922–1934).
• Metropolitan Theophilus (Pashkovsky) (1934–1950).
• Metropolitan Leonty (Turkevich) (1950–1965).
• Metropolitan Ireney (Bekish) (1965–1977).

4. Autocephaly and Today​

• 1970: The Russian Orthodox Church grants autocephaly to the OCA.
• Metropolitan Theodosius (Lazor) (1977–2002).
• Metropolitan Herman (Swaiko) (2002–2008).
• Metropolitan Jonah (Paffhausen) (2008–2012).
• Metropolitan Tikhon (Mollard) (2012–present).

Please take a moment to appreciate how amazing this is. Do you even know your own family tree that well? Do you know five generations? Ten? Fifty? I don't.

Functionally, the argument gets reduced to "Orthodoxy is true because Orthodoxy says it's true." Or "Catholicism is true because Catholicism says it's true." Etc.

No, not at all. There is tons of documentation and evidence for the EO Church being the one true original Church. The "Catholic" church was once part of it, and now it isn't. That doesn't change the original facts. If I claim to be the real GodfatherPartTwo and say you are a fraud, do you stop being you? Should someone then say "well, since I can't tell who is lying" (or more correctly, "since I can't be bothered to figure it out" or "it challenges my pre-supposed beliefs and that makes me uncomfortable"), "now you aren't GFPT anymore". No.

I submit that the church should not be limited to a mere earthy institution and recognize that it is indeed a spiritual kingdom, as the Apostles taught.

It definitely is not merely an earthly institution, however it is also not merely a spiritual kingdom, and the earthly portion has a very important purpose. You can't just write it off because it makes you feel better as you aren't a member (but you could be, anyone can). Either way, you still have to explain and justify that choice (not to me, but on judgment day) - why you choose to be apart from His one true Church.

The scrupulosity that comes from being obsessed with "being in the right church" is totally obliterated, since it is clear that God is saving many Christians, not just Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant.

Well for what it is worth, I will do my best to explain how I understand it. Please bear with me.


St. Paul said: “For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body” (1 Cor 12:13).

Baptism is the entry into Christ’s Body, the Church. In Orthodox teaching, baptism is not symbolic only; it is a real rebirth, washing away sin, uniting the person with Christ’s death and resurrection (Romans 6:3–5). Without baptism, one is not sacramentally incorporated into the life of the Church, which is the ark of salvation.

The Eucharist is the center of the Church’s life. Christ said: “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you” (John 6:53). Through Communion, believers receive Christ Himself, participate in divine life, and are mystically united with one another as His Body. The Eucharist makes the Church the Church; it is the sacrament of unity and the foretaste of the Kingdom.

The Church is not simply a building or a gathering of believers, but the Body of Christ enlivened by the Holy Spirit. To be in the Church is to live in the communion of Saints, nourished by the sacraments, guided by Apostolic teaching, and moving toward theosis (union with God). St. Cyprian said “He cannot have God as his Father who does not have the Church as his Mother.”

The fullness of salvation (the sacraments, theosis, union with God) is only in the Orthodox Church. Without a life in the Church, a person is more vulnerable to error, sin, and estrangement from Christ. However God is not bound by the sacraments; He may work outside the visible boundaries in ways we cannot fully understand. One of the great things about the Orthodox Church in my humble and ignorant opinion is that it does not profess to know everything. I found that so unexpected and refreshing and honest. The truth is, we are not meant to know everything. And in many cases, knowing stuff does not bring us closer to Christ, and in fact can do the opposite. This is an act of faith and humilty.

St. Theophan the Recluse (19th c.) said “We do not say that all those who are not visibly in the Church will be condemned; we say that in the Church is salvation, and that those who are saved outside the Church are saved by a mysterious link with the Church.”

St. Silouan of Athos (20th c.) taught that we cannot judge who is outside God’s mercy, and that we must pray for the whole world.

The Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that salvation is in and through the Church, because the Church is Christ’s Body and the ordinary place of grace. Yet, Orthodoxy also acknowledges that God can act outside visible boundaries, and it refrains from declaring the eternal fate of non-Orthodox. The “consequence” of not being in the Church is the absence of the fullness of grace and theosis, but not necessarily automatic damnation - judgment is left to God’s mercy.

The Church is the ark of salvation, the Body of Christ, and the place where the fullness of grace and truth dwell. Other Christian bodies, for example the Roman Catholic church, may preserve elements of the truth and grace, but not the fullness.

St. Cyprian said “Outside the Church there is no salvation”

This phrase is often quoted in Orthodox tradition. Orthodoxy interprets this not as a rigid condemnation, but as an affirmation that Christ saves through His Church - the ordinary means of salvation. The Orthodox Church does not issue definitive dogmas about the eternal fate of those outside her canonical boundaries. Orthodoxy insists that only God knows hearts and judges souls. Many Church Fathers stress humility in speaking of others’ salvation.


I hope this helps to clear things up a little bit, even if you don't necessarily agree.

 

[Servant of Christ]

Here is some more stuff to think about.

Who Actually Wrote the Bible?​

• Old Testament: Written over many centuries (roughly 1400 BC–400 BC) by prophets, kings, and scribes of Israel, inspired by the Holy Spirit. Examples: Moses (Torah), David (Psalms), Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc.
• New Testament: Written in the 1st century AD by the Apostles and their close disciples, also under inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Examples: the four Evangelists (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John), St. Paul, St. Peter, St. James, St. Jude.

In summary, the Bible was written by inspired men, but the question of which writings belong in the Bible was answered by the Church. That's right, the same Church which today is known as the Orthodox Church. So you're following our teachings and writings and then using that as the basis to say the EO Church isn't valid. Think about it.

The Role of the Early Church and the Holy Fathers​

In the first centuries, many Christian writings circulated (gospels, letters, apocalypses). The question arose: Which are truly inspired and Apostolic? The Holy Fathers, guided by the Holy Spirit, discerned which books were authentic and used in the Church’s worship. Criteria for canonicity included:

• Apostolic origin (written by or connected to the Apostles)
• Orthodox teaching (consistent with the faith of the Church)
• Liturgical use (read in the Divine Liturgy across the Church)

The Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) was the version of Scripture used by the Apostles and the early Church. The Orthodox Church still uses this. The New Testament canon gradually took shape in the 2nd–4th centuries:

• St. Irenaeus (2nd c.) affirmed the authority of the four Gospels.
• Origen, Athanasius, and others listed canonical books.
• Council of Laodicea (c. 363) and Council of Carthage (397) confirmed lists close to today’s canon.
• The canon was never decided by one man, but by the Church as a whole, in her councils, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

The Orthodox Understanding​

The Bible is a book of the Church:

• Written within the life of God’s people (Israel and the Church).
• Preserved, recognized, and proclaimed by the Church.
• Interpreted correctly only within the Church’s living Tradition.
• St. Athanasius the Great (4th c.): In his Festal Letter (367), he gave the first full list of the 27 NT books we use today.
• St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil, and others preached and commented on scripture, always treating it as the Church’s book.

St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil wrote the Divine Liturgy which we still follow to this very day, every Sunday. I have practically memorized the whole thing at this point. It usually takes about an hour and a half (sometimes longer) to get through it, including receiving communion. The version written by St. Basil is used on some special occasions and is a bit longer.

 

[Servant of Christ]

I'm going to stop after this message. There is just so much information I wanted to convey. Please forgive me if it's a bit too much, but please take your time and try to digest it. I pray that Christ will grant you wisdom, patience, and discernment.

The Orthodox Church’s Treasure Beyond the Bible​

The Bible is central in Orthodoxy, but it is not the whole of the Christian faith. The Church has preserved, through the Holy Spirit, a treasury of wisdom that includes:

• Holy Tradition: the living transmission of the Apostolic faith.
• Writings of the Fathers: homilies, letters, treatises (e.g., St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom, St. Maximus the Confessor).
• Ecumenical Councils: definitions of the faith (e.g., Nicene Creed).
• Liturgical life: prayers, hymns, icons, fasting practices, feasts — theology lived and sung.
• Sacraments (Mysteries): baptism, chrismation, Eucharist, confession, etc., where divine grace is tangibly given.
• Lives of the Saints: examples of holiness in every generation.

This is a 2,000-year library of wisdom and experience, far beyond what is written in Scripture alone.

What’s Missing if One Has Only the Bible?​

• Historical continuity: The Bible doesn’t tell you which books belong in it; the Church does.
• Interpretation: Without the Church, verses can be twisted into thousands of conflicting doctrines.
• Sacraments: Scripture commands baptism, Eucharist, anointing with oil, etc., but the Church preserves the how of these mysteries.
• The lived experience of grace: The saints show us how Scripture is lived, not just read.
• Doctrinal clarity: The Trinity, the two natures of Christ, the canon of Scripture — all defined by the Church, not by Scripture alone.

So, someone with “bible only” is like a person who owns a medical textbook but has no teachers, no hospital, and no doctors to guide them.

The Role of a Spiritual Father and the Church​

Acts 8:30–31 - Philip ran to him, and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah, and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?”
And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” Philip (an apostle) explained the Scriptures to him.

• The Church Fathers constantly stress that Christianity is not just reading, but discipleship.
• The spiritual father helps interpret Scripture in light of Tradition, giving correction, discernment, and application to one’s life.
• Without this guidance, one risks pride, misinterpretation, or inventing new doctrines.

That's all I have for now. Take care & God bless.

In Christ,

SoC

 

[Wutang]

If Apostolic succession is of vital importance shouldn't a church like the Coptic Church in Egypt have a better claim to be the one true church since they are said to have been founded by St. Mark who was one of the Twelve Apostles? However they are Oriental Orthodox rather than Eastern Orthodox. What would be the argument for saying that the EOs that have a better claim to being the original church?

 

[Servant of Christ]

If Apostolic succession is of vital importance shouldn't a church like the Coptic Church in Egypt have a better claim to be the one true church since they are said to have been founded by St. Mark who was one of the Twelve Apostles? However they are Oriental Orthodox rather than Eastern Orthodox. What would be the argument for saying that the EOs that have a better claim to being the original church?

I will do my best to answer. I will readily admit the situation with the Coptic church is not necessarily my area of expertise. I am not that smart, nor well-educated, and someone like Jay Dyer, or indeed some of the members here, could no doubt do a much better job of explaining it.

To directly answer your question - it is of vital importance. You can't have a Church without it. However it is not the only determining factor. The Catholics also have Apostolic succession, but they are also schismatic and not in communion with the Orthodox Church. They broke away from it in much the same way as the Copts did. Having an "original Apostle" is indeed cool, but I don't think one can make the case that it gives them more authority or authenticity than the others. It's more complicated than that. Christianity is not a religion founded by individual Apostles independently, but one Church founded by Christ and spread through His apostles.

Regarding the Orthodox Church, key Apostolic foundations include:

• Antioch: founded by Peter before he went to Rome (Acts 11, Galatians 2).
• Jerusalem: founded by James the Just, “the brother of the Lord.”
• Constantinople: traditionally linked to Andrew the Apostle (brother of Peter).
• Other ancient sees: many Eastern regions trace their bishops back to apostles or their direct disciples.

The Eastern Orthodox Church as a communion today arose out of the Byzantine Church after the Great Schism (1054). But the Orthodox understanding is that they did not “start” a new church. Rather, they are the continuation of the same Church founded by Christ and His apostles.

Apostolic Succession and the Coptic Church​

The Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria indeed claims Apostolic succession from St. Mark the Evangelist, who, according to tradition, brought Christianity to Egypt in the first century. Because Apostolic succession is a central marker of legitimacy for many Christians, the Copts have a strong historical claim to being part of the “one, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church.” Their succession of Bishops (Patriarchs of Alexandria) has continued unbroken since antiquity.

Why They Are Called Oriental Orthodox​

The Coptic Church belongs to the Oriental Orthodox communion, which split from the rest of the Christian world after the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD). The Council of Chalcedon affirmed that Christ is one person in two natures (divine and human). The Copts (and other Oriental Orthodox) rejected the council’s definition, holding instead to miaphysitism (“one united nature out of two”). Because of this doctrinal disagreement, they were no longer in communion with Rome and Constantinople, and eventually developed separately from the churches that later became known as the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches.

The Eastern Orthodox Argument​

The Eastern Orthodox Churches make their case on a few grounds:

• Conciliar Continuity: They accept the first seven Ecumenical Councils, whereas the Copts only accept the first three. For the Eastern Orthodox, fidelity to the councils is as important as Apostolic succession in preserving the “true faith.”
• Universality: Eastern Orthodoxy sees itself as maintaining both the Apostolic tradition and the Catholicity (universality) of the Church, whereas the Oriental Orthodox broke away from the wider communion after Chalcedon.
• Doctrinal Purity: From their perspective, the Chalcedonian definition safeguards the fullness of Christ’s humanity and divinity, which they argue is essential to Orthodox Christian doctrine.

The Eastern Orthodox argue that Apostolic succession must be accompanied by fidelity to all ecumenical councils and the consensus of the undivided Church. Each side claims to be the true guardian of the Apostolic faith, though today there is more recognition that the divide may not be as stark theologically as it once seemed.

How the Copts Would Likely Respond​

From the Coptic point of view:

• They never abandoned the true faith - they would argue they preserved the authentic teaching of St. Cyril of Alexandria (who was a champion at the Council of Ephesus in 431).
• They see themselves as having resisted what they view as a compromise or corruption at Chalcedon.
• Their own claim to being the “true church” rests on their Apostolic continuity and their faithfulness to the teaching handed down from their own saints and fathers.

The Eastern Orthodox Position on Coptic Sacrements​

The Eastern Orthodox Church does not have one universal, codified position that is exactly parallel. Instead:

• Officially: The Orthodox do not usually make blanket statements declaring that Oriental Orthodox sacraments are “valid” in the same way Catholics do. The Orthodox theological language tends to avoid declaring sacraments “valid” outside the canonical boundaries of the Orthodox Church.
• Practically: Many Eastern Orthodox jurisdictions do accept converts from the Coptic (and other Oriental Orthodox) churches without rebaptism, often receiving them by Chrismation (anointing) or even simply by confession of faith. This strongly implies a recognition that their baptism is real.
• In modern dialogue, many Orthodox theologians acknowledge that the Oriental Orthodox sacraments are indeed effective, since they are performed with Apostolic succession and true faith in the Trinity.

Modern Developments​

In recent decades, dialogue between Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches has shown that many of the theological disagreements may be more about terminology and emphasis than actual doctrine. Some joint statements have recognized that both sides affirm Christ as fully God and fully man, even if they phrase it differently. This has led to calls for greater unity, though full communion hasn’t yet been restored.

Biblical Foundation​

• The New Testament consistently speaks of one Church and one Body of Christ (Ephesians 4:4–5; 1 Corinthians 12:12–27).
• Christ Himself prayed “that they may all be one” (John 17:21).
• So, from the very beginning, the Church is understood as a single, visible, united body - not many independent groups.

The Orthodox (Eastern & Oriental) View​

• The Orthodox Church teaches that there can only be one true Church, the visible continuation of the Apostolic community founded by Christ.
• They identify this one Church with themselves; those who preserve the true faith, sacraments, and apostolic succession without alteration.
• Other groups may have elements of truth and grace, but the fullness of the Church is found only in Orthodoxy.

For this reason, both Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox claim to be “the one true Church,” even though they are separated from each other, which creates a theological tension. Some Orthodox theologians explain this by saying the other body is “schismatic but not heretical,” and so retains real sacraments but lacks the fullness of communion.

The bottom line in my view is that some of this stuff seems a bit autistic to me and sometimes I struggle to fully understand or appreciate these differences. However I do have faith in Christ and the Holy Spirit and I therefore believe the decisions of the Holy Patriarchs and ecumenical councils are just and binding and were done for a good reason. Therefore if someone falls out of line with the canonical, correct, and blessed teachings according to those councils we end up with a situation like the "Catholic" or "Oriental Orthodox" churches splitting off, which is regrettable but it was their own choice to do so. And they are always free to renounce their incorrect positions and re-join with the Body of Christ at any time and many people including myself would be very glad if that were to happen.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

It is the objective truth. On what basis do you say it isn't? Please make your case. If I'm in the wrong Church I want to know!

There are a few objective reference points that I would point to. Namely, the Bible, primarily for doctrine. Second, the history of the church as it has developed over the centuries. When you presuppose your completed image of what the church should be, it is very easy to read that back into the history in an anachronistic fashion. It is better to start with the Bible, since it is the writings of the first Christians, then work your way through the history up to the present day. Essentially, it is better to read the history forwards, not backwards.

It doesn't matter if there is 1 or 1000 so-called "churches" who make this claim. That doesn't change the fact that the EO Church is the original Church founded by Christ and His Apostles. Again if you have a case to make, please do so. I'm happy to debate this topic and open to learning something new. I don't care about being right, I just want to know and follow the truth. That is why I am Orthodox in the first place.

Here's why it matters. The whole point of "Apostolic Succession" is to mark out the one, true church. If there are multiple churches with AS that are not in communion with each other, then AS has failed to accomplish it's purpose. The first father to teach "Apostolic Succession" was Irenaeus, who taught it over a century after the Apostles as a way to discredit the Valentinian Gnostics. While it may have worked against the Gnostics, it didn't prevent the church from schisming and fractioning later on.

Moreover, it would be anachronistic to assume that AS is the mechanism the Apostles used to preserve the Church from error. Their answer was never "just trust the bishop." Their answer, even to the bishops, was "I commend you to the Word of God" and "The Scripture is able to make you fully equipped for every good work."

That is another bold claim. Christ Himself gave the Apostles their power and authority and said the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church, which was founded on what? An Apostle. Are you saying He was wrong? What exactly are you saying? Sometimes I think folks take this claim lightly and don't think it's true or fully understand its importance. Please allow me to show you something.

The gates of hell have not prevailed against the Church and no one is saying Christ is wrong. What is wrong is this interpretation the the Church was built on one Apostle and not the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. I invite you to look at patristic commentary of this passage. Two great fathers, Augustine and Chrysostom, say that Matthew 16:18 teaches that the Church is built on Peter's confession, that is, Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Even Peter says in his own letter that Christ is the rock. The first person to interpret the passage in this way: the Church being founded on one Apostle, was a Roman pope, in order to legitimize the Papacy.

It definitely is not merely an earthly institution, however it is also not merely a spiritual kingdom, and the earthly portion has a very important purpose. You can't just write it off because it makes you feel better as you aren't a member (but you could be, anyone can). Either way, you still have to explain and justify that choice (not to me, but on judgment day) - why you choose to be apart from His one true Church.

I don't write off the earthly church. I'm a member of it. But I don't limit the spiritual church to my earthly church. That's the difference between us. I recognize that the church is a broader concept than just my local congregation, and even my denomination.

 

[Servant of Christ]

Re: GodfatherPartTwo: I will respond tomorrow, as I want to think about your words and take the proper time to write thoughtfully. Thank you for your reply. Have a blessed evening brother.

 

[Servant of Christ]

There are a few objective reference points that I would point to. Namely, the Bible, primarily for doctrine.

I already explained above why it doesn't make sense to try to separate the Bible from the traditions and history of the Church. You're literally taking the book that the Church created and trying to argue against the authority or legitimacy of the Church. Even if you could somehow win that argument, you'd just be undermining the validity of the Bible in the end. If you want to debate this point please read my other post and respond to the points I've made there.

Second, the history of the church as it has developed over the centuries. When you presuppose your completed image of what the church should be, it is very easy to read that back into the history in an anachronistic fashion. It is better to start with the Bible, since it is the writings of the first Christians, then work your way through the history up to the present day. Essentially, it is better to read the history forwards, not backwards.

I'm not pre-supposing at all. And again, please refer to my post above. I'm happy to explain and debate but I insist that you actually read and respond to what I already wrote as I'm not going to keep explaining the same thing repeatedly. Actually it's funny you should phrase it that way though because the Church came before the Bible. So you're accusing me of doing things backwards, but that is precisely what you are actually doing.

Here's why it matters. The whole point of "Apostolic Succession" is to mark out the one, true church. If there are multiple churches with AS that are not in communion with each other, then AS has failed to accomplish it's purpose. The first father to teach "Apostolic Succession" was Irenaeus, who taught it over a century after the Apostles as a way to discredit the Valentinian Gnostics. While it may have worked against the Gnostics, it didn't prevent the church from schisming and fractioning later on.

Moreover, it would be anachronistic to assume that AS is the mechanism the Apostles used to preserve the Church from error. Their answer was never "just trust the bishop." Their answer, even to the bishops, was "I commend you to the Word of God" and "The Scripture is able to make you fully equipped for every good work."

The point of Apostolic succession is not just historical continuity or "guarding from error" but a living guarantee of the Church’s identity and faithfulness to Christ. It is understood in several interrelated ways:

• Continuity of the Church – Apostolic succession ensures that the Orthodox Church today is the same Church founded by Christ and the Apostles, not a new or breakaway institution. The Bishops stand in the same line of ministry as the apostles, preserving the visible, historical Church.
• Guardianship of True Faith – Apostolic succession safeguards the integrity of the Apostolic teaching (Holy Tradition). The Bishops are not inventors of doctrine but custodians of what the Apostles handed down.
• Sacramental Validity – In Orthodoxy, the succession is tied to the reality of the sacraments, especially the Eucharist and ordination. A Bishop in Apostolic succession is seen as the one who rightly ordains clergy and presides over the Eucharist, ensuring the continuity of Christ’s presence in the Church.
• Unity in the Spirit – It expresses the unity of the Church across time and space. The unbroken chain symbolizes the Church’s life in the Holy Spirit, connecting the local church to the universal Body of Christ.

In other words, Apostolic succession is essential but not sufficient by itself to guarantee the fullness of the Church’s continuity and correctness for the following reasons:

• Succession + Fidelity to the Apostolic Faith - Apostolic succession is more than a legal-historical chain of ordinations. It must be accompanied by faithfulness to the Apostolic teaching (Holy Tradition). A bishop in valid succession who departs from the faith (e.g., by adopting heresy or separating from the fullness of the Church) still has the succession in a technical sense, but is no longer exercising it within the fullness of the Church.
• Schism vs. Apostasy - The Orthodox Church acknowledges that Rome, the Oriental Orthodox (Coptic, Armenian, etc.), and others possess valid succession in the sense of an unbroken episcopal line, but Orthodoxy sees their separation as a schism (and in Rome’s case, later doctrinal deviations). This doesn’t invalidate the principle of succession but it highlights that succession alone isn’t the full guarantee of being the Church; it must be paired with unity in right faith and communion.
• The Orthodox Understanding of “the Church” - For Orthodoxy, the Church isn’t simply all communities with Apostolic succession. The Church is defined as the community that maintains both right belief (Orthodoxy of faith) and right worship and sacramental life in the Holy Spirit. Apostolic succession is the vessel, but fidelity to the Apostolic faith is what fills it with life.

So does schism mean Apostolic succession has “failed”? No. From the Orthodox perspective, the schisms show the tragic reality of human sin and division, not the failure of God’s gift. Apostolic succession continues as the foundation of the Church’s continuity, but only where it is united with right faith and communion.

In short: Apostolic succession is necessary but not self-sufficient. Orthodoxy holds that succession without fidelity to the truth is incomplete. The Orthodox Church holds both together, which is why it does not see itself as weakened by the existence of parallel lines of succession outside of communion.

Put another way, Apostolic succession in the Orthodox view is the means by which the Church remains the same Apostolic Church, faithfully preserving both the teaching and sacramental life given by Christ to the Apostles.

The gates of hell have not prevailed against the Church and no one is saying Christ is wrong. What is wrong is this interpretation the the Church was built on one Apostle and not the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. I invite you to look at patristic commentary of this passage. Two great fathers, Augustine and Chrysostom, say that Matthew 16:18 teaches that the Church is built on Peter's confession, that is, Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Even Peter says in his own letter that Christ is the rock. The first person to interpret the passage in this way: the Church being founded on one Apostle, was a Roman pope, in order to legitimize the Papacy.


I don't write off the earthly church. I'm a member of it. But I don't limit the spiritual church to my earthly church. That's the difference between us. I recognize that the church is a broader concept than just my local congregation, and even my denomination.

They haven't, and they won't, because Christ promised this. And I mean this with the utmost respect and love, but no, you aren't a member of His earthly Church. As for your claims, I will do my best to explain.

Christ is the true foundation of the Church​

The Orthodox Church fully agrees: the Church is built on Christ Himself, not on one man apart from Him. Scripture and the Fathers are clear that Christ is the cornerstone (1 Cor 3:11, Eph 2:20, 1 Pet 2:4–8). Peter’s confession “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” is indeed central. The Church exists only because of Christ’s person and saving work.

The Apostles as the foundation in Christ​

At the same time, scripture also speaks of the Church being “built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets” (Eph 2:20). That doesn’t mean they replace Christ, but that Christ established His Church through their witness, preaching, and sacramental ministry. Peter is singled out in Matthew 16:18 not because the Church is “Peter’s church,” but because he was the first to confess Christ clearly, and Christ chose him to symbolize the unity of the Apostolic witness.

Patristic nuance: Peter​

Many Fathers (Augustine, Chrysostom, etc.) interpret the “rock” as Peter’s confession of Christ, but the Fathers often speak in “both/and,” not “either/or”. Some Fathers say the rock is Christ Himself. Others say the rock is Peter’s confession. Others (like Cyprian, Leo the Great) say Peter personally symbolizes the unity of the Apostolic office. Orthodoxy doesn’t reduce it to a single meaning. It holds that Peter’s faith, his confession, and his role among the Apostles all show how the Church is grounded in Christ through the Apostles.

The Orthodox claim of continuity​

Where Orthodoxy differs from Protestantism is in the understanding of how this Apostolic foundation is preserved. The Orthodox Church is the historical continuation of the one Church Christ founded through the Apostles. The Apostles ordained bishops, who ordained successors, and this unbroken line continues today. This is not about one man (Peter or the pope), but about the college of bishops, in communion, maintaining both the faith and sacramental life given by Christ. So when the Orthodox say the Church was “founded on the Apostles” they mean: Christ Himself is the cornerstone, but He deliberately used the Apostles as the human foundation of His visible earthly Church, and the Orthodox Church is the direct continuation of that same Apostolic body.

When a Protestant says something like “the Church can’t be founded on Peter” (I don't know if you believe this or not) they’re often assuming Orthodoxy = Roman Catholicism, and that Orthodoxy claims a papal-style supremacy of Peter, but Orthodoxy doesn’t teach that. The Church isn’t built on “one man” in Rome. It’s built on Christ, confessed by the Apostles, and handed down in the life of the Church through Apostolic succession and fidelity to the truth.

In summary, Christ is the foundation. The apostles, including Peter, are the foundation in Christ. The Orthodox Church is the living continuation of that Apostolic foundation. Orthodoxy has always grounded its authority in Christ and the undivided Apostolic tradition.

Just to make this super clear, the Orthodox Church does not believe that Apostolic succession alone guards from error. The Church is preserved in truth through a living synergy of:

• Holy Tradition (scripture within the Church’s life and worship)
• The Ecumenical Councils (where Bishops gathered, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to resolve heresies and affirm right doctrine)
• The consensus of the Fathers and the life of the Saints (witnesses of the Spirit’s presence in each generation)
• The whole body of the Church (clergy and laity together receiving and confirming the truth, as in the reception of the councils)

This is how the Church has historically discerned truth from error, not by “just trusting the Bishop,” but by the whole Church guided by the Holy Spirit, preserving the faith once delivered to the Saints. Orthodox do not believe in infallability like the Roman Catholics. However when there is a valid Council and the various authorities debate and weigh in on the issues, guided by the Holy Spirit, those decisions are believed to be correct and binding. It's not remotely the same thing as the concept of an infallible Pope, which is a heresy imho, and is obviously not what I am advocating for.

By contrast, Protestantism is lacking this historical continuity and conciliar discernment which places the burden of interpretation on each individual or denomination. This leaves it extremely vulnerable to fragmentation and mis-guided or conflicting teachings, since it does not have the collective memory, the tested wisdom, or the Spirit-guided discernment of the historic Church to safeguard doctrine. Protestants often say that the Bible is enough, but they don't even fully understand it and never can, without the combined wisdom and traditions of the Orthodox Church, from which the Bible originated in the first place. The Orthodox Church has literally thousands of years of both oral and written tradition, and not everything that is vital to Christianity is even in the Bible. At least the Romans and the Copts still posess much of this treasure, while Protestantism on the other hand, separated from this living continuity, cannot claim or posses the same wisdom or safeguards, which explains why there are literally thousands of different "churches" that are all doing different things.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

I already explained above why it doesn't make sense to try to separate the Bible from the traditions and history of the Church. You're literally taking the book that the Church created and trying to argue against the authority or legitimacy of the Church. Even if you could somehow win that argument, you'd just be undermining the validity of the Bible in the end. If you want to debate this point please read my other post and respond to the points I've made there.

This is what I was referring to when I said we should not read history backwards. If we can't read the history of the 1st century without reading it through a 4th century lens then neither can we read the 4th century history without reading it through a 21st century lens. I'm not "separating the Bible from the Church." I'm merely recognizing that the Scriptures are the original Church documents and will be using them as my starting point. Before any of the councils you mentioned, you have church fathers like Athanasius recognizing the Scriptures as the infallible Word of God. The earliest church father, Clement of Rome, calls Paul's letters "the true utterances of the Holy Spirit." They did not need councils to tell them this. The 4th century framework you want to impose on me would do much injustice to these earlier fathers.

The fact is, there is no council in the 1st thousand years that has the modern Orthodox canon. So this idea that "the Bible is a product of the Church and we therefore can't read it or talk about it other than through an Orthodox lens" is incredibly anachronistic. No one in the early church saw it that way. Before Eastern Orthodoxy differentiated itself as a denomination, the Bible already existed. Whether the Church was founded before the Apostles' writings is trivial, since the Church is supposed to submit to the Apostles and their writings anyway. "The Church is founded on the Prophets and Apostles, with Christ Jesus being the cornerstone." Not the other way around.

So does schism mean Apostolic succession has “failed”? No. From the Orthodox perspective, the schisms show the tragic reality of human sin and division, not the failure of God’s gift. Apostolic succession continues as the foundation of the Church’s continuity, but only where it is united with right faith and communion.

"Right faith and communion" is better criteria for determining the true church, since we agree that AS doesnt inherently preserve the Church from error. Since any bishop can go astray, we should instead look at those standards that do not change and are able to preserve us from error. What is "right faith"? Is it not the Apostolic faith? If I want the Apostolic faith, am I not to read their writings?

The Apostles ordained bishops, who ordained successors, and this unbroken line continues today.

Even the earliest genealogies of bishops, such as those given by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Eusebius, are not in accordance with each other.

So when the Orthodox say the Church was “founded on the Apostles” they mean: Christ Himself is the cornerstone, but He deliberately used the Apostles as the human foundation of His visible earthly Church, and the Orthodox Church is the direct continuation of that same Apostolic body.

I will propose this, "the Church is founded on the Prophets and Apostles with Christ Jesus being the cornerstone" means that the Church is founded on the Prophet's and Apostle's writings with Christ Jesus inspiring them both. Bishops are not Apostles and AS blurs the line between those two offices so as to erase the distinction. It functionally becomes "the Church is founded on the Church's interpretation of the Prophets and Apostles."

When a Protestant says something like “the Church can’t be founded on Peter” (I don't know if you believe this or not) they’re often assuming Orthodoxy = Roman Catholicism, and that Orthodoxy claims a papal-style supremacy of Peter, but Orthodoxy doesn’t teach that. The Church isn’t built on “one man” in Rome. It’s built on Christ, confessed by the Apostles, and handed down in the life of the Church through Apostolic succession and fidelity to the truth.

I say the Church is founded on all the Prophets and Apostles, who are founded on Christ. I know that EO doesn't believe in a pope. My point is that it's inconsistent to believe that the Church is founded on Peter and not believe in the Pope.

By contrast, Protestantism is lacking this historical continuity and conciliar discernment which places the burden of interpretation on each individual or denomination.

The earliest church fathers also lacked this "historical continuity and conciliar discernment" that you point to. These things are not necessary to believe the Apostolic faith, be a member of the Church, be saved, be a disciple of Christ, etc. This Orthodox historical throughline is only necessary if you wish to be Orthodox.

Protestants often say that the Bible is enough, but they don't even fully understand it and never can, without the combined wisdom and traditions of the Orthodox Church, from which the Bible originated in the first place.

When Protestants say "the Bible is sufficient." They are saying what the Apostle Paul says, "the Scriptures are able to make you wise unto salvation." I think we both agree that the Bible is insufficient to teach you all the extra dogmas and traditions that you need to believe to be Orthodox. But for all this varied Protestant teaching, it is interesting that all the Protestants should agree on the canon of the Bible, which cannot even be said for all the Orthodox. The idea that you need the history after the Bible to understand the Bible which was written before that history is the very definition of anachronism. That history can be helpful, but it is in no way necessary.

 

[Wutang]

If a Catholic or Oriental Orthodox said that it was the Eastern Orthodox church that broke away from the original, historic church what would be the argument against that it is EOs that are in schism?

 

[Servant of Christ]

This is what I was referring to when I said we should not read history backwards. If we can't read the history of the 1st century without reading it through a 4th century lens then neither can we read the 4th century history without reading it through a 21st century lens. I'm not "separating the Bible from the Church." I'm merely recognizing that the Scriptures are the original Church documents and will be using them as my starting point. Before any of the councils you mentioned, you have church fathers like Athanasius recognizing the Scriptures as the infallible Word of God. The earliest church father, Clement of Rome, calls Paul's letters "the true utterances of the Holy Spirit." They did not need councils to tell them this. The 4th century framework you want to impose on me would do much injustice to these earlier fathers.

The fact is, there is no council in the 1st thousand years that has the modern Orthodox canon. So this idea that "the Bible is a product of the Church and we therefore can't read it or talk about it other than through an Orthodox lens" is incredibly anachronistic. No one in the early church saw it that way. Before Eastern Orthodoxy differentiated itself as a denomination, the Bible already existed. Whether the Church was founded before the Apostles' writings is trivial, since the Church is supposed to submit to the Apostles and their writings anyway. "The Church is founded on the Prophets and Apostles, with Christ Jesus being the cornerstone." Not the other way around.

Hoookay, you seem to be making the following arguments:

Scripture as prior: You claim the Bible (or at least the Apostolic writings) is logically prior to the Church because the Apostles’ writings were inspired and authoritative before councils or formal canon lists.

Church “submits” to scripture: You cite verses like Ephesians 2:20 to say the Church is built on the Apostles and Prophets (i.e. their writings).

Councils not necessary: You said early Holy Fathers already recognized scripture’s inspiration without needing Church councils to decide it.

Orthodoxy is later: You suggested that the Orthodox canon and framework are a much later development, so reading scripture “through an Orthodox lens” is anachronistic.

Is that about right?

My rebuttal is as follows:

The Church predates the New Testament:

• The Church began at Pentecost (Acts 2), but most NT writings were not yet written.
• Paul’s letters and the Gospels arose within the life of the Church, for the Church, not independently of it.

The Bible did not drop from heaven fully formed:

• The 27-book NT canon was not finalized until the 4th century (e.g. Athanasius’ Festal Letter 367 is the first time we see the exact modern NT list).
• Before that, there was much debate (Hebrews, Revelation, James, etc. were disputed).

“Scripture as Church documents”:

• Yes, the scriptures are “Church documents”, because they were written, preserved, and recognized in the context of the Church’s liturgical and teaching life. To call them “independent of the Church” is a categorical error: no Church, no scriptures as we know them.
• Every NT letter is addressed either to a local Church (Romans, Corinthians, Thessalonians, etc.) or to leaders within the Church (Timothy, Titus). These writings presuppose the existence of Christian communities, liturgy, sacraments, and teaching authority.
• Example: Paul gives instructions about the Eucharist (1 Cor 11), Bishops/Deacons (1 Tim 3), and Church discipline (Titus 1). That’s not independent; it’s embedded in church life.

Authority of councils:
Councils didn’t “make” scripture inspired, but they recognized and gave a settled canon for the sake of unity. Without the Church’s recognition, you wouldn’t have “the Bible” but just a collection of competing texts.

Anachronism charge cuts both ways:

• If it’s anachronistic to read the early fathers through a 4th-century Orthodox lens, it’s just as anachronistic to read them through a 16th–21st-century protestant sola scriptura lens.
• The early Church fathers did not conceive of “Bible vs. Church” as protestants often frame it.

The Bottom line​

• Various writings existed before the Church formally canonized them, but the writings themselves were birthed inside the Church, and only the Church’s life made their collection and preservation possible.
• The “Bible vs. Church” framework is a protestant projection onto early Christianity.

"Right faith and communion" is better criteria for determining the true church, since we agree that AS doesnt inherently preserve the Church from error. Since any bishop can go astray, we should instead look at those standards that do not change and are able to preserve us from error. What is "right faith"? Is it not the Apostolic faith? If I want the Apostolic faith, am I not to read their writings?


Even the earliest genealogies of bishops, such as those given by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Eusebius, are not in accordance with each other.


I will propose this, "the Church is founded on the Prophets and Apostles with Christ Jesus being the cornerstone" means that the Church is founded on the Prophet's and Apostle's writings with Christ Jesus inspiring them both. Bishops are not Apostles and AS blurs the line between those two offices so as to erase the distinction. It functionally becomes "the Church is founded on the Church's interpretation of the Prophets and Apostles."


I say the Church is founded on all the Prophets and Apostles, who are founded on Christ. I know that EO doesn't believe in a pope. My point is that it's inconsistent to believe that the Church is founded on Peter and not believe in the Pope.


The earliest church fathers also lacked this "historical continuity and conciliar discernment" that you point to. These things are not necessary to believe the Apostolic faith, be a member of the Church, be saved, be a disciple of Christ, etc. This Orthodox historical throughline is only necessary if you wish to be Orthodox.


When Protestants say "the Bible is sufficient." They are saying what the Apostle Paul says, "the Scriptures are able to make you wise unto salvation." I think we both agree that the Bible is insufficient to teach you all the extra dogmas and traditions that you need to believe to be Orthodox. But for all this varied Protestant teaching, it is interesting that all the Protestants should agree on the canon of the Bible, which cannot even be said for all the Orthodox. The idea that you need the history after the Bible to understand the Bible which was written before that history is the very definition of anachronism. That history can be helpful, but it is in no way necessary.

Here you seem to be saying: Scripture is a self-sufficient, fixed standard; Apostolic Succession is unreliable; therefore, right faith is preserved in scripture alone, not in the Church’s succession or conciliar discernment.

However:

Apostolic Succession is not about perfection, but continuity​

• Yes, any individual Bishop can err, but Apostolic succession is not about personal infallibility; it’s about the continuity of the Apostolic college through the Bishops in communion.
• This is exactly how the early Church fought heresy; not by appealing to private reading of scripture, but by showing continuity with the Apostles’ teaching.
• Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3.3.2–3) explicitly says the way to discern truth from heresy is to look to the Churches that preserve Apostolic succession, especially Rome.

Right faith (Orthodoxy) was discerned in the Church​

Your claim that “right faith = Apostolic writings” is reductionist. Scripture itself says the Apostolic faith was handed down both by word and by letter (2 Thess 2:15). Thus, the Apostolic faith is not limited to writings; it also includes oral tradition.

If writings alone were sufficient, why did Arians who quoted scripture constantly nearly take over the Church in the 4th century? It was only through councils and the Church’s conciliar discernment that Orthodoxy was preserved.

Disagreements on episcopal genealogies don’t negate succession​

Ancient sources sometimes differ on Bishop lists (Irenaeus vs. Eusebius, etc.), but the core point stands: the Church recognized lines of continuity from the Apostles. That some details differ doesn’t destroy the principle, any more than slight differences in Gospel details undermine the reality of Christ’s life.

Your reading of Ephesians 2:20 is incomplete​

• Paul says the Church is built on the Apostles and Prophets, with Christ as cornerstone, but he never reduces this to “their writings.”
• In the 1st century, the “foundation” of the Apostles and Prophets was primarily their living teaching and authority, not yet a compiled book.
• Bishops are not Apostles, but they are their successors. The early Church universally saw the episcopate as the means by which Apostolic authority continued (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8).

“Wherever the Bishop appears, there let the people be; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or hold a love-feast apart from the Bishop; but whatever he approves is also pleasing to God, so that everything you do may be assured and valid.”

Why this matters​

Direct witness to Apostolic Succession:

• Ignatius was a disciple of John the Apostle, writing around 107 AD - very early.
• He insists that communion with the Bishop equals communion with Christ and His Church.
• This undercuts the protestant claim that “scripture alone” is sufficient. For Ignatius, authority is embodied in the Bishop and the Church’s unity.

The Catholic Church was already a concept:

• He uses the phrase “Catholic Church” decades before the NT canon was settled.
• This shows the Church existed with structure and authority before “the Bible” as we know it was defined.

Sacraments tied to the Bishop:

• Baptism and the Eucharist were not valid apart from communion with the Bishop.
• This shows how alien the “Bible-only, no-Church” model is to early Christianity.

The “Bible alone” position is self-defeating​

You admit protestants disagree on “varied protestant teaching”, but still insist they all agree on the canon. That’s misleading because:

• Luther rejected James, Jude, Revelation, and Hebrews as secondary.
• Calvin questioned 2 Peter and Revelation.
• Today, protestants reject the OT Deuterocanon (Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Tobit, Judith, Baruch, 1-2 Maccabees, Daniel, Esther, etc.), which was part of the Church’s Bible for centuries.
• In other words: Protestants do not universally agree on the canon without the Church’s authority. They inherit it from the very tradition they reject.

History is not optional​

You said that "history can be helpful, but it is in no way necessary", but this collapses when you realize the canon itself is history. Without the historical Church’s decisions, there is no “Bible” to appeal to - just scattered manuscripts.

To claim “I don’t need Church history to understand the Bible” is like claiming “I don’t need the U.S. government to interpret the Constitution - except I do need the government to tell me what the Constitution is.”

In summary​

• Scripture is inspired, but its recognition, preservation, and right interpretation come only through the Church.
• Apostolic succession is not about individual infallibility but corporate continuity of faith.
• Councils were necessary because heretics quoted scripture too - proving that scripture without the Church leads to chaos.
• The canon itself is proof that you cannot have the Bible without the Church.

Anyway... for what it's worth, I sincerely appreciate your well thought out and sincere arguments. I consider you a highly intelligent, respected, and valuable member of our community and it’s clear you desire to honor Christ. I thank and praise God for the faith and love I see in the way you conduct yourself. Whether or not we ultimately agree, I consider you a brother in Christ and I am honored to debate with you.

Take care & God bless.

In Christ,

SoC

PS - This popped into my feed today and I immediately thought of this discussion. I hope you don't mind me sharing. I haven't had an opportunity to watch the entire clip yet (about half) but it seemed edifying and relevant.

 

[Aboulia]

If Apostolic succession is of vital importance shouldn't a church like the Coptic Church in Egypt have a better claim to be the one true church since they are said to have been founded by St. Mark who was one of the Twelve Apostles? However they are Oriental Orthodox rather than Eastern Orthodox. What would be the argument for saying that the EOs that have a better claim to being the original church?

Antioch is the first see founded by Peter and was where we get the name Christian from (Acts 11:26) there's easily a stronger case there if we want to play that game. There are many sees and none were to be supreme over the others, but it is important for the churches to be of one mind, and to be unchanged from the start, so whenever people start to get off the rails councils are called to try to better elucidate what was always believed. The OO rejected the 4th Ecumenical Council (Chalcedon), which is why they are often termed "Monophysites" because regardless of what they claim now, they believed that Jesus' divine and human natures are combined, thus creating a new divine/human nature, and if that were true, there would be no salvation and Christ's actions would just be pageantry. To contrast, Chalcedon states that Christ has both divine and human natures without any sort of confusion.

(Didn't write this part)

Jesus had to be fully human to identify with humanity, experience temptation, suffer, and die in our place, thereby fulfilling the requirement that a human being pay for human sin.
His humanity allowed him to be a perfect representative and substitute, experiencing the fullness of human weakness and suffering without sinning, which is essential for him to sympathize with human struggles and serve as a perfect sacrifice.
The Bible affirms that he was truly human, possessing a physical body and soul, and that he grew in wisdom and stature, just like any other human.

At the same time, Jesus had to be fully divine to bear the infinite weight of God’s wrath against sin, which no finite human could endure.
His divine nature provided the infinite value necessary to satisfy God’s justice and secure eternal righteousness and life for humanity.
Only a divine being could offer a sacrifice of infinite worth and conquer death through resurrection.
The doctrine of the hypostatic union teaches that these two natures—divine and human—are united in one person, the eternal Son of God, without confusion, mixture, division, or separation.

Therefore, the necessity is not that Jesus shares the same nature as another being, but that he possesses both a divine nature and a human nature in one person. This dual nature is essential for the Christian understanding of salvation: his humanity enables him to represent and redeem humanity, while his divinity enables him to satisfy divine justice and secure eternal life.
The Council of Chalcedon affirmed that Christ is "truly God and truly man," with each nature retaining its own attributes, and that these natures are united in one person without loss of either.

The first father to teach "Apostolic Succession" was Irenaeus, who taught it over a century after the Apostles as a way to discredit the Valentinian Gnostics. While it may have worked against the Gnostics,

Not true, St Ignatius (the boy in Matthew 18) already wrote about it.

Edit: If you want to see the parts of his epistles I quoted, you have to go back to my original post.

@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).







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.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Is that about right?

All true.

The Church predates the New Testament:

• The Church began at Pentecost (Acts 2), but most NT writings were not yet written.
• Paul’s letters and the Gospels arose within the life of the Church, for the Church, not independently of it.

Even so, the Scriptures were given to correct errors in the original Apostolic Church. People believed in Platonism before the Church was founded. Did not the Scripture have authority to correct the gnostic traditions (which were derived from Platonism) that people carried into the Church? What about the Jewish traditions that predated the Church and were present since it was founded? Does not the Scripture have authority to correct these? When you mitigate the authority of Scripture, you are mitigating the authority of the Apostles, rather, the authority of God since "no man spoke from his private interpretation, but spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." This argument that "the Church existed prior to Scripture, therefore Scripture can't correct the Church" is un-Apostolic.

The Bible did not drop from heaven fully formed:

• The 27-book NT canon was not finalized until the 4th century (e.g. Athanasius’ Festal Letter 367 is the first time we see the exact modern NT list).
• Before that, there was debate (Hebrews, Revelation, James, etc. were disputed).

This doesn't really go one way or the other. Like I said, Athanasius was able to give the NT canon without a council telling him which books should be in the NT, and no one thinks the Bible dropped out of the sky.

Scripture as Church documents”:

• Yes, the scriptures are “Church documents”, because they were written, preserved, and recognized in the context of the Church’s liturgical and teaching life. To call them “independent of the Church” is a categorical error: no Church, no scriptures as we know them.
• Every NT letter is addressed either to a local Church (Romans, Corinthians, Thessalonians, etc.) or to leaders within the Church (Timothy, Titus). These writings presuppose the existence of Christian communities, liturgy, sacraments, and teaching authority.
• Example: Paul gives instructions about the Eucharist (1 Cor 11), Bishops/Deacons (1 Tim 3), and Church discipline (Titus 1). That’s not independent; it’s embedded in church life.

1. The Scriptures are Church documents because they were written by the Apostles, the men who planted the churches. Whether or not they were "liturgically used" by some churches a century later or not doesn't obscure that original fact.

2. Exactly. The churches were already planted and the Apostles wrote their letters (the Scriptures) to lead and correct the churches anyway. If an incorrect tradition was embedded in the Church (and some were), the Scriptures were given to root them out.

Authority of councils:
Councils didn’t “make” scripture inspired, but they recognized and gave a settled canon for the sake of unity. Without the Church’s recognition, you wouldn’t have “the Bible” but just a collection of competing texts.

Can you cite which council gave this "settled canon"?

The early Church fathers did not conceive of “Bible vs. Church” as Protestants often frame it.

The early church fathers saw the Scripture as the highest authority, which is the position of the Protestants. They didn't consider themselves, councils, etc, to be on the same authority as Scripture because they understood that the Apostles wrote the Scriptures.

• Paul says the Church is built on the Apostles and Prophets, with Christ as cornerstone, but he never reduces this to “their writings.”
• In the 1st century, the “foundation” of the Apostles and Prophets was primarily their living teaching and authority, not yet a compiled book.
• Bishops are not Apostles, but they are their successors. The early Church universally saw the episcopate as the means by which Apostolic authority continued (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8).

Neither does he exclude their writings. If you want to know what the Prophets wrote, you read the Old Testament. If you want to know what the Apostles wrote, you read the New. It is on these that the Church is founded.
The Scriptures were written in the 1st century to correct and administrate over the 1st century churches.
Ignatius, a bishop, wrote that the Apostles were greater than he. He didn't consider himself to have the same authority as them simply because he was "a successor."

Luther rejected James, Jude, Revelation, and Hebrews as secondary.

• Calvin questioned 2 Peter and Revelation.
• Today, protestants reject the OT Deuterocanon (Wisdom, Sirach, Maccabees, etc.), which was part of the Church’s Bible for centuries.
• In other words: Protestants do not universally agree on the canon without the Church’s authority. They inherit it from the very tradition they reject.

Both Luther's German Bible and Calvin's Geneva Bible contained all the same books. Nothing was removed or rejected. You could point out that they had questions over certain books (as did the early church) but they presented the full canon as the Word of God, excluding the Apocrypha (even though they included the Apocrypha in their Bibles). The Protestant confessions that came after also all have the same canon.
Protestants do not "inherit" their canon from Catholic or Orthodox(s) traditions. The canons are not the same.

You said that "history can be helpful, but it is in no way necessary", but this collapses when you realize the canon itself is history. Without the historical Church’s decisions, there is no “Bible” to appeal to - just scattered manuscripts.

To claim “I don’t need Church history to understand the Bible” is like claiming “I don’t need the U.S. government to interpret the Constitution - except I do need the government to tell me what the Constitution is.”

Just as the 1778 Constitution was understood by the Americans in that day, so too were the 1st century Scriptures understood by the first Christians. They didn't need the traditions that wouldn't develop until centuries later to understand what was written in their day. This would be like saying someone can't read the Bill of Rights without first reading Obergefell. It's anachronistic, reading things into a period of history when they did not exist yet.

For what it's worth, I sincerely appreciate your well thought out and sincere points, and I consider you a highly respected and valuable member of our community. Whether or not we ultimately agree or not, I consider you a brother in Christ and I am honored to debate with you.

Take care & God bless.

In Christ,

SoC

Well I appreciate that and I want to thank you for being a good steward of the forum. I also respect your willingness to engage and stand up for what you believe in. I also consider you to be a brother in Christ and a man after God's own heart. Take care.

 

[Servant of Christ]

Even so, the Scriptures were given to correct errors in the original Apostolic Church. People believed in Platonism before the Church was founded. Did not the Scripture have authority to correct the the gnostic traditions (which were derived from Platonism) that people carried into the Church? What about the Jewish traditions that predated the Church and were present since it was founded? Does not the Scripture have authority to correct these? When you mitigate the authority of Scripture, you are mitigating the authority of the Apostles, rather, the authority of God since "no man spoke from his private interpretation, but spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." This argument that "the Church existed prior to Scripture, therefore Scripture can't correct the Church" is un-Apostolic.

Not trying to mitigate.. just that you can't separate it from the Church for all the reasons I listed.

This doesn't really go one way or the other. Like I said, Athanasius was able to give the NT canon without a council telling him which books should be in the NT, and no one thinks the Bible dropped out of the sky.

1. The Scriptures are Church documents because they were written by the Apostles, the men who planted the churches. Whether or not they were "liturgically used" by some churches a century later or not doesn't obscure that original fact.

2. Exactly. The churches were already planted and the Apostles wrote their letters (the Scriptures) to lead and correct the churches anyway. If an incorrect tradition was embedded in the Church (and some were), the Scriptures were given to root them out.

No one is saying the scriptures aren't super important.

Can you cite which council gave this "settled canon"?

The short answer is that no single ecumenical council gave the canon once-and-for-all, but several important local councils (later received by the wider Church) did.

Key moments in canon formation​

Athanasius’ Festal Letter (367 AD): First time the 27 NT books we have today are listed exactly as such. He also includes the OT with the Deuterocanon, but this was a Bishop’s letter, not a council.
Council of Laodicea (c. 363 AD): Gave a list of canonical books (though some manuscripts differ on Revelation).
Council of Hippo (393 AD): Local North African council, first to ratify the canon including the Deuterocanon + 27 NT books.
Council of Carthage (397 AD; reaffirmed in 419 AD): Gave the same canon list as Hippo, and explicitly asked the Church of Rome for confirmation.
Quinisext Council (Council in Trullo, 692 AD): A pan-Orthodox council that affirmed earlier canonical lists, including Carthage.

The canon emerged within the life of the Church, through use in liturgy, preaching, and teaching. Local councils in the 4th–5th centuries gave practical “settled” lists, later received universally. There was never a moment where the Bible “just existed” apart from the Church.

The early church fathers saw the Scripture as the highest authority, which is the position of the Protestants. They didn't consider themselves, councils, etc, to be on the same authority as Scripture because they understood that the Apostles wrote the Scriptures.

Neither does he exclude their writings. If you want to know what the Prophets wrote, you read the Old Testament. If you want to know what the Apostles wrote, you read the New. It is on these that the Church is founded.
The Scriptures were written in the 1st century to correct and administrate over the 1st century churches.
Ignatius, a bishop, wrote that the Apostles were greater than he. He didn't consider himself to have the same authority as them simply because he was "a successor."

Both Luther's German Bible and Calvin's Geneva Bible contained all the same books. Nothing was removed or rejected. You could point out that they had questions over certain books (as did the early church) but they presented the full canon as the Word of God, excluding the Apocrypha (even though they included the Apocrypha in their Bibles). The Protestant confessions that came after also all have the same canon.
Protestants do not "inherit" their canon from Catholic or Orthodox(s) traditions. The canons are not the same.

Just as the 1778 Constitution was understood by the Americans in that day, so too were the 1st century Scriptures understood by the first Christians. They didn't need the traditions that wouldn't develop until centuries later to understand what was written in their day. This would be like saying someone can't read the Bill of Rights without first reading Obergefell. It's anachronistic, reading things into a period of history when they did not exist yet.

The Holy Fathers never separated scripture from the Church; they read and preserved it in the Church’s life. If the canon were self-evident from the 1st century, the disputes over Hebrews, Revelation, and others would never have lasted for centuries. Protestants only know which books are in the Bible because they inherited the canon from the very Church they now reject.

The New Testament list was fixed in the 4th-5th century by the undivided Church, long before there was protestantism. The only reason Luther and Calvin knew which 27 NT books to translate is because they received that canon through Orthodox tradition. The fact that they later dropped the Deuterocanon only proves they altered what the historic Church had already handed down.

In Christ,

SoC

 

[Servant of Christ]

I was listening to YouTube in the background this evening and another wonderful video popped up which I would like to share.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Not true, St Ignatius (the boy in Matthew 18) already wrote about it.

Edit: If you want to see the parts of his epistles I quoted, you have to go back to my original post.

Ignatius writes about the ordination of bishops which is not the later full-throated doctrine of "Apostolic Succession."

If you want the long answer, I'll share this article: https://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/03/ignatius-did-not-believe-in-apostolic.html?m=1

If you want the short answer, it's that Ignatius did not consider the authority of the bishop to be equal to that of the Apostles. He recognized that the offices are different.