Busting the Protestant Myths

[Orthodoxy]

Do you have any comments on the meat of my posts if your true intent is to learn?

Have you ever been told this by a fellow protestant?
Orthodoxy

Wow, I've been a Protestant all of my 30-some odd years and I never *knew* this issue was *an issue*. Most of what I've heard has dealt with who has the power to forgive sin and who should we pray to.

Are you a home bound? Was this addressed to you? Where in those questions is an "attack" as you accuse me of?

Anyway, Jesus plainly gave all the authority of His Father even the forgiveness of sins to "the Church" so it would behoove all sinners to find the Church that can forgive sins by the vested authority given it by Jesus Christ. No home alone forgiveness of sins from what I read in the bible.

[quote:b0d12]For me, who do I call father - is not an issue, it seems to be a small thing. God knows my heart and thoughts.

'

Yes it is a small issue but many in the protestant reformation major on the minors as seen in this forum with the attacks on Mary and anything remotely looking "catholic". The big issues like heresies that change the nature of God are ignored doctrinally for "cant we all just get along" sake.
Dual procession being the biggest. Fact is the protestant reformation does not deny the "dual procession" heresy of the Roman Church but hardly confesses it and defends it. Go figure.

I'm pretty disappointed when someone who says they are a christian personally attacks another person. Unfortunately, it gives christians a "bad name". Being defensive is not going to "win" anyone to your side or even to Christ - I'll pray for you.

[/quote:b0d12]

huh? Where in my post did I attack any one specific person please? Tell me who before you make flippant accusations against my "christian" walk. I am diappointed you cannot stay on topic. If you cannot stay on topic of Heterodox myths please refrain from posting on this thread. Thanks.

Save your prayers for me after these baseless accusation for we know who is the "accuser of the brethren" do we not?

Orthodoxy

 

[Gary]

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other. Galatians 5:22-26

Bless you.... May the Holy Spirit bring you joy and peace and patience and kindness and goodness and gentleness and self-control.

Ask, seek and knock (Matthew 7:7)

.

 

[Orthodoxy]

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other. Galatians 5:22-26

Bless you.... May the Holy Spirit bring you joy and peace and patience and kindness and goodness and gentleness and self-control.

Ask, seek and knock (Matthew 7:7)

.

Answer the question Gary or please get off my thread.

Orthodoxy

 

[guibox]

A careful reading of scripture will demonstrate that holy men of God did not rise up against God's anointed/chosen. David would not, but Aaron did- and became leprous. Rebellious Christianity is leprous Christianity.

Strange...please explain what the Great Schism was about and the Iconoclastic Controversy.

The Roman church could just as easily point the finger at you.

The Protestants were formulated in the West, not the East. When they were ruled under sodomites, adulterers, simonists, murderers and demonists under the guise of popes and priests, who are dictating that unless the people follow them they cannot go to heaven (unless they pay their way there) and refuse to budge one inch on their heretical, faith destroying, superstitous dogma...

WHAT DID YOU EXPECT LEARNED MEN OF THE SCRIPTURES TO DO???

 

[Nocturnal_Principal_X]

Orthodoxy,
Thank you for displaying Christian love. One thing is for certain I have learned that you don’t “hate†or think all people from Protestants churches are evil or preach a false Jesus. I must admit that based on another topic, where you seemed to condescend me (which is why I started out in this topic by requesting kindness); I began to form assumptions of you…which have now been proven wrong.

It is true I am a Southern Baptist but I do not agree with the denomination entirely or blindly (In fact have for some time now had some problems with the Southern Baptist Convention). Even though I am Southern Baptist by definition I look beyond my denomination and try to study and understand scripture under the guidance and direction of the Holy Spirit. I have a great deal of respect for all denominations and tend to ignore for the most part what denomination someone is a part of. What matters to me is ones personal belief in the essential doctrine, such as the divinity of Christ. In the end I try and pray to not rely on my own understanding. Christ is my center.

I also must admit that I am not very knowledge about the Eastern Orthodox Church. For most of my life I have heard this and that about the Catholic Church but very little, if anything, about the Eastern Orthodox Church.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

A careful reading of scripture will demonstrate that holy men of God did not rise up against God's anointed/chosen. David would not, but Aaron did- and became leprous. Rebellious Christianity is leprous Christianity.

Strange...please explain what the Great Schism was about and the Iconoclastic Controversy.

The Roman church could just as easily point the finger at you.

Please show me where I raised or pointed a finger at Rome.

Then, having done that, please take into account what I have stated elsewhere today on the matter of salvation outside of the Orthodox faith.

Lastly, know that rebellion must be committed against something. Not all Protestants are rebels, nor are all rebels Protestant (or Catholic)- many are seated in Orthodox parishes, as I stated explicitly in my last post.

The iconoclastic controversy was a classic example of rebels bringing destruction to the Church. The Great Schism is a subject of greater complexity, as is the schism rarely spoken of: the schism between The Eastern Orthodox Churches and the non-Chalcedonian Oriental Orthodox.

Please understand the nature an intent of my post. There certainly are instances, in contrast to my earlier statement, where holy men were in opposition to existing and prevailing doctrine. Athanasius comes to mind. But he did not schismate- he accepted his exiles, and trusted the Lord to fight for him.
And he prevailed.

The Protestants were formulated in the West, not the East. When they were ruled under sodomites, adulterers, simonists, murderers and demonists under the guise of popes and priests, who are dictating that unless the people follow them they cannot go to heaven (unless they pay their way there) and refuse to budge one inch on their heretical, faith destroying, superstitous dogma...

I agree with you- Protestants are from the West. Rome needed reform. There have been times and locales in the Orthodox East where revival was needed, and thanks be to God, given. There were acts and actors of resistance, such as the fools for Christ, and in another sense , the hesychasts.

WHAT DID YOU EXPECT LEARNED MEN OF THE SCRIPTURES TO DO???

I point to the examples I've given before.

 

[cj]

I have a great deal of respect for all denominations and tend to ignore for the most part what denomination someone is a part of.

Well, the respect you speak of is respect according to your definition of what it is to respect another, but there are some who would take the second part of your sentence as disrespect and therefore regard you as a hypocrite.

See, we have nothing in and of ourselves, and are only fooling ourselves thinking we "respect" or don't "respect" something.

The fear of God is the beginning of knowledge. Therefore, its our fear/reverence of God that keeps us.

And in this we can find our oneness, something which you touch on below.

What matters to me is ones personal belief in the essential doctrine, such as the divinity of Christ. In the end I try and pray to not rely on my own understanding. Christ is my center.

But this is to be short,........ as belief accomplishes its purpose in our living.

And this is why the church manifests itself as divided.

Does a divided expression not matter to you?


In love,
cj

 

[Nocturnal_Principal_X]

cj,

I have a great deal of respect for all denominations and tend to ignore for the most part what denomination someone is a part of.

Well, the respect you speak of is respect according to your definition of what it is to respect another, but there are some who would take the second part of your sentence as disrespect and therefore regard you as a hypocrite.

See, we have nothing in and of ourselves, and are only fooling ourselves thinking we "respect" or don't "respect" something.

Fair enough, in light of that I shall define what I mean when I say “respect.â€Â

"Respect is the objective, unbiased consideration and regard for the rights, values, beliefs and property of all people."

(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respect)

So basically I try as much as possible to "consider" the values and beliefs of other denominations.

Perhaps I could have ended my statement differently. What I meant by my statement is that I do not focus so much on what denomination some is that I get the, what I believe, is irrational assumption that just because someone adheres to another set of beliefs (of a denomination that is different from mine) that makes them necessarily wrong or lost (unsaved). It is possible to respect something but not agree with it…that is what I try and pray to do.

I Does a divided expression not matter to you?

I don’t quite understand what your asking here, please explain (perhaps I am having an “intellectual interlude†a.k.a. â€Åstupid momentâ€Â).

 

[Orthodoxy]

Orthodoxy,
Thank you for displaying Christian love. One thing is for certain I have learned that you don’t “hate†or think all people from Protestants churches are evil or preach a false Jesus. I must admit that based on another topic, where you seemed to condescend me (which is why I started out in this topic by requesting kindness); I began to form assumptions of you…which have now been proven wrong.

It is true I am a Southern Baptist but I do not agree with the denomination entirely or blindly (In fact have for some time now had some problems with the Southern Baptist Convention). Even though I am Southern Baptist by definition I look beyond my denomination and try to study and understand scripture under the guidance and direction of the Holy Spirit. I have a great deal of respect for all denominations and tend to ignore for the most part what denomination someone is a part of. What matters to me is ones personal belief in the essential doctrine, such as the divinity of Christ. In the end I try and pray to not rely on my own understanding. Christ is my center.

I also must admit that I am not very knowledge about the Eastern Orthodox Church. For most of my life I have heard this and that about the Catholic Church but very little, if anything, about the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Thanks.

The greatest secret in America.... The Holy Orthodox Church.... oops I guess the cat is out of the bag. Does this mean I will see you Saturday night at 600 pm at your local orthodox Church?

You are quite welcome in the Orthodox Church and I am sure there will be someone to help you that is much nicer than I.

Unworthy Servant,

Kyril

 

[Orthodoxy]

cj,

And this is why the church manifests itself as divided.

Does a divided expression not matter to you?

The Church is not divided and does not define itself as such and is not manifest on the earth as such.

Matthew 12:25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:

Matthew 12:26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?

No kingdom stands divided. Thus it is yout preception of the Kingdom that seems to be the problem. Not the Kingdoms fault that you precieve it as such.

1 Corinthians 1:13, Is Christ divided?

You appear to say Yes to this specific question.

The Church under the guidance of Jesus Prayer in John 17 says No we are not divided. If you ever bothered to grace the doors of an orthodox Church, study the historical faith maybe your perception of the Body of Christ would change.

We can only hope.

Orthodoxy

 

[guibox]

Please show me where I raised or pointed a finger at Rome..

I didn't say that you were pointing fingers at Rome. I was saying that your comments about rebelling from the church could be used by Rome against the Orthodox

The Great Schism is a subject of greater complexity, as is the schism rarely spoken of: the schism between The Eastern Orthodox Churches and the non-Chalcedonian Oriental Orthodox.

The basic gist of the Schism was over the recognition of authority. Neither side wanted to acknowledge the other's authority. Sounds like a rebellion to me and one of much lesser importance then the church ruling over the laity with an iron fist and superstitious man, made traditions and stifling people's spirituality.

Based on your own arguments, OC, NO ONE should be separate from the Roman Catholic Church as it was the only church for millenia, the 'true, Apostolic church' according to the RCC.

You're just another 'Protestant' as far as methodology and separation from the church goes.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Please show me where I raised or pointed a finger at Rome..

I didn't say that you were pointing fingers at Rome. I was saying that your comments about rebelling from the church could be used by Rome against the Orthodox

Or vice versa.

The Great Schism is a subject of greater complexity, as is the schism rarely spoken of: the schism between The Eastern Orthodox Churches and the non-Chalcedonian Oriental Orthodox.

The basic gist of the Schism was over the recognition of authority.
Neither side wanted to acknowledge the other's authority.

Incorrect. From the Orthodox view, it was Rome's unilateral approach to authority apart from the authority of the whole Church. In other words, we acknowledged Rome's authority.... within the bounds of the canons of the councils.

Sounds like a rebellion to me and one of much lesser importance then the church ruling over the laity with an iron fist and superstitious man, made traditions and stifling people's spirituality.

I would suggest that the problems in Europe were much more political than ecclesiastical in nature. But if there was a problem within the hierarchy of Rome, which they have conceded, then the roots of this problem probably resmeble the branches. If the branches are control and domination, then a unilateral approach to church governance- as opposed to a concilliar approach- could well be the root, or at least a root.

Based on your own arguments, OC, NO ONE should be separate from the Roman Catholic Church as it was the only church for millenia, the 'true, Apostolic church' according to the RCC.

Obviously, you are confused. According to my arguments, no one should have separated from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. It is you- and Rome- who have said that Rome and the One Church are one in the same.

You're just another 'Protestant' as far as methodology and separation from the church goes.

When calculating a sum, if one makes a mistake anywhere in the process, the result is incorrect. Your mistake in this calculation is the assumption that the Orthodox left anything. Based upon this assumption, you are now telling me my error.
Return to your figures and re-calculate.

 

[Orthodoxy]

A careful reading of scripture will demonstrate that holy men of God did not rise up against God's anointed/chosen. David would not, but Aaron did- and became leprous. Rebellious Christianity is leprous Christianity.

Strange...please explain what the Great Schism was about and the Iconoclastic Controversy.

The Roman church could just as easily point the finger at you.

The Protestants were formulated in the West, not the East. When they were ruled under sodomites, adulterers, simonists, murderers and demonists under the guise of popes and priests, who are dictating that unless the people follow them they cannot go to heaven (unless they pay their way there) and refuse to budge one inch on their heretical, faith destroying, superstitous dogma...

WHAT DID YOU EXPECT LEARNED MEN OF THE SCRIPTURES TO DO???

If you may permit me to explain this to you even though you addressed my brother, Orthodox Christian.

Strange...please explain what the Great Schism was about and the Iconoclastic Controversy.

A tall order I will attempt to qualify for you:

The great Schism as it is called stems from a couple of major issues. Personally I believe the "dual procession" of the Holy Spirit from the Father "and the Son" is the hinge pin of the whole seperation.

Let me explain:

Jesus said:

But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which PROCEEDTH from the Father, he shall testify of me. John 15:26

The Father is unbegotten, the Son is begotten by the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father. The source of unity is the Father. The Father is the one that draws a man unto the Son through the work of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit that testifies of the Son eternally proceeds from the Father of lights and is eternally sent by the Son who is eternally begotten of the Father. This is the dynamic relationship within the Godhead.

All good gifts come from the Father of Lights James 1:17

John 1:14, And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

John 1:18, No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

To change this dynamic relationship within the Godhead is heresy plain and simple. The Church always understood this relationship and defined it in the Nicene/Constantinople Creed offically in 381 ad. That "confession of faith" or the Church's "statement of faith" was set in stone just as the US Consitution is set in stone. No one man, nor group could or can change this document without full consent of the entire Church as set forth in the book of Acts. Ie they were all in "one accord" and they had "all things in common". Everyone in the Church at this time agreed to this statement of faith even the Roman Catholics.

The Christian statement of faith reads:

WE believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth and all things Visible and Invisible.

WE believe in One Lord, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of His Father before all ages, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten not made, of one essence with the Father. Through Him all things were made. For us and for our salvation, He came down from Heaven and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became Man. He was crucified, also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered, died and was buried. The third day He rose again according to scriptures. He ascended into the heavens and sits at the right hand of the Father. And He will come again with Glory to judge both the living and the dead, and of His Kingdom there will be no end.

WE believe in the Holy Spirit, The Lord, the Giver of Life. Who proceeds from the Father, Who together with the Father and the Son, is worshipped and glorified; who spoke through the prophets.

WE believe in one holy, universal and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins and We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life to come. Amen.

The Council Of Ephesus - 431 A.D.
It is not permitted to produce or write or compose any other creed except the one which was defined by the holy fathers who were gathered together in the holy Spirit at Nicaea. Any who dare to compose or bring forth or produce another creed for the benefit of those who wish to turn from Hellenism or Judaism or some other heresy to the knowledge of the truth, if they are bishops or clerics they should be deprived of their respective charges and if they are laymen they are to be anathematised.


The Council of Chalcedon - 451 AD
The sacred and great and universal synod by God's grace and by decree of your most religious and Christ-loving emperors Valentinian Augustus and Marcian Augustus assembled in Chalcedon, metropolis of the province of Bithynia, in the shrine of the saintly and triumphant martyr Euphemia, issues the following decrees…… Since we have formulated these things with all possible accuracy and attention, the sacred and universal synod decreed that no one is permitted to produce, or even to write down or compose, any other creed or to think or teach otherwise. As for those who dare either to compose another creed or even to promulgate or teach or hand down another creed for those who wish to convert to a recognition of the truth from Hellenism or from Judaism, or from any kind of heresy at all: if they be bishops or clerics, the bishops are to be deposed from the episcopacy and the clerics from the clergy; if they be monks or layfolk, they are to be anathematised.

All Christians confessed this specific creed and still do to this day.

Now in 1054 ad through manipulations of Charlemgne and Pope Leo I believe the Roman Church inserted "and the Son" to the portion of the Creed that defines the Holy Spirit:

WE believe in the Holy Spirit, The Lord, the Giver of Life. Who proceeds from the Father "and the Son", Who together with the Father and the Son, is worshipped and glorified; who spoke through the prophets.

Now the reason behind the insertion was to fight the Arian heresy in Spain
which claimed there was a time when Jesus Christ was not, thus making Him a creation of God. The Roman Church felt this addition further clarifies the divinity of Jesus Christ, a nobel endevore however it goes against the words of Jesus Christ and the understanding of the Church and its statement of faith.

So you see the Roman Church confessed the Orthodox Creed for 700 years until they added the "filioque" against the wishes of the entire Church. So who fell away from whom? You tell me.

I believe to save face the roman bishop claims infalibility which is absurd as best.

The Roman church could just as easily point the finger at you.

They do and in this the entire protestant world has been duped into thinking the Orthodox are the "left lung" of the roman Church or the "dirty step sister" which is further from the truth than pluto is from the sun. They Roman Church fell away from the Orthodox Faith not the other way around. Nearly ever protestant I meet believes in the Roman Catholic addition and will defend it over the words of Jesus Himself. The Roman Church has been quite successful in duping the Protestant reformation into thinking the Orthodox Church is really a sect of the Roman Catholic Faith. This is plainly seen on this forum when people mix the orthodox and romans together in their condemnations.

The Iconoclast Schism is nothing less than what we see on this forum by the condemnation of Icons, Images of Holy People in the Faith, pictures and picture stories of those that gave the faith to future generations. We honor those before us in pictures. Idol worship to the protestant reformation, idol worship to the iconoclasts that destoryed thousands of icons and killed millions to preserve their "perverted understanding" of the Christian faith.

The Protestants were formulated in the West, not the East. When they were ruled under sodomites, adulterers, simonists, murderers and demonists under the guise of popes and priests, who are dictating that unless the people follow them they cannot go to heaven (unless they pay their way there) and refuse to budge one inch on their heretical, faith destroying, superstitous dogma...

Yes the daughters of the so called "Whore" is the protestant reformation. Some say the Whore is Rome and the Reformation is the false prophet. No question the roots of the protestant reformation and its mirade of man made churches even into the "home church" is the Roman Catholic Church. You got it. Thank God the Orthodox missed the protestant reformation all together. Maybe one day the Roman Church will repent and return to the trunk of the Christian Faith, the Holy Orthodox Church.

WHAT DID YOU EXPECT LEARNED MEN OF THE SCRIPTURES TO DO???

Pretty much what the pharisees did, after all they were "sola scriptura" too just like the protestant reformation.

Did that help?

Orthodoxy

 

[Orthodoxy]

guibox

The basic gist of the Schism was over the recognition of authority. Neither side wanted to acknowledge the other's authority. Sounds like a rebellion to me and one of much lesser importance then the church ruling over the laity with an iron fist and superstitious man, made traditions and stifling people's spirituality.

The heresy of the filioque is the cause of the Roman Church falling away from the faith. It would appear you have your own opine on the matter. Tell me do you defend the dual procession theology of the fallen roman Church?

Based on your own arguments, OC, NO ONE should be separate from the Roman Catholic Church as it was the only church for millenia, the 'true, Apostolic church' according to the RCC.

No one is allowed to change the statement of faith of the Church, period, unless the entire Church agrees. No ecumenical council has ever agreed on the Roman Statement of faith, zero so the 381 ad Nicene Constantinople Creed stands. All others are heretics and schismatics seeking to devoure the body of Christ. Why are you defending the Roman Catholic faith?

You're just another 'Protestant' as far as methodology and separation from the church goes.

[/quote]

As I have stated the protestant reformation is completely and utterly horn swaggled and duped.

Myth busted. Next.

Orthodoxy

May I add this on authority. The original see of the bishop of Rome was the southern half of Italy not the entire world. It is specifically stated in the 1st council that bishops are not allowed to assert their authority over bishops in other sees around then thus Orthodox Christian is correct in saying the Roman Bishop over stepped his bounds of authority against the concicular nature of the structure of the Church. The Orthodox still see the Roman Bishop as "chief among equals" not "lord over all".

 

[PHIL121]

This is an interesting topic, however; I wonder how such a topic glorifies God?
.

It doesn't but it glorifies Orthodoxy...and that's close enough for him :

 

[Orthodoxy]

This is an interesting topic, however; I wonder how such a topic glorifies God?
.

It doesn't but it glorifies Orthodoxy...and that's close enough for him :

I never stuck my head in the sand as a protestant why should I ignore false doctrines and teachings now as an orthodox christian? I know you precieve me as a mind numb robot, brainless, heartless and stupid, void of the Holy Spirit, a slug. You opinion of me should change something?

These issues do nothing for me. Fact is if the protestant and roman churches would convert to the Orthodox faith I could just rest and pray. I think everyone should be an Orthodox Christian. If you dont want to that is fine, there are millions out there that are sick of the protestant reformations dog and pony show they are trying to pass off as Christian. I believe heresy should be brought into the light where they can be exposed for what they are. It would appear you enjoy and gain warmth from ignorance. So be it.

If you have nothing to contribute dont post on my thread. I will tell you like I have told others trying to hyjack my threads ...... Please stick to the topic or dont post on my thread. Thanks

Orthodoxy

 

[guibox]

Okay, so let me get this straight....

Technically according to the OC (not the poster, the organization), it was the RC that 'fell away' from the 'faith' by going against the rules of the organization?

So the Orthodox Church is the 'true' church?

That sounds like Catholic reasoning! :-D That would make you just like the Catholics anyway!

And Orthodox, as for your vehement ranting against Protestantism, there is error and truth in all faiths. Even as a Protestant, I have problems with some Protestant's mindsets, reasoning, interpretation of scripture, self-righteousness, and 'do what feels good' theology.

That does't mean there isn't a problem with the Orthodox faith or their interpretation of scriptures either. In my opinion (but perhaps I'm wrong) there is enough Catholicism in the OC to warrant 'Protest' as well. In other words, were it the OC in power instead of the RC, I would think that the Reformers would have found as much theological error to start the Reformation in the OC.

 

[Orthodoxy]

Okay, so let me get this straight....

Technically according to the OC (not the poster, the organization), it was the RC that 'fell away' from the 'faith' by going against the rules of the organization?

Yes, according to historical facts.

[quote:300c1]So the Orthodox Church is the 'true' church?

Yes. Historically this is plain fact. The Holy Orthodox Church is the authentic and original Church, the one Jesus is continuing to build and has not failed. Before 1000 ad there was only one Church, no protestant denominations and no Holy Roman Cathoilic empire only "the Church", one mind and one accord as commanded by the scripture. The entire Church confessed the 381ad Nicene Creed until the Roman portion of the Church took it upon themselves to change the nature of God and the words of Jesus Christ in John 15:26. Sure many fell away before that but the Church is not subject to men falling away, so what? Why does a man falling from the faith effect God? He respects persons now?

That sounds like Catholic reasoning! :-D That would make you just like the Catholics anyway!

No, that makes the Holy Orthodox Church the trunk and the branches. The Roman and protestants churches are trimmings for the fire. Got it?

And Orthodox, as for your vehement ranting against Protestantism, there is error and truth in all faiths. Even as a Protestant, I have problems with some Protestant's mindsets, reasoning, interpretation of scripture, self-righteousness, and 'do what feels good' theology.

So you have a problem with the error in the protestant faith, so your sick of the protestant dog and pony show. Good. So was I until I found the Orthodox Church. Thank God I did because I was very close to rejecting the Jesus Christ in any form all together thus becoming an agnostic geologist, I would have been a formative foe on that side of the fence believe me. The heterodox faith became such a joke that christianity was fading fast from my "christian" desires. I praise God for my striaght forward and honest preist and spiritual father who said "you have a misrepresented Jesus".

That does't mean there isn't a problem with the Orthodox faith or their interpretation of scriptures either.

How magnanomus of you for saying that. Gee we are blessed arent we. Golly. I am just all a flitter.

In my opinion (but perhaps I'm wrong) there is enough Catholicism in the OC to warrant 'Protest' as well.

The veil of the Roman Catholic Church is working. Praise God! Continue in your own opinion and understanding, very good.

In other words, were it the OC in power instead of the RC, I would think that the Reformers would have found as much theological error to start the Reformation in the OC.

[/quote:300c1]

Get in line, for down the passages of time many rebellious heathens and publicans have stood against the Holy Orthodox Church:
Arius, Sabellius, Severan, the Monophysites, the list goes on and on up to the Roman Rebellion, the great falling away. But hey the Orthodox are still here. The fastest growing Church in America is the missionary Church of the Orthodox Faith. Coming to a town near you maybe? Where is Stalin when you need him eh?

Orthodoxy

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Okay, so let me get this straight....

Technically according to the OC (not the poster, the organization), it was the RC that 'fell away' from the 'faith' by going against the rules of the organization?

I perceive that you are a more profound thinker than that crude synopsis would suggest. So what gives?

So the Orthodox Church is the 'true' church?

Since you single quote 'true,' your question is not as much a question as a challenge.

That sounds like Catholic reasoning! :-D That would make you just like the Catholics anyway!

Here's why quips and sound bites- which are quite beneath you, from what I have seen- won't work here: What reasoning were you using when you stated below that you see some things needing reform in the Orthodox Church? You must be referring to some standard, a standard which you believe that you understand. Ergo, you reason as you say the Catholics do.

All this cuteness aside, each tradition is going to make truth claims- if not, why do they exist?

And Orthodox, as for your vehement ranting against Protestantism, there is error and truth in all faiths. Even as a Protestant, I have problems with some Protestant's mindsets, reasoning, interpretation of scripture, self-righteousness, and 'do what feels good' theology.

I disagree. I do agree that there is error and truth in all persons, this does not mean that there is error and truth in the Church.

That does't mean there isn't a problem with the Orthodox faith or their interpretation of scriptures either. In my opinion (but perhaps I'm wrong) there is enough Catholicism in the OC to warrant 'Protest' as well. In other words, were it the OC in power instead of the RC, I would think that the Reformers would have found as much theological error to start the Reformation in the OC.

So your position is that power corrupts. What can we say then about American Evangelicalism? In spite of their hilarious belief that they are a persecuted minority, it is they who have a President carrying out their agenda. Their dollars have been turned into Zionist tanks which crush Palestinian Christians; their bombs burned alive Serbian Christians in their homes and schools (defending the Jihadists).

 

[Nocturnal_Principal_X]

Does this mean I will see you Saturday night at 600 pm at your local orthodox Church?

You are quite welcome in the Orthodox Church and I am sure there will be someone to help you that is much nicer than I.

No, you clearly misunderstood me. I respect the Eastern Orthodox Church but I disagree with it too much. My heart and my beliefs are more rooted in the Southern Baptists church. I do not at all think the Southern Baptists church is perfect but my beliefs are much closer to its beliefs. I at least agree with the essential doctrine of the Orthodox Church but other issues and doctrines I disagree with, for instance the hierarchy the church.

Actually the Southern Baptist Convention puts it well, in their “Faith and Message†what I believe (even though I have my misgivings and problems with the Convention):

http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp#i