An Orthodox Christian View of Non-Christian Religions

Actually, I suppose I owe you a little more than a repetition of the oft-given Orthodox explanation that Christianity is not an ideology based on a text.

The section of the kneeling prayers is indeed supported by the canon of Scripture, once one remembers that the Books of the Macabbees were removed by Luther, not added by the Papacy. (All Orthodox accept them as canonical Scripture on the basis of the decisions of the same councils which fixed the content of the New Testament, and unless you have been very inattentive, you know that we do not accept councils of the Latin Papacy (like Trent) held since its departure from the Church.)

Judas Macabbeus is commended for offering prayers and sacrifices for the forgiveness of his fallen comrades sins because this showed he had a regard for the resurrection (incidentally, the only testimony in the Old Covenant Scriptures pointing to the resurrection, and the only plain Scriptural support for the notion of creation ex nihilo occur in the books rejected by protestants). Now, careful examination of the Scriptures show that until the Last Judgement, hell is not coextensive with the Lake of Fire, but with gehenna or sheol (or in the Greek hades).

Those for whom Judas Macabbeus prayed were not in paradise (as Christ had not yet come to reopen paradise) so they must have been in hell. We have the same regard for the Resurrection that Judas Macabbeus had, indeed more, knowing now who is the Resurrection, and thus we pray (and offer sacrifices, now usually candles since Christ's Saving Death and Resurrection render blood sacrifice useless) for those who have died and are (or may be) in hell.

David,
I have read Maccabbees as well as the other Apocrapha text, and it is easy to see why it is not part of the cannon. Judith's claim of God's helping her lie to the Assyrians is a good example.

However Christ describes paradise and hell in Luke 16:19-31. I do not see any reason to pray for Lazarus nor does Christ indicate that we should.

In regards to the resurrection have you forgotten when Abraham was called by God to sacrifice his son. Paul clearly points out the meaning of this in Hebrews 11.

Those who have died will be judged for their own deeds and not for anything that anyone else does for them. Any pray or candles you devote to the dead is a simply a matter of time wasted that could have been used to save the living with us now.

Regards,
Boiler Plate

Members of the "reformed" churches of Western Christendom easily relate to Orthodoxy's emphasis on personal faith and the Scriptures. Orthodox Christians believe that we cannot save ourselves by our own good works.

True enough. There are more RCers in the last fifty years who are Bible students. I think their current generation of laymen could easily be said to be the most knowledgable about scripture. I suppose we non-Romans in the western churches see this as something of a victory. To compete with us, they've had to at least return to scripture.

We believe Orthodox theology offers the "western" denominations a way in which apparently opposite differences can be synthesized.

Well, I don't see that exactly.

I suppose for those who follow Luther's lead the balance of the Old Testament needed to be excluded because it doesn't fit with your pre-conceived theology. Luther did not have the authority to throw books out of the canon which had been included by the Fouth Ecumenical Council by reference to earlier local councils and explicitly by the Sixth Ecumenical Council.

Sorry but the 'apocrypha' was always part of the canon for all Christians both Orthodox and heretical, once the canon was fixed, until an Augustinian monk rebelling against the already heretical Patriarchate of Rome and carrying conceptual baggage he got from growing up among heretics decided to throw it out. The 'apocrypha' is still part of the canon for all Orthodox, Nestorian, monophysite and Latin Christians, the fact that a minority of the Roman Patriarchate decided to drop it is very underwhelming as an argument against practices Christians have engaged in since the days of the Apostles.

David,
You seem to be the one with preconceived ideas. I have read the apocrypha and found it lacking and agree with Luther that they don't belong. As I mentioned before the book of Judith is the most obvious in her asking God to help her lie to the Assyrians and then giving God the credit for the lie. There was a lot of lying and deception in the Bible but with the exception of Moses asking to go sacrifice in the desert I don't think God condoned it and in Moses' example God was stirring up Pharoah's heart.
None the less other than the one example in Maccabees there is no other place where praying for the dead is given. More importantly it is quite clear from numerous examples in scripture that we are judged for own actions and there is no exception to that. In the case of Maccabbees it obvious as to why Luther removed it. Here is one passage against scores of others saying that each man will be judged for his own actions. The Passage seems so out of context both theolically as well as in style that it seems to be written by someone much latter, with an agenda in mind.
Dave buddy, you seem most of all to be fairly self righteous and so I do not see there being much chance of you changing your point view so instead I wish you good luck with you efforts to win souls to Christ. Rember that's what here for after all.

Regards,
Boiler Plate

"Salvation found through relationship with Christ..."

This sounds more like Protestant thinking and not Orthodox. Relationship is not the proper word. We are servants of God, not some entity which can determine the proper relationship ourselves. If we are obedient to our Lord, then we are saved!

Here is how you attain salvation:

1. Baptism WITHIN the Church (not some fly by night, ecumenist, mumbo jumbo talking Protestant or RC group)

2. Confession of sins.

3. Daily prayers (morning and evening prayers)

4. attending important church services (by the way, today is the feastday of the Dormition of the Theotokos--C'praznikom)

5. receiving Communion.

Its that simple.

In Christ,
Rdr John

David,
You presume much and apparently do little other than criticize others for not having your full enlightenment.
The balance of scripture weighs heavily against the heretical notion that any person other than Christ can ataone for our own sins. This idea that lighting candles or offer sacrifices for the dead's sin is really nothing short of blasphemy and you will be hard pressed to find anything Christ said to support it.
You incorrectly stated that this oddball verse in Maccabbees is the only place in the Old Testament that talks about the resurection however you didn't even know about the meaning of Abraham's sacrifice. You might want to spend a little more time in the New Testament and as I suggested you should problably start with the Great Commision.
I live across the street from a Greek Orthodox Minister and you know what has always struck me as funny, is the fact that he has never invited me to his church nor bothered to find out if I knew Christ as my Savior. Which I know understand seeing as you are trying to relieve yourself from the Lord's calling to go and make disciples of all nations, by this wacked out concept of salvation thru other belief systems. What a bunch of lazy cowards. Well unfortunately for you the brand of christianity you hold to is being made insignificant by those who are willing to go bravely to the four corners of the earth and preach the Good News even at the cost of their own lives. So keep telling yourself that we are all wrong and keep throwing rocks at those of those who are willing to spread the Gospel till every nation and people have heard the Word.
Best Regards,
Boiler Plate

I cannot speak for the Greek priest who lives near you. I do know, however, that the reevangelization of Albania after the Communist captivity happened under Greek clergy, that Holy Orthodoxy is the fastest growing Christian group in Africa, that the Holy Orthodox Church now has a foothold in Indonesia and is winning converts from Islam, despite the fact that conversion is a death sentence.

Perhaps your neighboring priest is lazy in spreading the Gospel, perhaps he has sufficient spiritual sight to understand you are mired in protestant preconceptions (such insight is not unheard of in Orthodox clergy and monastics).

Dave,
Save your silly insults for some other potential convert. Your reliance on writings that have always been in question and clearly do not align themselves with the central theme of the Bible (Which is Christ) leaves with little more than a mystical cult like religion. You are highly steeped in tradition that has gone on for ages and apparently gets accepted simply because you have always done it.
I asked you to provide another example from Jesus' teaching to support this concept of repentance in proxy and all you can do is throw back insults. Why, because there is no example of Christ allowing for someone repentance in proxy. The whole of scripture speaks against the concept but somehow because you guys hang on to a questionable writing you think that the balance of scripture should be thrown out to allow for your crazy concept. Well go ahead with your heresy it is no concern of mine. As far as Pastor across the street goes he is no different than any other Orthodox minister or layperson I have met, they simple do not evangelize. It seems that for the most part you guys seem to have a Hyper-Calvinist view and that if God wants you to be saved than you will come to Church on your own.
While I applaud your efforts in Albania and Indonesia, you can't possible believe that compared to the evangelism done by the protestant and catholic churches over the last 500 years even to this present day that the soul winning efforts of the Orthodox church are much of a priority. Evangelism in those of those of us who are not orthodox is our highest priority and if your spiritual leaders are taught how to be discerning enough to avoid spiritual dregs like myself, shame on you for Christ came for the spiritually sick (Matt 9:12, Mk 2:17,Lk 5:31).
Again I ask you, since you are so enlightened, to explain how your verse in Maccabbees jives with what Paul writes in Romans 9 especially with verses 27 and 28.

23It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. 25Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

Good Luck,
Boiler Plate

On the one hand, the sacrifices of the Old Covenant were ordained and commanded by God, on the other, they are imperfect and worthless in comparison to Christ's saving Death and Resurrection, of which they were a type or prefiguration.

The blood sacrifice of the Old Covenant is abolished, but the bloodless sacrifice of the Eucharist continues, making present for the Faithful the very Body and Blood of Christ. The offering of blood sacrifices by Judas Macabbeus on behalf of the fallen prefigures the prayers of the Church for the departed which are offered at every Liturgy, and privately by the faithful.

I repeat, the so called Aprocrypha was always part of the canon from the time it was fixed. Neither you nor I nor the 'reformers' have nor had any authority to remove it. There was always a tradition of not interpreting one passage of Scripture in a way contrary to other passages. The fact that reading the Scriptures outside their natural setting in the life of the Church, you can't find a way to interpret the Books of the Macabbees or Judith so as not to be repugnant to your interpretation of other passages suggests a flaw in your interpretation of the passages or your entire hermeneutic. The Fathers found no contradiction, nor do I. The "doubt" about their status arose not from doctrinal contradictions, but from St. Jerome's erroneous preference for the Masorete (which unknown to him was not a Hebrew ur-text, but a redaction of the Jewish Scriptures made by Christ-denying rabbis) over the Septuagint. I repeat again, the entire Septuagint was accepted as Holy Scripture by all Christians whether Orthodox, Arian, Nestorian, monophysite or Latin until Luther. The only ones to question these writings prior to Luther were the Christ-denying Jews of the Council of Jamnia. If you prefer their judgment to that of the Holy Ecumenical Councils, that is your business, but I certainly do not, nor did any Christians before Luther (even St. Jerome only suggested the books in the Septuagint without corresponding books in the Masorete were less important, not erroneous).

As to evangelization: If you want to stretch the time horizon back 500 years, I would certainly add for the Orthodox the conversion of the native peoples of Siberia and Alaska, and the establishment of the Orthodox Church of Japan (St. Nicholas of Japan's manual for evangelization procedures is, I am told, used by protestants now). Of course, you might still complain: many in Alaska attribute their ancestor's conversion to St. Herman, who lived as a hermit on Spruce Island, hardly a vigorous program of evangelization in the sense the word is usually used by protestants. A lot of evangelization by the Orthodox looks like living holy lives, not like preaching.

Bolier Plate,

"I asked you to provide another example from Jesus' teaching to support this concept of repentance in proxy and all you can do is throw back insults. Why, because there is no example of Christ allowing for someone repentance in proxy..."

I'm not sure what you mean by repentence by proxy. If you are refering to the sacrement of confession (repentence), below is the proper scripture from the Gospel of St. John, chapter 20 (these events occured just after Christ was crucified):

19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

20 And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.

21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.

22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost [Spirit]:

23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

Hope this helps.

In Christ,
Reader John

Glad to help:

in 1054 the eastern (Orthodox) and western (now called Roman Catholic) churches split. the issue was two fold:

1. politcal power: Rome advanced that all other churches were subject to its rule. The Eastern (Orthodox) patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch, Jurusalem, etc. all adhered to the previous Ecumenical Councils (highest ruling body in the church-representatives from all the churches throughout the world attended) that stated each patriarch (a patriarch is a bishop) has an equal voice. They did agree however, that up until the great schism, the bishop of rome was senior in terms of protocol.

2. Rome added the filoque to the creed...they now contend the Holy Spirit proceeds from the God the Father and the Son.

The Orthodox church maintains the creed from previous ecumenical councils: the Holy Spirit proceeds from God the Father only. Rome changed their view on this around the time of the schism, probably to justify cutting relations between the two churches.

Since then, the Roman Catholic church has changed so many things. They adopted the Gregorian calander, they advanced the doctrine of papal infalibility, and in general have moved away from the Orthodox faith. On the other hand, the Orthodox church has pretty much kept the faith unchanged in belief and practice since the early church fathers.

Regards,

Thanks:)
heres another question (im just full of them) lol
my fiance is irish roman catholic, just getting him to go into the methodist church were our scout meetings are was a big deal!
he is really disatisfied with the mass we have. he grew up with it in latin, no hand shaking or hugging ect. little changes really bother him too ie: the parish has Christ off the cross, he says he should be on the cross, doesnt like the way communion is given ect.
i would like us to attend church together...do we go orthodox (would he, being so set in his ways?) or do we travel miles to find a different church? we live in wyo so anything else is atleast 2 hours away! if he would find orthodox more to his tastes from his earlier years how would i purpose that to him? sorry if i have lots of Q's, still learning:)

he grew up with it in latin, no hand shaking or hugging ect. little changes really bother him too ie: the parish has Christ off the cross, he says he should be on the cross, doesnt like the way communion is given ect.

This former Irish Catholic grew up with the Latin mass, no hugging, no ladies on the altar, kneeling while receiving Communion on the tongue and no rock and roll Masses.

The Orthodox Church has been my life saver.

Is the new church an Orthodox Church of America?

If so, the Liturgy will be in English.

You can go here:

and look to see if any OCA parishes are in your area.

Given that you have to travel long distances to go to church, I suggest you read a couple of books before you go.

This first book, The Orthodox Church, by Bishop Kallistos (Timothy Ware), a convert like many of us, covers some basic things. However, later editions, such as the ones you will most likely find available, do have some revisionist material. If possible, get an earlier version of the book.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0140146563/qid=1062679977/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-4476042-6607321?v=glance&s=books

The next book is the Law of God by (Archpriest) Seraphim Slobodskoy. I couldn't find it on amazon.com, or ebay. But i did find it on half.com by ebay at

http://half.ebay.com/cat/buy/prod.cgi?cpid=1416166&meta_id=1

you might have to sign in. If so, the link above might not work. This beautiful book goes into great detail about the faith and practice of the church.

It seems your fiance does not like change; that is good of course, because we have not changed our services much since the founding of the church by the apostles. The Divine Liturgy which is celebrated in Orthodox churches everywhere throughout the world on Sundays (and other feastdays) was written by St. John Chrysostom in the 4th century. However, it seems to me that your fiance will have to open his mind to the fact that Orthodox practice is not like a latin mass. Yes, he will hear the creed and the Lord's Prayer, but the service is different; it hasn't changed like RC mass.

Finally, I suggest you call in advance before going to the Orthodox church. Tell the priest your circumstances so he can be more prepared.

May the Lord direct your steps,

In Christ,
Reader John

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.