Making a choice between east and west

[Cetti]

I start a new thread as a reply to Adam`s post.

Effie,

I hope I`ll see you on the forum again some time.

Adam,

Your story is somewhat similar to mine. I am Orthodox and tho years ago I discovered the RC church. This discovery really enriched my spiritual life and helped me see some aspects of Orthodoxy I hadn`t seen before. For example, the Eucharistic Adoration made me understand better the value of the Eucharist in my tradition.
To make a long story short, I learned a lot of things and I am really grateful to God for making me know the RC church. Some people asked me why I didn`t make a choice between the two churches. But one of my friends who also loves the RC church says that a child can`t make a choice between his parents, because he loves them both. And the Pope once said that Catholicism and Orthodoxy are the two lungs of Christianity. One can`t breathe properly with only one lung. Both denominations are God`s own.
I also pray for our unity and I hope some day the RC church and the Orthodox Church will celebrate Easter together. This would mean a lot for our unity.
I also believe unity will be in the heart. Some people see the unity as turning everybody Catholic/Orthodox/…/ I believe that for a layperson unity means communication, mutual understanding, sharing … We the laypesons can`t solve theological debates, but we can learn to appreciate each other and our values, without asking who should convert who. We have a common ground in Christ , He is our cornerstone. There aren`t two Christ, one for the Catholic and one for the Orthodox church. There is only ONE. We have common values, common past – the primary church – an a lot of other things in common.
Of course, your case is a special one and I believe the only person who can give you an answer is you – with Lord`s help, after deliberation and prayer. But either you remain a RC or you become an Orthodox, you will carry both of them into your heart – because each of them gave you something special. And this is also a great step towards the unity. Maybe God will give you a special grace for you to become like a bridge between the two traditions – help the RC discover the riches of Orthodoxy – and viceversa! He loves us all, Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant.

Cetti

[John Wilson]

Cetti, the Pope's two lung analogy may sound nice but I believe it is deeply flawed from the outset (he probably sees himself as the voicebox at the top of the windpipe). There is one church, not two, one body, not two lungs, one true vine, not a tree with two branches. In all the ways that the church is described in the bible, nothing remotely resembles the Popes analogy.

The Orthodox church is not interested in unity, it's primary focus is on holiness and on its members growing in holiness. Only where there is holiness can there be true unity and it will be the natural fruit of holiness. Unity is not an end to be strived for, but the natural outcome of holiness.

Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved. (Acts 2:46-47)

[John Wilson]

Sorry, I meant to quote from verse 42 onwards.

They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved. (Acts 2:42-47)

[Cetti]

John,

I do agree with what you wrote about unity which comes out of holiness. It`s true that holiness should be our first goal, but I also believe that among other intentions, we should be also concerned to offer our prayers for unity. How and when it will be achieved it is still a mystery.
It is one body, but it was divided and we still bear the marks of that division.
But true love can heal them in time.

I was born in an Orthodox family, in an Orthodox country, therefore I must admit that the experiences of the convert people who wrote in the forum are something new to me. Well, even if some people can`t accept the choices we make, we still have to follow our way.

Cetti

[Speros]

Has anyone read Eastern Orthodoxy Through Western Eyes? It might be worth reading.

[Michael Stickles]

I haven't, but if anyone has, be sure to put a review of it in our Book Reviews Area (http://www.monachos.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?s=&f=376&page=1&pp=20&prefixid=&sort=lastpost&order=desc&daysprune=100) (hint, hint).

[Ben Johnson]

Has anyone read Eastern Orthodoxy Through Western Eyes? It might be worth reading.
I read it a couple years ago. If any protestant wants to know about the Orthodox Church, I would highly recommend it.

[Speros]

The book contains some criticism of Eastern Orthodoxy that might be worth addressing. At the same time, they are not intended as a condemnation of your faith.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Speros,

The book contains some criticism of Eastern Orthodoxy that might be worth addressing. At the same time, they are not intended as a condemnation of your faith.
Please do consider putting up the details (and perhaps posting an initial review with your thoughts) in the books review area, as Michael has suggested.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Speros]

The rapid growth of Pentecostalism in the Global South, mostly as indigenous movements rather than imposed from colonialism, shatters the idea that Protestantism is an exclusively Western faith. Its ability to adapt to the surrounding culture without compromising fundamental doctrine has always been one of Protestantism's greatest strengths.

[Nina]

The rapid growth of Pentecostalism in the Global South, mostly as indigenous movements rather than imposed from colonialism, shatters the idea that Protestantism is an exclusively Western faith. Its ability to adapt to the surrounding culture without compromising fundamental doctrine has always been one of Protestantism's greatest strengths.

Ok. Congratulations.

[Herman Blaydoe]

The rapid growth of Pentecostalism in the Global South, mostly as indigenous movements rather than imposed from colonialism, shatters the idea that Protestantism is an exclusively Western faith. Its ability to adapt to the surrounding culture without compromising fundamental doctrine has always been one of Protestantism's greatest strengths.

Islam is also witnessing rapid growth world-side and is somewhat multi-cultural. So what? It is not a numbers game.

[Speros]

Islam is also witnessing rapid growth world-side and is somewhat multi-cultural. So what? It is not a numbers game.

The difference is that Islam does not believe in fundamental Christian doctrine.

[Speros]

Pentecostalism and related charismatic movements represent one of the fastest-growing segments of global Christianity. At least a quarter of the world’s 2 billion Christians are thought to be members of these lively, highly personal faiths, which emphasize such spiritually renewing “gifts of the Holy Spirit” as speaking in tongues, divine healing and prophesying. Even more than other Christians, pentecostals and other renewalists believe that God, acting through the Holy Spirit, continues to play a direct, active role in everyday life.

Pentecostalism, and its related “renewalist” or “spirit-filled” movements, was one of the most influential developments in global Christianity in the 20th century, and it is poised to have an even greater influence in the 21st century. Nowhere is this more evident than in the “global South,” where pentecostalism is reshaping the social, political and economic landscape of many countries in Latin America, Africa and Asia.



The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life has assembled a variety of resources on pentecostalism, including reports, event transcripts and recent news clips...
http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=140


If estimates are correct, the number of Pentecostals alone will surpass the total number of Orthodox Christians, if it hasn't done so already. If they did not affirm essential Christian doctrine, their growth in numbers would be meaningless.

[Father David Moser]

If estimates are correct, the number of Pentecostals alone will surpass the total number of Orthodox Christians, if it hasn't done so already. If they did not affirm essential Christian doctrine, their growth in numbers would be meaningless.


The difference is that Islam does not believe in fundamental Christian doctrine.

Either numbers matter or they don't. If truth is a matter of majority rule, then it doesn't matter whether a group does or does not affirm "fundamental Christian doctrine". If numbers aren't a measure of truth then such statistics prove nothing. Remember, our Lord said that "wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction and there are many who go in by it...narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it." (Mt 7:13&14). Just because a lot of people believe something doesn't make it true.

Fr David Moser

[Speros]

To be honest, I personally don't care for Pentecostalism, and lean more toward secessionism. However, I'm not going to disparage their faith in Christ nor the good things that have come out of their movement, reaching millions of people who otherwise may not have believed.

[Herman Blaydoe]

To be honest, I personally don't care for Pentecostalism, and lean more toward secessionism. However, I'm not going to disparage their faith in Christ nor the good things that have come out of their movement, reaching millions of people who otherwise may not have believed.

Nobody is disparaging anyone, but merely questioning your rather specious reasoning here concerning numbers. Everybody believes something, not everything believed is Truth. We rejoice with Truth is proclaimed and are concerned with falsehood is put forward as truth. We do not wish to give stones instead of bread, or serpents instead of fish (Luke 11:11-12).

[Anna Stickles]

Its ability to adapt to the surrounding culture without compromising fundamental doctrine has always been one of Protestantism's greatest strengths.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "essential doctrine" I myself became a Christian in a charismatic church. Some of the renewal theologians like Andrew Murray were important in helping me move toward Orthodoxy out of a very Calvinistic understanding of salvation.

Certainly all of the Protestant denominations believe in some form of trinitarian conception of God. All affirm that personal relationship with Christ is necessary for salvation. These are both very Orthodox. However, beyond this one can hardly talk of Protestant doctrine at all.

There is very little agreement on a lot of things, and certainly most pentecostals don't believe in any kind of sacramental worship. There are so many points of difference between the various Protestant traditions on the understanding of God's economy of salvation and what Christ did for us one cannot find any consistency whatsoever.

Unlike in Orthodoxy where I can find Fathers from the 2nd century and modern Orthodox elders teaching the exact same understanding of our relationship with God.

Is it good enough just to have "faith" and a trinitarian understanding of God, or is it essential to have a right view of our relationship with God and an Apostolic understanding of God's economy of salvation? Are the sacraments essential?

Orthodoxy doesn't claim some kind of exclusive market on the truth. What we say is that Orthodoxy has the fullness of the truth. Most Protestants have some of the peices, some have more then others. None of them have all of the pieces put together into a unified whole in the same way that one finds in the Orthodox church.

Also Orthodoxy is not really out to adapt to culture but to renew culture and sanctify it.

[Speros]

The proper term is "cessationism" not "secessionism". I am not a neo-Confederate.

[Paul Cowan]

The proper term is "cessationism" not "secessionism". I am not a neo-Confederate.

After days and days of going back and forth on multiple threads and being this that and not the other, what do you believe? Maybe this will help us understand more of why you are asking what you are asking. and since someone here has been where you are, can probably respond better to you.

As King Solomon said, there is nothing new under the sun.

Paul

[Speros]

After days and days of going back and forth on multiple threads and being this that and not the other, what do you believe? Maybe this will help us understand more of why you are asking what you are asking. and since someone here has been where you are, can probably respond better to you.

As King Solomon said, there is nothing new under the sun.

Paul

At the most basic level, I believe in the Eleven Points of Salvation Army doctrine, through not necessarily word for word.



"1. We believe that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were given by inspiration of God, and that they only constitute the Divine rule of Christian faith and practice.

2. We believe that there is only one God, who is infinitely perfect, the Creator, Preserver, and Governor of all things, and who is the only proper object of religious worship.

3. We believe that there are three persons in the Godhead - the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, undivided in essence and co-equal in power and glory.

4. We believe that in the person of Jesus Christ the divine and human natures are united, so that he is truly and properly God and truly and properly man.

5. We believe that our first parents were created in a state of innocency, but by their disobedience they lost their purity and happiness, and that in consequence of their fall all men have become sinners, totally depraved and as such are justly exposed to the wrath of God.

6. We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ has by his suffering and death made an atonement for the whole world so that whosoever will may be saved.

7. We believe that repentance towards God, faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, and regeneration by the Holy Spirit, are necessary to salvation.

8. We believe that we are justified by grace through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ and that he that believeth hath the witness in himself.

9. We believe that continuance in a state of salvation depends upon continued obedient faith in Christ.

10. We believe that it is the privilege of all believers to be wholly sanctified, and that their whole spirit and soul and body may be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

11. We believe in the immortality of the soul; in the resurrection of the body; in the general judgment at the end of the world; in the eternal happiness of the righteous; and in the endless punishment of the wicked."
http://www.salvationarmy.org/ihq/www_sa.nsf/vw-dynamic-arrays/4FBD2041D52325CC80256D4E003B6CFA?openDocument


At a more complex level, my understanding of theology has been influenced by Marcus Borg, Donald Bloesch, John Howard Yoder, and others, though I don't agree with any theologian 100%. While Borg and I have some strong disagreements, I find his books to be generally helpful in understanding Scripture and theology.

This is a summary of Marcus Borg on the meaning of faith:



In Marcus Borg’s book The Heart of Christianity, he describes four meanings of the word faith from Christian history, three of which are heart-focused and one of which is head-focused (sort of). In highly summarized form, Borg describes the four meanings as follows:

* Faith as Assensus (this Latin word is closest to the English word “assent”) which is faith as belief – giving one’s mental assent to a proposition. However, it should be noted that, prior to the Protestant Reformation and the Enlightenment, faith as assensus was quite different than today. Before mankind developed such substantial knowledge about so many things, it was more or less effortless to believe in things like the Bible, as there was nothing else to consider as possible alternative truth.

* Faith as Fiducia (this Latin word is closest to the English word “trust”) refers to radical trust in God (not trust in a set of statements about God, but trust in God himself). The opposite of fiducia would be anxiety or worry. Faith, when viewed as radical trust, has great transforming power.

* Faith as Fidelitas (this Latin word is closest to the English word “fidelity”) refers to faithfulness to our relationship with God. That is, loyalty, allegiance, the commitment of the self at its deepest level, the commitment of the heart – a radical centering in God. How do you do this? By paying attention to the relationship and by loving what God loves (e.g. compassion and justice).

* Faith as Visio (this Latin word is closest to the English word “vision”) refers to faith as a way of seeing. That is, the way we see “the whole”…the way we see “what is”. We can see “the whole” as hostile and threatening (i.e. death will get us) which results in a defensive response to life. Or we could see “what is” in an indifferent manner (i.e. the universe is indifferent to mankind – this is the most common modern secular viewpoint). This view usually results in a concern primarily for ourselves and those who are most important to us. The third way to see “the whole” is to view it as life-giving and nourishing. “What is” is filled with wonder and beauty, even if sometimes a terrible beauty. This way of seeing the whole leads to radical trust, and generates a willingness to spend and be spent for the sake of a vision that goes beyond ourselves (i.e. the kind of life we see illustrated in Jesus’ life).

Martin Luther is likely as responsible as anyone for “faith” being central to the Christian vocabulary. But what form of “faith” was Luther’s? Not primarily assensus. “After entering a monastery after being struck by lightning, he went through a decade of agonized terror and ascetic self-denial, seeking to be righteous enough for God. During these years, he had assensus aplenty – and it terrified him. Perhaps because he believed “all of it”, he was filled with fear and anxiety. His transformation occurred through an experience of radical grace that transformed how he saw (visio), led him to see that faith was about trusting God (fiducia), and led him to a life of faithfulness (fidelitas) to God. For Luther, saving faith was not assensus. It was about visio, fiducia and fidelitas.”
http://prospectinggod.blogspot.com/2006/10/faith-matters.html


This is a more in depth lecture from Borg that covers the same themes as the book:



I want to comment very quickly on the ancient meanings of "credo" and of "believe." Credo is the word from which we get the word creed, and it's also the opening word of the Nicene Creed and the Apostle's Creed. Very strikingly, the roots of the word in both Greek and Latin do not mean, I agree with my intellect that the following statements are true, but rather mean, I give my heart to, I give my self at its deepest level to. To what, to these statements? No. I give my heart to God. Which God? The creator of Heaven and Earth. I give my heart to Jesus. Which Jesus? The one who was born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate and so forth. These are statements of what I give my loyalty to.

The pre-modern meaning of the word "believe." I've already mentioned that for many modern people it means believing something to be true, though there are reasons to think otherwise. If you go back to the English language before the Enlightenment, Shakespeare and before, the word "believe" invariably means "love." You see this in the Middle English word believen. That is where you get the modern English word "believe." Believen means to belove, so that ultimately, what you believe really means what you belove.
http://www.explorefaith.org/LentenHomily03.16.01.html


The important point is that faith is a living relationship with God, rather than just propositional belief about God. You may have doubts on certain points of doctrine yet have a faith that is fully alive.

[Anna Stickles]

Speros,

As far as cessationism goes, I suggest you read some of the stories of the saints. Anyone familiar with these starts to realize that the manifestation of gifts of the Holy Spirit is simply the normative state of those who have attained a certain level of spiritual maturity and has existed throughout the whole 2000 yrs of church history.

This is one of the definitions of the Church - Heb 12:22 But you have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, 23to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the judge of all men, to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, (these are the saints - the spiritually mature in Christ)

There are plenty of examples, not just from the first few centuries, but in modern times too of spirit filled men and women who healed and who had the gifts of prophesy, wisdom knowledge, etc. These are recorded by first hand witnesses from those who were in relationship with 20th century Greek and Russian spiritual teachers.

Where Orthodoxy differs from the pentecostal churches, (and where most Protestants who aren't either pentecostal or cessationist differ) is that they believe that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are manifest in people who are holy. In other words, someone who is full of the Holy Spirit will not only have spiritual gifts but a holy character.

Unfortunately pentecostalism often is full of egotistical showmanship, emotionalism and a kind of psuedospirituality. I don't say this to be demeaning, but I've seen it and the Bible calls us to be discerning in regards to these things. ( I John 4:1)

It's one thing to disparage those who have different beliefs,

its another thing to say that all beliefs are equal and we should never say that anyone is wrong,

and it is another yet to be stable in our own beliefs and have compassion on and pray for those who believe differently, that they would come to a fuller knowledge of the truth, as well as constantly praying for ourselves that God would lead us into all truth, recognizing that neither do we ourselves know or have the full truth because our own perspective is warped due to the fact that we are not yet perfected in Christ.

For many Pentecostals, they see attaining spiritual gifts as a goal in itself, whereas St Gregory of Nyssa (4th century) sums up the Orthodox perspective, reminding us that love, and the new creation in Christ is the goal.

( I apologize for the length of the quote but I wasn't sure where to cut it short)


And in another epistle concerning these same matters, he also speaks to his disciples, revealing to them the treasure of the Spirit and calling upon them to share in it. He says: ‘Strive after the gifts of the Spirit and I point out to you a yet more excellent way. If I should speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have charity, I have become as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal. And if I have prophecy and know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith so as to remove mountains, yet do not have charity, I am nothing. And if I distribute all my goods and if I deliver my body to be burned, yet do not have charity, it profits me nothing.’(1 Cor. 12.51; 15.3) And what the profit of charity is, what sort of fruit it produces, from what the possessor of charity is re-moved, and what it provides, he makes abundantly clear: ‘Charity does not envy, is not pretentious, is not puffed up, is not unseemly, is not self-seeking, is not provoked; thinks no evil, does not rejoice over wickedness, but rejoices with the truth; bears with all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Charity never fails.’(1 Cor. 15.4-8) Altogether wisely and accurately, he says: ‘Charity never fails.’ But what does it mean?

Even if someone receives the other gifts which the Spirit furnishes (I mean the tongues of angels and prophecy and knowledge and the grace of healing), but has never been entirely cleansed of the troubling passions within him through the charity of the Spirit, and has not received the final remedy of salvation in his soul, he is still in danger of failing if he does not keep charity steadfast and firm among his virtues.

Do not acquiesce in His gifts, thinking that because of the wealth and ungrudging grace of the Spirit nothing else is needed for perfection. When these riches come to you be modest in thought, ever submissive and thinking of love as the foundation of the treasure of grace for the soul, struggle against all passion until you come to the height of the goal of reverence to which the apostle himself came first and to which he leads his disciples through prayer and teaching, showing to those who love the Lord the change for the better and the grace which results from love, when he says: ‘For neither circumcision nor uncircumcision but a new creation is of any account. And whoever follow this rule, peace and mercy upon them, even upon the Israel of God.’(Gal. 6.15,16) And again: ‘If any man is in Christ, he is a new creature, the former things have passed away.’(2 Cor. 5.17) The new creation’ is the apostolic rule. And what this is he makes abundantly clear in another section, saying: ‘In order that I might present to myself the church in all her glory, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she might be holy and without blemish.’(Eph. 5.27) A new creature he called the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in a pure and blameless soul removed from evil and wicked. ness and shamefulness. For, when the soul hates sin, it closely unites itself with God, as far as it can, in the regimen of virtue; having been transformed in life, it receives the grace of the Spirit to itself, becomes entirely new again and is recreated.


BTW, I liked your quotes on the different kinds of faith. Thanks for sharing.

[Speros]

Speros,

As far as cessationism goes, I suggest you read some of the stories of the saints. Anyone familiar with these starts to realize that the manifestation of gifts of the Holy Spirit is simply the normative state of those who have attained a certain level of spiritual maturity and has existed throughout the whole 2000 yrs of church history.


I hope we are on the same page as to what cessationism means.



Question: "Is cessationism Biblical?"

Answer: Cessationism is the view that the “miracle gifts” of tongues and healing have ceased—that the end of the apostolic age brought about a cessation of the miracles associated with that age. Most cessationists believe that, while God can and still does perform miracles today, the Holy Spirit no longer uses individuals to perform miraculous signs.

The biblical record shows that miracles occurred during particular periods for the specific purpose of authenticating a new message from God. Moses was enabled to perform miracles to authenticate his ministry before Pharaoh (Exodus 4:1-8 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Exodus%204.1-8)); Elijah was given miracles to authenticate his ministry before Ahab (1 Kings 17:1 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/1%20Kings%2017.1); 18:24 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/1%20Kings%2018.24)); the apostles were given miracles to authenticate their ministry before Israel (Acts 4:10 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Acts%204.10), 16 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Acts%204.16)).

Jesus’ ministry was also marked by miracles, which the Apostle John calls “signs” (John 2:11 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/John%202.11)). John’s point is that the miracles were proofs of the authenticity of Jesus’ message.

After Jesus’ resurrection, as the Church was being established and the New Testament was being written, the apostles demonstrated “signs” such as tongues and the power to heal. “Tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not” (1 Corinthians 14:22 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/1%20Corinthians%2014.22), a verse that plainly says the gift was never intended to edify the church).

The Apostle Paul predicted that the gift of tongues would cease (1 Corinthians 13:8 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/1%20Corinthians%2013.8)). Here are 6 proofs that it has already ceased:

1) The apostles, through whom tongues came, were unique in the history of the church. Once their ministry was accomplished, the need for authenticating signs ceased to exist.

2) The miracle (or sign) gifts are only mentioned in the earliest Epistles, such as 1 Corinthians. Later books, such as Ephesians and Romans, contain detailed passages on the gifts of the Spirit, but the miracle gifts are not mentioned (although Romans does mention the gift of prophecy, the Greek word translated prophecy mean “speaking forth” and does not necessarily include prediction of the future).

3) The gift of tongues was a sign to unbelieving Israel that God’s salvation was now available to other nations. See 1 Corinthians 14:21-22 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/1%20Corinthians%2014.21-22) and Isaiah 28:11-12 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Isaiah%2028.11-12).

4) Tongues was an inferior gift to prophecy (preaching). Preaching the Word of God edifies believers, whereas tongues does not. Believers are told to seek prophesying over speaking in tongues (1 Corinthians 14:1-3 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/1%20Corinthians%2014.1-3)).

5) History indicates that tongues did cease. Tongues are not mentioned at all by the Post-Apostolic Fathers. Other writers such as Justin Martyr, Origen, Chrysostom, and Augustine considered tongues something that happened only in the earliest days of the Church.

6) Current observation confirms that the miracle of tongues has ceased. If the gift were still available today, there would be no need for missionaries to attend language school. Missionaries would be able to travel to any country and speak any language fluently, just as the apostles were able to speak in Acts 2.As for the miracle gift of healing, we see in Scripture that healing was associated with the ministry of Jesus and the apostles (Luke 9:1-2 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Luke%209.1-2)). And we see that as the era of the apostles drew to a close, healing, like tongues, became less frequent. The Apostle Paul, who raised Eutychus from the dead (Acts 20:9-12 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Acts%2020.9-12)), did not heal Epaphroditus (Philippians 2:25-27 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Philippians%202.25-27)), Trophimus (2 Timothy 4:20 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/2%20Timothy%204.20)), Timothy (1 Timothy 5:23 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/1%20Timothy%205.23)), or even himself (2 Corinthians 12:7-9 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/2%20Corinthians%2012.7-9)). The reasons for Paul’s “failures to heal” are 1) the gift was never intended to make every Christian well, but to authenticate apostleship; and 2) the authority of the apostles had been sufficiently proved, making further miracles unnecessary.

The reasons stated above are evidence that the sign gifts have ceased. According to 1 Corinthians 13:13-14:1 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/1%20Corinthians%2013.13-14.1), we would do well to “pursue love,” the greatest gift of all. If we are to desire gifts, we should desire to speak forth the Word of God, that all may be edified.
www.gotquestions.org/cessationism.html


While the Holy Spirit can perform miraculous signs today, they are by no means necessary for the church. A focus on signs and wonders can distract us from the Gospel of Christ. While I believe that Pentecostals who overemphasize gifts of the Spirit might be misguided, what matters is whether they are sincerely Christian, and I believe they are. Christ alone is the truth.

[Father David Moser]

what matters is whether they are sincerely Christian, and I believe they are. Christ alone is the truth.

This is a somewhat misleading statement. Yes, Christ alone is the truth, however, it is impossible to separate Christ from the Church for the Church is His Body. So now, you see, in order to be truly Christian (and by this I mean living in union and communion with Jesus Christ) one must be united to His Body. And so we are back to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - that is the Orthodox Church. Without the Church one cannot be "sincerely Christian". There can no true Christianity outside the Church. "If a man does not have the Church as his mother, he cannot have God as his Father."

Fr David Moser

[Andreas Moran]

Orthodoxy in the west is confronted in our times by the social norms of liberal democracy which tends to relativism and sectarianism is unequal measure (that is to say, there is more relativism than sectarianism). In such societies, the word 'Christian' came to be synonymous with characteristic social norms of fairness, tolerance, and so forth. The Orthodox faith is not just one more private faith, nor is it a crusading sect; it is, as Father David's post suggests, the only way to the authentic unity of mankind. The Church's dogmas may be seen in such societies as, well, dogmatic, and I can well imagine that Father David's accurate description of 'the sincere Christian' might be viewed so by some. The Church needs to find ways of being open and receptive and yet uncompromising as to what it believes about itself.

[Herman Blaydoe]

I hope we are on the same page as to what cessationism means.

While the Holy Spirit can perform miraculous signs today, they are by no means necessary for the church. A focus on signs and wonders can distract us from the Gospel of Christ. While I believe that Pentecostals who overemphasize gifts of the Spirit might be misguided, what matters is whether they are sincerely Christian, and I believe they are. Christ alone is the truth.

How sad is a life without miracles? I think they are very necessary. We do not focus on signs and wonders, but miracles happen every day. They are frequently associated with those who have conformed their lives to Christ, the ones we call saints, but even this lowly Pooh has seen miracles (not associated directly with me of course), in his life, in his parish, in the Church. We have a wonderful miracle each and very Divine Liturgy! Lives are transformed, is that not a "necessary" miracle?

Yes. Christ is truth. You are not truth. I am not truth. Truth is not a set of propositions, theories or philosophies, nor is Truth subject to a majority vote. Christ is Truth, nobody is arguing that and it is so obvious, particularly here, that it seems rather redundant for you to keep reiterating it. Can we simply acknowledge this and move on?

But, if I may, to take it one further necessary step, to know Christ is to know Truth. To know Truth is to know Christ. If there is one God, One Christ, then there is, perforce, one Truth, not many. You seem to say that NOBODY is close to Christ, so nobody really knows the Truth. I beg to differ. Or, perhaps, due to your obviously "unique" knowledge, you believe you happen to be closer than anyone else? Just askin'.

Herman the non-miraculous Pooh

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Father David Moser wrote:


Yes, Christ alone is the truth, however, it is impossible to separate Christ from the Church for the Church is His Body. So now, you see, in order to be truly Christian (and by this I mean living in union and communion with Jesus Christ) one must be united to His Body.

This is so important that it bears continual repeating: indeed there can be no such thing as Christianity (or Christianity for that matter) without the Church. To understand Christianity in this way- ie as if it could be without the Church- is to negate the purpose of Christ's Incarnation. For it denies the very means by which Christ offers salvation in the first place.

In any case- we should be clear that if by Christianity we mean something that does not imply the Church then there is no real reason why we should stop at various confessions for its expressions. If Christianity is simply an individual taking up of various moral positions which we think are reflected in Christ- then Christianity itself is also irrelevant since moral choice is not restricted to any one group. Indeed this is what we have seen in our own day as various Christian groups which have lost sight of the Church tend towards a 'universal moral position' that anyone of any belief could hold to- or an atheist or materialist or self-idoliser.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Speros]

This is a somewhat misleading statement. Yes, Christ alone is the truth, however, it is impossible to separate Christ from the Church for the Church is His Body. So now, you see, in order to be truly Christian (and by this I mean living in union and communion with Jesus Christ) one must be united to His Body. And so we are back to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - that is the Orthodox Church. Without the Church one cannot be "sincerely Christian". There can no true Christianity outside the Church. "If a man does not have the Church as his mother, he cannot have God as his Father."

Fr David Moser

Christianity is an absolutely personal faith. We are judged and saved eternally, not by our relation to the church but by our relation to Christ the Redeemer. - P. T. Forsyth

What does Scripture say on this matter? Is Christ the object of faith and the Redeemer of mankind or a church that claims itself alone to be the one true church?

[Father David Moser]

Christianity is an absolutely personal faith. We are judged and saved eternally, not by our relation to the church but by our relation to Christ the Redeemer. - P. T. Forsyth

What does Scripture say on this matter? Is Christ the object of faith and the Redeemer of mankind or a church that claims itself alone to be the one true church?

How can one have a relationship with Christ without having a relationship with His Body? For a classic essay on this matter, please read "Christianity or the Church" by St Hilarion Troitsky (http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/christianity_church_e.htm).

Fr David Moser

[Speros]

How can one have a relationship with Christ without having a relationship with His Body? For a classic essay on this matter, please read "Christianity or the Church" by St Hilarion Troitsky (http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/christianity_church_e.htm).

Fr David Moser

What does Scripture say on the matter?

My faith in Christ is more deep than I ever remember it being as an Orthodox Christian and I am more at peace. The legalism of the church gave me anxiety, and made me feel that I was never good enough to have a relationship with God. I say this not to keep you from being Orthodox Christian, but to say that Orthodoxy is not for every Christian, because it is not beneficial for every Christian. We are saved by Christ alone.

[Olga]

Speros, you wrote:


Christianity is an absolutely personal faith. We are judged and saved eternally, not by our relation to the church but by our relation to Christ the Redeemer.

"Personal" faith? By whose criteria? Is "Me, my Bible and Jesus" is all we need?

[Anna Stickles]

This is a somewhat misleading statement. Yes, Christ alone is the truth, however, it is impossible to separate Christ from the Church for the Church is His Body. So now, you see, in order to be truly Christian (and by this I mean living in union and communion with Jesus Christ) one must be united to His Body. And so we are back to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - that is the Orthodox Church. Without the Church one cannot be "sincerely Christian". There can no true Christianity outside the Church. "If a man does not have the Church as his mother, he cannot have God as his Father."

Fr David Moser

I agree with Speros that statements like these can be, and are, interpreted in very legalistic ways by Orthodox Christians; ways that become extremely damaging. I've seen it on this board, I've seen it in my parish, obviously Speros has experienced it and I appreciate his willingness to bring it up here.

Considering the situation of Christianity today in all it's myriad forms, I think it is important for us as Orthodox Christians to make clear the relationship of individuals to the spiritual reality of the Church in a way that avoids legalistic notions that define the Church strictly in terms of baptised Orthodox Christians or the Orthodox hiearchy, or those who believe Orthodox dogma etc. I am not sufficient for this, but Fr Raphael and I have discussed this issue and I feel somewhat obligated to at least give a stab at presenting something that I think aligns more closely with the spiritual reality. There are a lot of hurting and damaged people out there due to the confusion over this issue.

We can all agree that the Church is the body of Christ, it is as St Justin Popovich says (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=80913&postcount=13) a God man organism, and it's mission ...
"is to make every one of her faithful, organically and in person, one with the Person of Christ; to turn their sense of self into a sense of Christ, and their self-knowledge (self-awareness) into Christ-knowledge (Christ-awareness); for them life to become the life in Christ and for Christ; their personality to become personality in Christ and for Christ; that within them might live not they themselves, but Christ in them. The mission of the Church is still to bring about in her members the conviction that the proper state of human personhood is composed of immortality and eternity and not of the realm of time and mortality... and the conviction that man is a wayfarer who is wending his way in the sway of time and morality towards immortality and all eternity."

The Church does works of mercy, but this is not it's identity nor it's eternal mission, the Church fosters faith, but this is not it's ground of being, but rather our response. The Church teaches truth, but only in order to lead men into a living union and conscious perception of that Truth. The ultimate reality of the Church is a living union with Christ.

This living union has it's roots in the sacramental life of the Church. To say that the Church is a sacramental entity is equivalent to saying that it is a God man organism. We have to understand that the sacraments themselves are simply places where we participate in this reality more fully and consciously. Our ultimate goal is to participate in this reality continously and fully, but only those who have attained a certain level of spiritual maturity in their prayer do this, this side of eternity.

What about those outside the Church? Are they excluded from sacramental grace, the sacramental life of the Church, simply because they are not baptised into the Church and are not partaking of communion?

St Symeon the New Theologian says,
"the divinity imparted to us through this communion cannot be broken down into parts, is indivisible, and thus all of us who partake of it in truth must necessarily and inseperably be one body with Christ in the one Spirit."
therefore if those outside the Church are partaking of the life of Christ in any way they are partaking of the same sacramental life that we are and are in that measure united with the Church.

I think that most of us have understood that spiritual reading is a sacramental activity. As Elder Aimilianos says in his sermon on Spiritual Study, (The Church at Prayer)

"The spiritual book you read is the word of God, it is what God has said. If your're sitting there reading and you happen to hear a voice you recognize, you say, "I know that person. The voice reveals the person. Where God's voice is, there is God, hidden in the voice. The spiritual book, in other words, is a mystery, a sacrament, a sign which conceals the presence of God."

Now if there are Christians who are approaching the Bible or other Orthodox spiritual books for that matter with a disposition of heart and mind that allows them to participate in this sacramental reality and receive this sacramental life are they not participating in the Church? If Roman Catholics, or Protestants who are approaching the sacraments of their own church with a disposition that allows them to receive life from these sacraments is this not a participation in the Church? Note I am not advocating that Catholic sacraments are exactly the same as Orthodox sacraments. There are degrees to which we are living in the light. Passions, error and darkness - the general culture that exists within a given tradition- influences the Light that exists and can be received on a corporate not just an individual scale.

But certainly when it comes to individuals who are baptized or not baptized Orthodox we can imagine the person outside the official confines of the Orthodox Church who is partaking of the life of God through these things more fully, more continuously, then the baptized Orthodox person who shows up once or twice a year just to pay his dues and who due to hardness of heart may not be partaking of grace, even when they do show up. But of course it is in forcing ourselves to participate, even if only a little, that our hard hearts start to soften, and the darkness gets chased away and then we start to come back for more. Thus we start to grow in Christ.

Hopefully this has given us a start at least in outlining an understanding of the Church in relation to Her members that is not legalistic.

[Herman Blaydoe]

What does Scripture say on the matter?

Matthew 18:15-20 “Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector. “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. “Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.”

Matthew 16:18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

The Church is not one person. It is the collective of the believers, the right-worshipping people of God. It is from the Church that Holy Scripture has its authority. The Apostles were given specific authority by God not given to every believer. They passed that authority down to specific people, to establish and maintain good order in the Church. Not all Christian assemblies are created equal. Some are much less faithful to the Apostolic Witness than others. It only makes sense that the closer a church is to that Apostolic Witness, the closer it is to Christ Himself, who is Truth, making it closer to the Truth. Different assemblies have different parts of the Truth but not the whole Truth. It is the Orthodox Church that has maintained that faithfulness, that has preserved that witness in its fullness. Anything else ends up being something less.


My faith in Christ is more deep than I ever remember it being as an Orthodox Christian and I am more at peace. The legalism of the church gave me anxiety, and made me feel that I was never good enough to have a relationship with God. I say this not to keep you from being Orthodox Christian, but to say that Orthodoxy is not for every Christian, because it is not beneficial for every Christian. We are saved by Christ alone.

I would maintain you never really knew the Orthodox Church more than superficially and are denouncing a strawman that you have constructed yourself. It is not like you are really exposing some startling new information that we ignorant Orthodox are totally unaware of. If we are slapping our foreheads, it is not due to revelation, but merely resignation that another misguided missionary has come to "educate" us about things we already knew about and have already rejected. Many of us were once members of these other assemblies you praise and know more about them than you do, but we saw that they were lacking, and found our way to the Holy Orthodox Church. It is very sad for us to see you going in the opposite direction. And if that seems to be working for you, then good for you, but do not be surprized when we take issue when you bring up things that we already examined and rejected a long time ago. You would do well to spend some time learning to use the search function. Most of the issues you have raised have been discussed at length in other threads.

Herman the tired Pooh

[Anna Stickles]

The Church is not one person. It is the collective of the believers, the right-worshipping people of God.

You know this brings up another issue on differences between Orthodox and Protestant conceptions of the Church. Of all the analogies in the NT used of the Church the only ones that the Protestants really have any grounding in is that of the Church as the "Household of Faith"

There is no reality in their claims that the Church is the Body of Christ, or the Bride of Christ They may accept it verbally because the Scripture says it but they deny it in practice.

Heb 12 :21-25 says "But you have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, 23to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the judge of all men, to the spirits of righteous men made perfect,4to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel."

But since many Protestants don't see the Church as anything more then a group of people who have faith, and some don't believe that there are any righteous men made perfect, they deny this.

And certainly without the Orthodox Liturgy "Blessed is the Kingdom of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit." (opening words of the Liturgy) they can have no experience of the Church being the kingdom of God, the Heavenly Jerusalem.

Elder Aimilianos in The Church at Prayer has an absolutely beautiful sermon on the Liturgy.


"In the Liturgy, we travel toward the kingdom of Christ, and at the same time we are already present within it. Christ has raised us up to heaven, or -rather- he has brought heaven down into the Church."...

"What is this kingdom, which is blessed, glorified, honored, and superior to every other kingdom? It is the kingdom of heaven, the kingdom of God. It is paradise in which Christ has placed us; it is our holy Church. Its kind is the God of three suns, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Ther servants of the King are the angels and archangels, along with the thrones principalities...the many-eyed cherubim and the six winged seraphim. The kings generals are the saints. Our Lady the Theotokos is the queen. The faithful soldiers of the kingdom are all those Christians who are ready to follow Christ, whatever the cost..."

Just as the communal worship of Israel was a type and figure of the first coming of Christ, in the same way everything that we see and experience in our Orthodox worship is a type and figure of the coming Kingdom that Christ will bring into it's fullness at his return. The icons of the saints and angels, the Gospel crowned with gold, the small and great entries, the readings and of course the crowing moment of partaking of the wedding supper of the Lamb. It's too much for one small post.

In the same way that the Law, the prophets and the priests in Israel prepared the people for the coming of their Saviour, so too does life within the Church and obedience to the prophets, apostles, teachers, evangelists and pastors of the church prepare us to accept Him at His return. (Eph 4:10-15)

[Alexander Zhdanov]

St Justin Popovich says that salvation is reached only together with all saints, salvation is given not to a proud single, but to a humble sobornik (a person who is a part of the Church council) And all are members of one body, the head of which is Jesus Christ. Thus even the biggest member of Church requires prayers of the smallest!!!

Do svidanya,

Alexander

[S. Rey]

The rapid growth of Pentecostalism in the Global South, mostly as indigenous movements rather than imposed from colonialism, shatters the idea that Protestantism is an exclusively Western faith. Its ability to adapt to the surrounding culture without compromising fundamental doctrine has always been one of Protestantism's greatest strengths.


Not quite. The Church did so in the times of the Fathers, when Christianity took on uniquely Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Celtic, German, Ethiopian, and later, Slavic forms, ( as seen in their art and chants) without compromising the unity of the faith by doing so. Greek missionaries even invented an alphabet for the Slavs.

[Speros]

What is "right worship" from a first century Christian perspective? There was no developed liturgy that you have today. The early Christians met in homes and in catacombs. Worship was informal and the love feast was as full meal, not bread and wine in a ritualistic setting. "Right worship," from a Biblical perspective, is to worship in spirit and in truth. Such worship can take many forms depending on cultural and historical circumstances. Your set liturgy was established by neither Christ nor his apostles. To assume that yours is the only right way ignores history.

[Herman Blaydoe]

What is "right worship" from a first century Christian perspective? There was no developed liturgy that you have today. The early Christians met in homes and in catacombs. Worship was informal and the love feast was as full meal, not bread and wine in a ritualistic setting. "Right worship," from a Biblical perspective, is to worship in spirit and in truth. Such worship can take many forms depending on cultural and historical circumstances. Your set liturgy was established by neither Christ nor his apostles. To assume that yours is the only right way ignores history.
Sorry but you are the one ignoring history. Read St. Justin Martyr who describes liturgical worship around 150AD. Or better yet get a hold of the Didache, written around 70AD, rather than revisionist documents written over 1900 years later. I don't think you know as much as you think you know.

Herman the historical Pooh

[Speros]

By legalism, I'm referring to the rules and regulations of the church to be right with God. If we are saved by grace through faith in Christ alone, then good works are the fruit of our justification rather than its precondition. Works of love are performed in service to one's neighbor, not in Pharisaic piety.



Finding freedom from legalism may depend on dismantling the religious requirements set by one’s group or on obtaining deliverance from one’s psychological dependence on human efforts.

A works-based salvation is difficult to break from, because the person feels that he or she is displeasing to God. The conscience protests what it should not protest. Thus witnessing to a legalist requires a distinct sensitivity...

The legalist needs to see that a difference exists between what is relative and somewhat defined by culture, such as expressions of modesty, and what is absolute and should be interpreted the same in any culture, such as the Ten Commandments.

To legalists, God is difficult to reach. The holy God translates for them into a distant God. Yet, the Scriptures describe God as both holy (separate, pure) and intimate. God is not merely hard to please, but impossible to please outside of Christ. In Christ, however, there is complete acceptance for the believer on the basis of Christ’s works, and Christ as our Advocate and High Priest provides immediate access to the presence of the Father (Heb. 4:14-16).

Legalism’s cure may look similar to its slavery. While following Christ is liberating and delightful, it is also arresting. We are free; yet we are bondservants — a position at times more restrictive than a system. For example, the Israelites were required to give a tithe of their money. In the New Testament, the Spirit may require individuals to give more than a tithe.

Legalists can trade human efforts and dead works for dependence on Christ and enduring works — and be liberated in the process. They are liberated from a taskmaster to participate in a love offering. Rules are evaluated in light of a relationship with Christ. Human efforts give way to His righteousness. Distance from God is replaced with intimacy with God.

In witnessing to the legalist, we are not comparing religious systems. Christianity doesn’t offer a system, but a Person.
http://www.equip.org/articles/addressing-the-legalist

[Andreas Moran]

I wonder if Speros and his like say the Lord's prayer like this:

My Father, which art in heaven, hallowed be thy Name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, in earth as it is in heaven. Give me this day my daily bread. And forgive me my trespassers, As I forgive them that trespass against me. And lead me not into temptation; But deliver me from evil.

[Michael Stickles]

By legalism, I'm referring to the rules and regulations of the church to be right with God.

Strictly speaking, I believe this is an incorrect way of looking at things (although many do look at it this way). What you find in the Church is less a matter of rules than of therapy - a program of cooperating with the work of Christ so as to participate in healing the damage we have have done to our souls through sin. These efforts are part of what it means to "work out your salvation with fear and trembling." We cannot do the work on our own - all the ascesis in the world won't heal anything without God's grace - but we do have our part in the process.

I have seen legalism in pretty much every religious group I've been a part of (Orthodox, Roman Catholic, various flavors of Protestantism, new age, etc., etc.), but rarely was it an integral part of the nature of the group; rather, it often seemed to be a product of the deep need of some people to have well-defined certainty instead of the humility of faith.


If we are saved by grace through faith in Christ alone ...

We aren't. Pardon me, but here we get to one of my long-running pet peeves that started way before I became Orthodox. The Scripture says "for by grace are ye saved through faith," but it does not say "faith alone". The false dichotomy of works vs. faith leads to a great number of doctrinal errors. Taking "faith alone" to its logical conclusion makes Matthew 25:31-46 meaningless.

Anyway, I would argue that the Orthodox Church is not legalistic, though I will certainly admit that finding members or even clergy that are isn't all that difficult. I'm afraid, though, that there is no simple way to "prove" this to you. We would have to go back to the Fall and deal with what happened and the true effects of sin, then what the Incarnation implied, how Christ's death and resurrection dealt with the problem of sin, and probably more. The Orthodox perspective on all of these differs from the Protestant, and the ascetical practices of the church - what you refer to as "rules and regulations", though this is a misleading term - cannot, in my opinion, be properly understood without that grounding.

In Christ,
Michael

[Andreas Moran]

Post

Rules and legalism

One of the things that attracted me to the Orthodox Church was that it was not juridical (and I’m a lawyer!). Yes, there are rules for the good ordering of certain of its functions (such as the rules concerning marriage) but even these are to be seen in the context of regulating behaviour in ways which tend to salvation. So far as other rules are concerned, such as the fasting rules, these are no more rules than some regime for physical health prescribed by a doctor.

Personal v. communal faith

The Church was foreordained by God (see Jeremiah 31:31-34 quoted in Hebrews 8:10) to be His new and final covenant (see Hebrews 8:13) with mankind. Christ brought that new covenant into the world Christ did not come to save each person individually by bestowing faith on each and so building a myriad of individual relationships with every person who will ever live but to establish His Church on the faith confessed by St Peter: ‘upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it’ (Matt. 16:18). This Church was clearly to have a place in men’s lives; it was to be, among other things, the final arbiter with power to determine matters between men: ‘And if he shall neglect to hear them [witnesses], tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto the as an heathen man and a publican’ (Matt. 18:17). There are numerous references in Acts to the Church and its growth after Pentecost. From the occasion of Pentecost, we see that the Church is the flock Christ the Good Shepherd: ‘I am the good shepherd’ (John 10:14). Furthermore, Christ spoke not of individuals but of His ‘fold’: ‘and there shall be one fold and one shepherd’ (John 10:16). Christ said He would send the Holy Spirit (John 16:7), not to inspire each person individually but to lead the ‘flock’, and guide the bishops – ‘episkopous’, ‘overseers’ – of the Church: ‘Take heed therefore, unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers , to feed the church of God’ (Acts 20:28). Christ prayed for us not as individuals but as a community, His flock. This is most movingly said in Christ’s great prayer in John 17 which was for all the faithful of all ages and not only the disciples: ‘Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one’ (John 17:20-21). The epistles of Apostle Paul contain many references to the Church and his letters are mostly to churches, e.g.: ‘Unto the church of God which is at Corinth’ (1 Cor. 1:2). He describes the Church meeting communally for the eucharist (1 Cor. 11:20) and warns that those who do not conduct themselves appropriately not to ‘despise’ ‘the church of God’ (1 Cor. 11:22). Paul tells us that the glory of Christ is in His Church: ‘Unto him be glory in the church’ (Eph. 3:21). This is because Christ is the Head of His Church: ‘Christ is the head of the church’ (Eph. 5:23), and the Church is Christ’s Body: ‘Christ in my flesh for his body’s sake, which is the church’ (Col. 1:24). Pauls also says these words: ‘the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth’ (1 Tim. 3:15).

Scripture thus teaches that the Church of the living God exists as a sacramental community which Christ prayed would be ‘one’. It is the bride of the Bridegoom (John 3:29). The Church is mystical but real in the world and the flock of the faithful are not isolated individuals nor even groups. Christ’s revelation of Himself and the salvation He offers are made to mankind; the Holy Spirit inspires individuals to be members of Christ’s flock, not to enter into a one-to-one exclusive relationship. Christians are rather ‘members one of another’ (Eph. 4:25). Just as God is not an absolute monad but a Oneness in community – the Holy trinity – a communion of love, so we are called by Christ to be a unity of persons in a loving communion. Accordingly, individualism in a relationship with Christ as meaning independent action as opposed to communal co-operation is a sin against the Holy Spirit. To claim an individual relationship with Christ apart from the Church is to deny scripture, Christ’s own prayer, and the activity of the Holy Spirit.

[M.C. Steenberg]

What is "right worship" from a first century Christian perspective? There was no developed liturgy that you have today. The early Christians met in homes and in catacombs. Worship was informal and the love feast was as full meal, not bread and wine in a ritualistic setting.

This is simply not true, Speros. It is a popular myth amongst those who have not seriously studied first- and second-century Church history; but anyone who has, knows quite well that we have extremely developed liturgical rites from the very first. Yes, early Christians did at times meet in homes (particularly prior to the peace of the Church, as they could not build dedicated Christian structures); but the evidence, both textual and archaeological, that we have of these 'home churches' is of their deeply structured, liturgical, ritualistic nature.

The idea that Christians simply gathered together in a house 'informally' with 'no developed liturgy' is simply nonsense.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Herman Blaydoe]

I am afraid somebody has very little idea of what the Orthodox Church actually teaches. It certainly does not teach legalism. Everyone here agrees that "legalism" is a bad thing and not part of the church so the entire post is moot. It really has no bearing on the discussion at hand.

Herman the moot Pooh

[Anna Stickles]

There was no developed liturgy that you have today. The early Christians met in homes and in catacombs. Worship was informal and the love feast was as full meal, not bread and wine in a ritualistic setting. "Right worship," from a Biblical perspective, is to worship in spirit and in truth. Such worship can take many forms depending on cultural and historical circumstances. Your set liturgy was established by neither Christ nor his apostles. To assume that yours is the only right way ignores history.

One of the things that gets forgotten is that at first there was no specifically Christian worship. The Apostles were Jewish. They did not dump the Jewish worship system and simply make something informal but continued the Jewish form of worship, gradually adapting it to suit their needs, but never abandoning the basic form which was very structured with set prayers to read, etc. I suggest you read through this sight (http://www.liturgica.com/html/lit.jsp). which gives a very well organized, easy to read overview of Jewish and early Christian worship.

In The Didache (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html) which Herman mentioned it says this: (and I provided the link so you can read the whole thing)

But let not your fasts be with the hypocrites, for they fast on the second and fifth day of the week. Rather, fast on the fourth day and the Preparation (Friday).Notice here that the Christians are not developing something different, but something parallel. And of course we today still keep the fast on Wed and Fridays.

Again from the Didache


Chapter 9. The Eucharist. Now concerning the Eucharist, give thanks this way. First, concerning the cup:
We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever..Notice the parallels with the prayer said before partaking of the cup in a modern day Jewish passover service "Blessed are you O Lord our Gd, Ruler of the universe, who created the fruit of the vine."

Notice also that a specific prayer is given that is to be said before partaking of the bread and after communion. It can be seen that these prayers have been developed not only to thank God but to teach theological truth.


Chapter 14. Christian Assembly on the Lord's Day. But every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one who is at odds with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: "In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations." Here we can see that the early Christians practiced confession before partaking of the Eucharist and also notice the mention that this worship is considered in the context of a sacrifice.

Notice what St Ireneaus (~180 AD) says (link to Against Heresies 4.18 (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vi.xix.html))
4.18.1. The oblation of the Church, therefore, which the Lord gave instructions to be offered throughout all the world, is accounted with God a pure sacrifice, and is acceptable to Him; not that He stands in need of a sacrifice from us, but that he who offers is himself glorified in what he does offer, if his gift be accepted.

2. And the class of oblations in general has not been set aside; for there were both oblations there [among the Jews], and there are oblations here [among the Christians]. Sacrifices there were among the people; sacrifices there are, too, in the Church: but the species alone has been changed, inasmuch as the offering is now made, not by slaves, but by freemen.
What oblation is the saint talking about in this passage? Well he makes it clear.
5. Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned. But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.

6. Now we make offering to Him, not as though He stood in need of it, but rendering thanks for His gift, and thus sanctifying what has been created. ...

As, therefore, He does not stand in need of these [services], yet does desire that we should render them for our own benefit, lest we be unfruitful; so did the Word give to the people that very precept as to the making of oblations, although He stood in no need of them, that they might learn to serve God: thus is it, therefore, also His will that we, too, should offer a gift at the altar, frequently and without intermission.

Hopefully in this whole parallel you can see the origin of the priesthood.

Herman mentioned Justin Martyr and in his writings is a description of the prayer litanies almost exactly as we do them today. In one of the letters of St Ignatius of Antioch (died around 117 and was probably appointed to his bishopric by St Peter) he describes the great entrance, carrying the bread and wine in pilgrimage around the church as part of their worship exactly as we do it today. (I can try to refind the quote if you want me to. I keep kicking myself for not making a note of where this was when I read it)

PS: On faith alone: James 2:20-24 "0 You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend. 24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone."

You can see here that James talks about the perfecting of our faith through our working. Protestants typically ignore or misinterpret this Scripture because they have a monergistic rather then synergistic view of our relationship with God and thus there are lots of areas where their theology bogs down into an either/or rather then a both/and and not just in this area of faith and works. You talked about the different kinds of faith above and I am sure you can see how as we grow in Christ, so too grows our trust, our knowledge our vision etc. This growth only occurs through working. Thus we are saved (brought into deeper levels of communion with God) and justified (made righteous by grace) through a cooperation of faith and works.

[Anna Stickles]

the love feast was as full meal, not bread and wine in a ritualistic setting.

Just one other note. If you have ever attended a Jewish Passover meal (Seder) you will note that this is a full meal but that it is very ritualistic. There is a whole service - scripture readings, prayers, lighting of candles etc. that precede the meal along with set hymns and prayers after the meal. It's really beautiful and theologically deep and of course the Last Supper was the pattern that the Apostles adopted for the love feast.

I've seen serveral different versions of the Seder service but here is a link (http://wf-f.org/Seder.html) to one so you can get a feel for what it is like and the similarities between it and the Orthodox liturgy.

[Speros]

If I've experienced a religious conversion, it is from a guilt-based faith to a grace-based faith; from requirements and punishment to love and freedom. (Ephesians 2:8) As an Orthodox Christian, I wanted to avoid sin out of guilt, and this guilt made me resent God so I sinned even more. Now, holding fast to the free grace of Christ, it is out of love that I choose to avoid sin, in gratitude of the forgiveness which Christ has given me. My journey is from the Phariseeism of Saul to the grace and freedom of Paul.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear friends,

Just a reminder that this forum is not the place for discussions about inter-church themes, much less debates over which traditions one belongs to.

This particular thread dates back to a time, nearly seven years ago, before our focus here in the Discussion Community was as clear as it has since become. It has recently been re-kindled; but please can I encourage everyone to use it to discuss the question of East/West as 'two lungs', the relationship between them, etc., as ecclesiastical issues in the Church's life - as was implied to a degree in the original posting from 2003 - and not as a place for general banter on why one prefers one tradition or another, etc. That is not the purpose of this forum.

With thanks,

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Andreas Moran]

If I've experienced a religious conversion, it is from a guilt-based faith to a grace-based faith; from requirements and punishment to love and freedom. (Ephesians 2:8) As an Orthodox Christian, I wanted to avoid sin out of guilt, and this guilt made me resent God so I sinned even more. Now, holding fast to the free grace of Christ, it is out of love that I choose to avoid sin, in gratitude of the forgiveness which Christ has given me. My journey is from the Phariseeism of Saul to the grace and freedom of Paul.

A grace-based faith; love and freedom; seeking to avoid sin out of love for Christ; gratitude for His forgiveness; Pauline grace and freedom. A pretty good description of Orthodoxy. Reminds me of the likes of St Silouan the Athonite, Elder Sophrony and Elder Porphyrios.

[Eric Peterson]

The rapid growth of Pentecostalism in the Global South, mostly as indigenous movements rather than imposed from colonialism, shatters the idea that Protestantism is an exclusively Western faith. Its ability to adapt to the surrounding culture without compromising fundamental doctrine has always been one of Protestantism's greatest strengths.

Sorry, I nearly gagged reading this. The impact of Pentecostalism in areas such as Native Alaska, from my study, has been disastrous for native cultures, very much akin to what was done by Protestant missionaries in the 19th and early 20th centuries--which was very much about Americanization and so-called "civilization."

In the Global South, particularly in Africa, Orthodoxy is growing by leaps and bounds.

[Andreas Moran]

Speros seems to me to have a grossly distorted idea of what Orthodoxy is since what he decribes is something I, and it seems all of us who have posted here, do not recognise. He has fled, not from Orthodoxy as it is but from his idea of it, and has gone to a religion of his own construction. He also sees other things - as shown in his last post - in an inverted way. Or, he could just be having us on. In any event, I don't see the defence of what Orthodoxy really is against a distorted view of it as 'Orthodoxy through Patristic, Monastic & Liturgical Study'.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

Please do read my post #48, above (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=86690&postcount=48). Let us draw a line under the side issues of individuals' views on one church or another: future posts in this thread should be on the questions I mentioned, as related to the original post.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Mary]

Fr Matthew, please forgive me for this post. I have to say what I'm thinking. I know it doesn't fit under this thread, but I hope it fits somewhere on the forum.


Speros seems to me to have a grossly distorted idea of what Orthodoxy is since what he decribes is something I, and it seems all of us who have posted here, do not recognise. He has fled, not from Orthodoxy as it is but from his idea of it, and has gone to a religion of his own construction. He also sees other things - as shown in his last post - in an inverted way. Or, he could just be having us on. In any event, I don't see the defence of what Orthodoxy really is against a distorted view of it as 'Orthodoxy through Patristic, Monastic & Liturgical Study'.

Andreas, we do not know what kind of experiences Speros had growing up in the Church. It isn't easy being an orthodox christian. Children need a lot more help than grown ups do, till they make the faith their own. In the 3 1/2 yrs that we've been orthodox, I watched my kids going from totally loving everything about the church, to totally hating it. I was scared. No one knew what to do to help. There is much that they need, that is different from what adults need, and it wasn't there for them. Granted, part of the reason was because we were in a very small parish, and ours were the only kids who were brought to church every sunday. But then, an older person can love a child, can they not? Talk to them, take an interest in their lives, befriend them, love on them.... a few minutes every sunday, too much to ask for? But no, they had to talk about their own problems, all the time. I got pretty tired of knowing them inside out, myself. But I didn't become orthodox to make friends, so it didn't affect my attitude towards the church. However, the children were affected. Negatively.

So, we moved to a larger parish, where there are more families with kids, who actually bring their kids to church. I was greatly encouraged to see that the grown up children of the retired priest, and also the present priest were all still active in the church. That is difficult to do, because children of priests are under more pressure than others. All these unrealistic expectations are placed on children, and so many times, it is unconscious, but it does turn into legalism! We expect them to be able to sit or stand through the service without causing disturbances. But they want to wriggle and whisper and make faces at each other. We get mad at them. Do we ever stop to think that our thoughts are doing the exact same thing inside our heads? It takes a lot of work, to be fully engaged in the services. Some days are better than others. Same for them. But we are harsh on them, and easy on ourselves. We think we're doing well, because we're still on the outside, able to stand and cross ourselves at the right time.

It happens among protestants, and the orthodox aren't immune to it. Anyway, the atmosphere in the parish we now attend is very welcoming to children. In just six months, my kids are happy going to church again. The services are not enough to keep children in church. They need to be loved. Unconditionally. Relentlessly. And without hypocrisy. That is the only thing that will keep them from leaving the church. It is also the thing that will bring them back, if they happen to leave. So many of the children of our former parish have left the church. I've met some of them. They're the loveliest people. I love being with them. Why did they leave?

If Speros didn't find the practical expression of Christianity in the Orthodox Church, then, maybe we need to find out why, so we do not make the same mistakes and turn people away from our own parishes.

in Christ,
Mary.

[Andreas Moran]

Dear Mary,

I hope Fr Dcn Matthew will be patient with us but to respond to you, I was careful not to speculate why Speros had the idea he has of Orthodoxy, but whatever negative experience in a parish he may have had, reading and private devotion could counteract that. I know only too well how difficult being Orthodox is (I often feel a fraud in even calling myself Orthodox); I also have my criticisms of the way it is all to often practised, not least in Russia, not to mention deep disappointments with some people in the Church at all levels. But I know that the Church is Christ's kingdom on earth and possesses the fulness of the Truth. That keeps me going, however inadequately.

[Mary]

Dear Mary,

I hope Fr Dcn Matthew will be patient with us but to respond to you, I was careful not to speculate why Speros had the idea he has of Orthodoxy, but whatever negative experience in a parish he may have had, reading and private devotion could counteract that. I know only too well how difficult being Orthodox is (I often feel a fraud in even calling myself Orthodox); I also have my criticisms of the way it is all to often practised, not least in Russia, not to mention deep disappointments with some people in the Church at all levels. But I know that the Church is Christ's kingdom on earth and possesses the fulness of the Truth. That keeps me going, however inadequately.

Andreas, I agree with you. Negative experiences have no power to keep us away from Christ, unless we allow them to. Regardless of what happens we're each responsible for responding to Christ, and we can't blame others, for our own lack of love and devotion. However, it is so much harder for one who has been wounded by members of the Church, to return. And I think, they just need to be given a lot of compassion, their wounds acknowledged, and also, we have to be extra careful not to let our own carelessness and lack of love, wound them further.

And although reading and private devotions are helpful, I for one, needed a real live person, made up of flesh and blood, (not to put down the saints, I love them, but I do like to hear a voice, or to read a personal e-mail) - to help me not give up searching for God. Now, although I still prefer encouragement from a person, I am not as dependent on it as I was before. So now that I have found what I was looking for in the Church, am I not responsible to make sure I don't become a stumbling block and prevent another from finding it too? That's the way I approach the issue. I'm always afraid I'll be the one to drive my kids away from church. I've seen so many families, who've lost their kids. What's the point of gaining salvation for myself, if my children are lost? (But I'm only talking about my two kids, not everyone else in the world, I"m not a motherly person!) =)

In Christ,
Mary.