<Orthodox Faith (2 months ago):

Questions from Orthodox to non-Orthodox (heterodox):

1. When did believers like you appear?

2. Who founded, laid the foundation for your creed and created the first as your community?

3. Who so believed (like you) in the 1,2,3 and until the 16th century? Name at least one person for every century.

4. Does your creed resemble the teachings of the Apostles and their successors?

5. Do you have any succession from the Holy Apostles or some kind of connection with the ancient Christian Church?

6. How many times and how has your creed changed?

7. Is there evidence that a soul who professes and believes like you was saved after death, that is, escaped hell and was rewarded with the kingdom of heaven?

8. Who are heretics? (Tit. 3: 10,11; Gal. 5: 19-21 Give examples of heretics).

9. Who are the sectarians? (Matthew 18: 17. Give examples of sectarians).

10. What is your teaching on the Church of Christ? (Tell us about the properties of the Church. How do you interpret the second hemisphere of the Gospel of Matthew 16: 18 “... I will create My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it”) Interesting your view on the history of the Christian Church, so give a very brief overview of the life of the Church in history >

Matthew 16:18. >

I'm not exactly sure what this is supposed to be in response to, especially when compared line by line to the excerpt of my post that you quoted.

Therefore I have three questions:

How does this verse relate to the part of my post that you quoted?

What main point are you supporting with this quote?

<OCF: Who decides that?>

<tga: Have you ever done any teaching? I have, when I was in grad school, and I also tutored a woman in physics when I worked at a large computer chip manufacturer.

It is evident to any good teacher when something is not clear to the student. You can see it on their faces.>

"It's obvious" is a pretty weak answer in debate.

<tga: and when heresies were introduced, ecumenical councils were held in order to answer the heresies and clarify ambiguities. >

<OCF: Who had the authority to decide who was on the councils, and why did they have that authority?>

<tga: Haven't you studied any church history? Although I have, I am by no means an expert. But my understanding is that authority was given by the unbroken chain of succession from the Apostles (who were also Bishops, I think) to the Bishops that followed after them. >

I'll translate that for our readers: "The Orthodox say they do." Of course, the Catholics claim the same history and say they do. Huh. Anyway, if one side can be wrong, logic tells me both sides can be wrong.

<Anyway, you'd do better to listen to the full two-part series, because Fr. Trenham talks about that stuff - authority, church hierarchy. I bet you could even send him an e-mail with your questions and he could recommend a good resource for you.>

If the full two hours is as lame as that 9 minute video, I'd be wasting my time. I clearly can't come back here and question you about its claims, as you're admittedly not up to the challenge.

<tga: These councils are guided by the Holy Spirit.>

<OCF: Who says? >

<I thought you said you watched the video. Maybe not all the way through? The answer to this question is in the video.>

<OCF: I have no interest in that.>

<tga: You have no interest in that? I am saddened by your statement.

Are you not part of Christ's One Holy Apostolic Church?>

Yes.

<tga: I am awed by the fact that Christ's Church flourished for 1000 years, united, and then both dismayed and fascinated that such a schism could occur.>

I am dismayed such a large, early heresy continues to be appealed to by Catholics and Orthodox of today.

< OCF: I'll point out both sides claim the same history. If one can be wrong, both can be wrong.>

<tga: Of course. But I as well will point out something. Actually, 2 things.

1. There are not "both" sides, there are "three" sides, since we must include the Protestants with the Orthodox and Roman Catholic parts of Christendom.>

Maybe you must, but I don't.

<tga: 2. All three can be wrong,>

Give that man a cigar.

< but what is the most likely scenario? That the 2 sides who started changing things up after 1000 years (for the RCC) and after 1500 years (for the Protestants), or the folks who held fast to the original traditions?>

<tga: As (you're)a former RC, I cannot fathom this statement.

There are a dizzying number of venerated saints in both the RCC and EOC, so many it seems daunting to me to learn about them all. And what are the criteria for sainthood? >

The Scriptural criterion is to be a Christian. I'll go with that.

<tga: Isn't a 2-miracle-minimum one of them?>

Not according to the Bible.

<tga: You can go see the relics of an EOC saint without leaving America:

http://www.fatheralexander.org/book...

https://orthodoxwiki.org/John_(Maxi... >

No thanks.

<tga: As for ecumenical councils, just who do you think were the members? They were the church leaders who were alive at the time the councils were convoked! Men like Saint John Chrysostom, iirc.>

When Paul told the Ephesian church leaders in Acts 20:30 that from their number, false teachers would arise, did he mean it? I say yes, some of those church leaders were not to be trusted.

<tga: Also, I am not quite sure what your exact objection is here. Do you reject the Nicene creed? It was created by an ecumenical council. But you don't 'believe' it/them?>

I believe them so far as they teach in accordance with the Scriptures.

<tga: It is the dogma of the Christian faith. Rejecting the Nicene council and creed is rejection of Christianity itself!>

<tga: Define "early", please. >

First century.

<tga: And this brings me to my next question, the ecumenical council of Nicea.

I mentioned this in an earlier post:

<Also, I am not quite sure what your exact objection is here. Do you reject the Nicene creed? It was created by an ecumenical council. But you don't 'believe' it/them? <<<It is the dogma of the Christian faith.>>> Rejecting the Nicene council and creed is rejection of Christianity itself!>

What is your reply? >

Addressed in my last post.

<tga: I also mentioned that the councils were composed of people such as <Saint John Chrysostom>. Is such a man not good enough of an authority to respect?>

No.

<tga: If no, then are ALL Christians a denomination unto themselves? >

No.

<tga: How far must you take this fracture of the Church?>

<OCF: Today, sure, but what about tomorrow after the next council convenes?>

<tga: 2000 years, and who knows how many councils (and counting), yet a hard "NO!" from you is still the answer. Based on what "could" happen tomorrow.>

Please quit avoiding my question. I daresay many Catholics today are alarmed where they are heading on those issues. Why not the Orthodox in the future? That question is a real problem for you, and I hope you at least feel a bit of uncertainty about it.

<tga: Again, I am no expert on Church history, but please tell me how many millennia the EOC needs to remain unchanged, to convince you?>

Avoiding the question.

<OCF: What if, moved by the Holy Spirit, they clarify the ambiguity of different sexual expressions and gender roles?>

<tga: What if, what if, what if? >

What is impossible today is tomorrow's accepted tradition. Again, based on the current Pope's recent comments, I think a massive change in RCC theology is on tap. The Orthodox use the same appeals to tradition, the same appeals to church history, the same appeals to the church as the bastion of truth, but it can't happen to them. Ooookay.

<tga: Always, your focus in this discussion is "what if"?>

Yes, debate typically is conducted in the realm of the hypothetical. Ever read transcripts of Supreme Court hearings?

<tga: Never able to see "What Is." 2000 years of not deviating.>

So said the Catholics too.

<tga: At what point do you, or will you, ask: Why HASN'T the EOC followed the RCC and Protestant Churches down the proverbial primrose path to Hell (paved with good intentions)?>

The "right" group of heretics hasn't yet gained the political clout to do so.

<tga: Look, I am NOT asking you to convert to EOC. I am not even a member of the EOC myself. I am just looking at the evidence. Looking at the practices of the various faiths. And then, noting what I see with my eyes.>

1. When did believers like you appear? >

I'll take a shot at these. The day of Pentecost, the year of Jesus' death and resurrection.

<2. Who founded, laid the foundation for your creed and created the first as your community? >

Jesus and the apostles.

<3. Who so believed (like you) in the 1,2,3 and until the 16th century? Name at least one person for every century. >

I'm unable to do that.

<4. Does your creed resemble the teachings of the Apostles and their successors? >

Yes to the Apostles, no to the successors.

<5. Do you have any succession from the Holy Apostles or some kind of connection with the ancient Christian Church? >

No. Yes.

<6. How many times and how has your creed changed? >

Zero.

<7. Is there evidence that a soul who professes and believes like you was saved after death, that is, escaped hell and was rewarded with the kingdom of heaven? >

Yes. The testimony of Jesus.

<8. Who are heretics? (Tit. 3: 10,11; Gal. 5: 19-21 Give examples of heretics).>

Anyone who teaches at odds with the Bible.

<9. Who are the sectarians? (Matthew 18: 17. Give examples of sectarians). >

Anyone who sins against me and refuses to repent.

"It's obvious" is a pretty weak answer in debate.>

So you've never been a serious teacher. That's ok.

Nevertheless, the fact that you don't have experience with this situation in no way negates the truth of it.

Rather than understanding and accepting your limitations, you choose to use your limitations as justification for rejecting the wisdom of those who do have experience in teaching situations.

What part of your Christian worldview relies on this verse?>

It was in response to these statements:

<BP: One might think that True Christianity has been lost in the sands of time,>

And <The problem with this is the Christian church has suffered heresies right from the very beginning>

Although Satan has bombarded the church with heresies from the beginning, Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against his church.

Now it's my turn to translate!

(But first, let me point out the obvious fact that all humans will die, and Christ did not intend for his church to die with the passing of the last of the 12 Apostles. Surely you can agree with that?)

Then what to do? How about having the church fathers teach the next generation to be church leaders? Well, that is EXACTLY what Christ did. He taught his disciples to be leaders of his church after they passed. So that is the very example that should be followed! We are called to be like Christ.

And so the disciples-become-apostles did the same. For example, Paul taught Timothy, and then went to Rome and was martyred. But Timothy lived on to follow the examples of Jesus and Paul.

And to who's authority did you turn to, earlier in the discussion? These men:

<Why should people believe in Jesus? Because of the signs he did. What signs did anyone in any council ever do that we should believe in them? <<I'll give you Peter and Paul.>> Now you tell me why I should believe anyone else.>

Jesus LIVED the example of teaching the next gen of church leaders. Then the next gen of church leaders lived the example. Peter and Paul, the authorities you claim to have accepted, did this very thing! And each generation of patriarchs and bishops has lived the example of the men whom you accepted as authorities.

Yet you now deny their examples are trustworthy.

You are missing the point. My reply to you was in sincerity, as one who is genuinely trying to help.

You posed many questions, and I explained to you that Trenham is an expert on church history, with great breadth and depth of knowledge. If you are sincerely seeking answers to your questions, the full videos will help.

If you're just trying to score snark points, then you're on your own.

<<tga: These councils are guided by the Holy Spirit.>

<OCF: Who says? >

<I thought you said you watched the video. Maybe not all the way through? The answer to this question is in the video.>

Besides the Orthodox, I meant.>

I know. Maybe my mistake is assuming you know anything at all about church history?

So I won't do that now. The simple answer to your question is that ALL 6 of the ecumenical councils were convoked before any schism!

There was no RCC, no EOC, no Protestantism. There was one united Christian church.

I've never encountered such hubris in my life! And that includes the hubris of the W administration lying the US and other allies into a war over non-existent WMD.

No thanks. >

You lost the thread of the discussion here.

To who's authority did you turn to, earlier in the discussion? These men:

<Why should people believe in Jesus? Because of the signs he did. What signs did anyone in any council ever do that we should believe in them? <<I'll give you Peter and Paul.>> Now you tell me why I should believe anyone else.>

So I *WAS* telling you WHY you should believe others besides Peter and Paul.

I said "There are a dizzying number of venerated saints in both the RCC and EOC, so many it seems daunting to me to learn about them all. And what are the criteria for sainthood?"

You replied <The Scriptural criterion is to be a Christian. I'll go with that.>, completely missing the point, which is there is a 2-miracle-minimum required for sainthood.

Replying <Not according to the Bible.> AGAIN misses the point! The New Testament wasn't about counting up miracles of this or that person.

And to get you back on track to the original point, you said you accept the authority of Peter and Paul, because of the miracles.

But reject the Orthodox Church, which, again, has a dizzying array of saints who worked miracles. That is the point!

How do you accept Peter and Paul, yet not these others who were venerated as saints because they had at least 2 miracles associated with their ministries?

And then I even gave you an example of one right here in America, in the 20th century, and your reply is "no thanks"?

So, in summary, here is where we are:

<ocf>: I accept the authority of Peter and Paul because they worked miracles.

<tga>: There are many documented miracles by other saints. Here is an example in San Francisco.

Please quit avoiding my question. I daresay many Catholics today are alarmed where they are heading on those issues. Why not the Orthodox in the future? That question is a real problem for you, and I hope you at least feel a bit of uncertainty about it.>

No, it's not at all a problem. Jesus already answered your question, and it is recorded in scripture. My post on the matter was directed to <BP>, because of his "lost to the sands of time" supposition.

Start with this post:

Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #5280)

Yes, debate typically is conducted in the realm of the hypothetical. Ever read transcripts of Supreme Court hearings?>

That's a rather odd comparison. Now let me be clear. I am not here to debate hypotheticals, but to debate what *is*. I thought that was clear? Maybe this explains your frustration. You keep wanting to venture into the realm of what if, while I am interesting in discussing the Christian faith that *IS*.

<<tga: Never able to see "What Is." 2000 years of not deviating.>

So said the Catholics too.>

That's exactly *why* a study of church history is important, which is *why* I posted the video in the first place, and recommended the entire 140 minute series.

The point is, you can check out the claims yourself. You already have, for the RCC. And now you seem content to assume, based on nothing but your own lack of desire for inquiry, to assume the EOC must be the same. You will read through SCOTUS transcripts, but won't listen to a church historian?

I am not so cavalier about my faith these days. I have been studying this very issue for about a week now. So far, all evidence (the historical record) points to the cause of the Great Schism being the Greek church holding fast to orthodoxy, and the Latin church drifting away from orthodoxy.

The East is a living history exhibit of the early Christian church, and the West would be unrecognizable to its own adherents even from a hundred years ago, let alone a thousand.

Why do so many protestants come up with different interpretations of various bible passages?>

And this:

<It was in response to these statements:

<BP: One might think that True Christianity has been lost in the sands of time,>

And <The problem with this is the Christian church has suffered heresies right from the very beginning>>

- Ephesians 2:8-10>

Why do so many protestants come up with different interpretations of various bible passages?>>

Because they lack a consistent hermeneutic.

Paul addressed this when he told Timothy to be sure to rightly divide the word. People weren't rightly dividing the word, even as the NT was being written. Those people turned into the Catholic church, blending the works based program for Israel (the Law, the Circumcision) with the gospel of grace.

The Catholic Church started with the Galations. Paul tried to correct them, but some of them remained beguiled and the Catholic Church was born from there.

Part of it is Peter's fault. Even after he had met with Paul and learned of how Jesus revealed to him a Great Mystery, the dispensation of the gospel of grace, he still went on and forced Paul's converts to be circumcized. He wouldn't sit with the Gentiles when eating and so forth, carrying on the law as before, mixing works with grace.

Paul had to reprimand him for that and Peter conceded that he was wrong to do it. But it just goes to show that this idea of mixing good works with grace in pursuit of salvation is enticing to the nature of man, even to Peter, and that from the very beginning, indeed, even before the beginning, there was works + grace heresy.