Replies

"It appears that you are trying to say, in comparison, that anyone who calls himself a "Reagan Conservative" would be required to have fully believed in every policy he ever set forth. Is that correct? I would say that I am the definition of a Reagan Conservative, and yet I disagreed with him on his amnesty for illegal aliens. Am I no longer a Reagan Conservative? :)"

That's a false analogy, FK. Being a Reagan conservative is not to be a member of a dogmatic Church, indications on FR to the contrary notwithstanding. Kosta's comments point out precisely why The Church does not understand Protestant assemblies to be true churches. In order for one to be a member of a particular church, Orthodoxy teaches that we must believe the exact same things. In saying this Orthodoxy doesn't go so far as the Latin Church does in great measure because we don't define theological matters to the same extent that the Latin Church does. Some things must be believed because all Orthodox everywhere and always have believed them, others because the Ecumenical Councils have proclaimed them, still others because they are in the consensus patrum. Disciplinary canons can and do change with the times and locations and in any event, since the canons are made for men, not vice versa, bishops have the power to exercise economia on strict application of those canons. Now, why do 300,000,000 Orthodox Christians believe the exact same things in these areas? Because these things are parts of The Truth as revealed to The Church pursuant to Christ's promise of the Holy Spirit to guide The Church. Without The Church, one might well be a Christian, but one can never be sure that what is being revealed is of the Holy Spirit or of the Zeitgeist. Look at the Episcopalians. They sincerely believe that the HS is doing a "new thing" regarding women's ordination, gay lifestyles and whether or not Christ is the ONLY way to the Father. Look across the broad spectrum of what is commonly called "Protestantism". Is there any broad commonality of belief among Southern Baptists or snake handling fundies in Appalachia on the one hand and gay Episcopal bishops with "life partners", lesbian priestesses and some UCC preacher presiding over a gay marriage ceremony attired in a rainbow sash?

But is there any broad commonality of belief between me and, say, an Orthodox peasant in Siberia, or Ghana, or Georgia or Japan? Absolutely. In fact, we have 100% commonality of belief not only broadly, but also specifically!

What I am pointing to, as was Kosta, is the "Oneness" and "Catholicity" of The Church, something which lacking in virtually all of "Protestantism".

Now it is apparent that "Protestants", despite the fact that they virtually all recite The Creed (another one of those spiritual things The Church gave you, either don't understand what they are praying or they positively reject it. I tend to think that the latter is as a direct result of the former and that lack of understanding arises precisely because "Protestantism" has rejected the teaching authority of The Church in favor of personal interpretation of scripture and what remains of Holy Tradition within "Protestantism".

In order for one to be a member of a particular church, Orthodoxy teaches that we must believe the exact same things. In saying this Orthodoxy doesn't go so far as the Latin Church does in great measure because we don't define theological matters to the same extent that the Latin Church does.

Oh, please. There are significant differences in the way the East and West view Mary, purgatory, Church authority, sin/grace, and a number of other issues. About the only thing you two agree on is the Eucharist.

What I am pointing to, as was Kosta, is the "Oneness" and "Catholicity" of The Church, something which lacking in virtually all of "Protestantism". Now it is apparent that "Protestants", despite the fact that they virtually all recite The Creed (another one of those spiritual things The Church gave you, either don't understand what they are praying or they positively reject it.

And where does the Orthodox stand on the Nicene Creed? There are very few of the early creeds that I believe Protestants would "reject".

I have been in a number of church in all parts of the world. I can assure you that, while their services may vary, Protestants have this "oneness" also. That being said, there are some Protestants churches I would not enter. However, after reading some of the problems with the Catholic Church, there are a number of them I wouldn't attend if I were Catholic. I suspect the same is true about Orthodoxy.

Protestantism may be the rejection of "teaching authority" of the Church, but let's look at what that means. You have told me that Orthodoxy is very complex to understand and take years of reading and immersion to fully grasp it. Protestants simply state, "Repent, believe in the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved." We don't need much more "teaching authority" than that.

That's a false analogy, FK. Being a Reagan conservative is not to be a member of a dogmatic Church ...

I know it's not the same thing exactly, but I was responding to what I thought Kosta was saying, namely, that a dogmatic church structure is the only thing that can even possibly make any sense. I disagree with that. IMO, because I do not agree with Calvin on every single point says NOTHING about whether my faith is legitimate. I don't follow Calvin first. I follow God first. I don't agree with the "rule" you seem to have instituted. I think I would be in much bigger trouble if I did decide to follow a group of men first. :)

Kosta's comments point out precisely why The Church does not understand Protestant assemblies to be true churches.

Does this mean that if we DID have a few men to tell us what our beliefs are then you would accept us as churches, even though you equally disagreed? Is this the distinction of a "church"?

Some things must be believed because all Orthodox everywhere and always have believed them, others because the Ecumenical Councils have proclaimed them, still others because they are in the consensus patrum. Disciplinary canons can and do change with the times and locations and in any event, since the canons are made for men, not vice versa, bishops have the power to exercise economia on strict application of those canons. Now, why do 300,000,000 Orthodox Christians believe the exact same things in these areas?

Because as you said, if you want to be a member of an Orthodox Church, you have to agree with all these things. I do not understand what is at all remarkable about this. :) It also says nothing toward whether these beliefs are correct one way or the other. All it says is that many people have agreed to believe in them.

Without The Church, one might well be a Christian, but one can never be sure that what is being revealed is of the Holy Spirit or of the Zeitgeist. Look at the Episcopalians. They sincerely believe that the HS is doing a "new thing" regarding women's ordination, gay lifestyles and whether or not Christ is the ONLY way to the Father.

I think your very good example may well countermand your first statement. :) You have the guidance of the Church. You look at the Episcopalians and know that the Church teaches that they have rocks in their heads. Now, I do not have/use the guidance of the Apostolic Church. I look at the Episcopalians, then consult my Bible, and make the exact same conclusion that you do, even for the same reasons. There you go. I am just as sure that they are wrong as you are. Of course, this formula will not always work out this way. LOL! But the point is that it CAN work without the men of the Apostolic Church pronouncing it so.

Is there any broad commonality of belief among Southern Baptists or snake handling fundies in Appalachia on the one hand and gay Episcopal bishops with "life partners", lesbian priestesses and some UCC preacher presiding over a gay marriage ceremony attired in a rainbow sash?

You have heard me use the term "Bible-believing" before. Among this group of non-Apostolic Christians I do believe strongly that there is a broad commonality of beliefs. It's not 100%, but it is very significant. This stretches across many denominations also. The current national leadership of the Episcopalians, for example, would not be in this group. BTW, thanks for throwing me in with the snake handlers! LOL!

What I am pointing to, as was Kosta, is the "Oneness" and "Catholicity" of The Church, something which lacking in virtually all of "Protestantism".

But you are a direct witness to the "Oneness" of at least the Reformers with whom you normally interact on these threads. If I plucked out a detailed post from one of us and only gave you a (true) summary of the points, I'll bet you would have no idea whom among us wrote it. I'll further bet that this is true at least to the extent that it would be for the Orthodox and Catholic posters, if the situation was reversed.