Church and State

[CelticRebel]

So who are, these dissenters? The arian bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia who baptised Constantine? How about the Novatian bishop Asclepios who was invited to Nicea to present his treatise on trinitarian theology. How about St Athanasios? He was banished and brought back a few times by the same emperor. How about St Basil the Great and Gregory Nazianzen when they wrote against arian bishops, who represented the state church then?
How about the Coptic popes? Are they the dissenters who continue to recognize themselves as the roman Patriarchate of Alexandria of the Nicene canon?

I've already answered that, several times.

Let us not quarrel, okay?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

They may have been isolated, but they hadn't broken communion from the Church. St. Patrick (who we consider an Orthodox Saint) was a huge influence on Celtic Christianity. Many elements were of their spirituality were more like Orthodoxy than the Roman influences. St. Bridget, St. Patrick, St. Columba...they all are part of the Church.

I can't claim to be well educated in Celtic History, but there is a tradition of spirituality there that I do believe was part of the Orthodox Church (before the Church was split into Catholic and Orthodox).

Much of it was in line with the history of the Desert Fathers and Desert Mothers if studying it in more depth. I am reminded of others such as Sarah and Syncletica, two of the names of several Desert Mothers whose sayings have been preserved and who reflect the Celtic tendency of women leaders. One of the best resources on the matter can be found in the work entitled The Egyptian Desert in the Irish Bogs by Fr Gregory Telepneff

 

[All4Christ]

Much of it was in line with the history of the Desert Fathers and Desert Mothers if studying it in more depth. I am reminded of others such as Sarah and Syncletica, two of the names of several Desert Mothers whose sayings have been preserved and who reflect the Celtic tendency of women leaders. One of the best resources on the matter can be found in the work entitled The Egyptian Desert in the Irish Bogs by Fr Gregory Telepneff

I'll definitely look into that! I've been wanting to read some books on the Desert Mothers anyways Thanks for the resources!

 

[Gxg (G²)]

As it turned out, the collapse of the State under the successors of Theodosius, and later the collapse of the Eastern Empire's attempt to restore the State in western Europe under Justinian, doomed the partnership in the West. Moreover, with a temporal vacuum, the Church gradually took on more and more State functions, because there was no one else to perform these functions. St. Gregory (590-604) is a good example of a pious pope necessitated by the political crisis in Rome to feed its people, organize defenses, etc. Later, the temporal rulers in the West got their act together, which led to a tremendous conflict between Church and State as the new kings of the West sought to reassert their authority over the Church in temporal matters. This cam e to a head with the Investiture Controversy in the 11th century and continued throughout the Middle Ages with Innocent's Unum Sanctum and later the Papist/Conciliar battles of the 15th century. This conflict and disorganization in the Church and the accompanying corruption directly led to the Reformation and idea that groups could split off from the Church based on personal interpretation of Scripture.

The Eastern Church and State created conditions of social, economic, political and spiritual stagnation that rendered the State unable to defend itself from the Turkish and Crusader invasions. As the State collapsed, the Orthodox retreated into mysticism with the Hesychast movement and really cared little if they were under Western or Turkish rule.

Before condemning Constantine, we should look more closely about what his Empire was and aspired to be. To me, it is a political system much more in tune with Christ and the promotion of his Kingdom than anything around today.

Good points, as I think many fail to remember the many times the Church was forced to actually lead the affairs of the state when state leadership failed and the Church had to set an example of what it meant to have godly leadership - while also being careful not to become co-opted by others. And there were other times where many noted the examples of the believers in the NT (i.e. Cornelius the Roman Centurion from Acts 10-11, the Roman Centurion in Matthew 8 whose faith astounded Christ himself, the believers who worked in the marketplaces throughout the Roman Empire and supported believers, etc.) - there were believers in positions of authority and these things we cannot dismiss easily if being consistent with the actual text of scripture.

As much as others may not like COnstantine, he did make it possible for paganism to be eradicated at numerous points and allow the Churches to have time to actually practice social reforms in their own camps when it came to not allowing all things to flourish (more shared here and here). Additionally, as noted more in-depth elsewhere, one of the things that often gets forgotten is how unfortunate it is that so many things get laid at the feet of Constantine since he was NOT responsible for - seeing how his actions were really in connection with other Emperors since there was another who he was a Co-Ruler with that made a difference (Licinius in specific). - and to be clear, Licinius was a pagan emperor who ended up punishing/persecuting Christians everywhere in his competition with Constantine to be dominant since he felt that it was not good to have one claim Christ as emperor. People who were Christians were kept from labor/jobs and harmed in several other ways.

With Constantine, many do not keep in mind the extensive ways that Jews actually were favored more so than Christians throughout Roman History - with Constantine not changing various parts of those laws and with other benefits given to the Jews that were not present before his rule - and many extensive sites pertaining to Jews/Judaism being preserved rather than allowed to be destroyed (and destroying Hadrian's temple in the attempt to restore archeological history in the Holy Land ) with anti-Semitism not being traced back to him so much as to previous Emperors (i.e. Hadrian or Vespasian) who slaughtered the Jewish Population. The man did grant everyone - Christians, Jews and others - the liberty to worship as they pleased....but his religion to promote was Christianity - with believers rejoicing in it in the same way that the Jews of Ezra's time rejoiced when the King of Persia promoted their culture/beliefs politically (Ezra 1-4) .

But again, as it concerns the entire concept of Christians involved in the State, I do think we need to seriously consider a lot of things before making wholesale condemnations of those in the State seeking to do godly actions simply because others messed up in the process.

One of my friends who is an Eastern Monastic often says "All politicians are crooks - and you have to compromise/become one to do anything in politics" ....and his stance is to not be involved at all for the most part, as well as thinking ALL who are in political positions lie. I simply cannot believe that based on what I've seen at this point in life - and for others who feel they can make a difference as well as pray, I do wonder.

I don't see anywhere in scripture where believers weren't involved in everyday life even when it was difficult - as even Obadiah ( palace administrator of the corrupt King Ahab in 1 Kings 18:3-5 / 1 Kings 18 ) was hiding the Lord's prophets in caves. Joseph worked in Egypt as an administrator and Daniel as a govenor/administrator over 3 differing Empires - Babylon, the Medes and Persians. Nehemiah worked as a cup-bearer to the King while getting later support for the Walls - and Esther was Queen over Babylon. And Paul had an associate known as Erastus, who was the city’s director of public works according to Romans 16:22-24 and a good friend of his according to Acts 19:21-23 /2 Timothy 4:19-21 - a man who worked in the government/paved the way for other believers to do as they did - more shared in Partnership with Unbelievers - Theology of Work Sermons

The Old Testament examples of people other than the rulers of the nation of Israel serving in government are accounts of God calling people who were not seeking office to serve in times of unusual circumstances. Two were specifically used to save God's Old Covenant people (Joseph and Esther). The others—Daniel and Daniel's friends—were used to witness God's power to Gentile rulers (of course, Joseph and Esther also did this). There are three examples only of people who were employed by the government at the time they became Christians. They were Cornelius (Acts 10-11), Erastus, and the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8). Cornelius was a centurion (a military captain over 100 men), but we do not know exactly what he did or whether he stayed in the military after becoming a Christian. His unit was part of the Italian Regiment (the Cohores II Miliaria Italica Civium Romanorum). A cohort had ten centuries and was the equivalent of a modern military battalion. This battalion was an auxiliary unit, not part of a regular Roman legion. Such a battalion of archers was first made up of Roman soldiers and then filled out in the provinces.

Certainly, he might have faced some tough choices between serving God and serving the Roman rulers: would he have followed orders to arrest Christians? Would he have participated in the sacking of Jerusalem? It seems likely that remaining a centurion would eventually have put him at odds with his Christians beliefs. Tradition (of course, not necessarily reliable) says that he became a bishop in either Caesarea or Scepsis in Mysia. But what we know for certain was that he was deemed by the Lord as a God-Fearing man who gave gifts to the poor and touched the Lord.

With Erastus, the King James Version calls Erastus "the chamberlain of the city." The Greek word translated "chamberlain" is oikonomos, the word from which we get the English word economist. This means Erastus was a city manager or treasurer (it is not clear exactly what his job entailed) before he became a Christian. 1 Corinthians 7:20-21 indicates a person should remain in the calling wherein he was called, whether free or slave or whatever. The principle can apply to occupations. God called Erastus while he was the city manager/treasurer. The principle is that he should stay in that occupation unless there arose a conflict of interest. Apparently, no conflict had arisen in Erastus's case, at least up until the time Paul wrote. We do not know whether Erastus's duties included making official decisions, but history may answer what happened to him as it says he was killed shortly after Paul...

As far as the Ethiopian eunuch is concerned, he also was already serving his queen before he became a Christian. We do not know what happened to him after he was baptized in Acts 8 and returned to Ethiopia - being well regarded for his significant contribution to Ethiopian Orthodoxy and the Church growing massively.. And who knows what he may've had to deal with....

All of these people in positions like many today - and surely they must've prayed for their leaders as we're called to today.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I am most thankful to the Anabaptists and Baptists for being the first to stand for church-state separation and complete religious liberty for all. Many suffered torture, imprisonment, and murder for this principle, a principle that eventually benefited even the state churches which were doing the persecuting.

I have had several friends who are Anabaptists (such as David Flowers, Alan Knox - who is friends with other prominent Anabaptists such as David Black, and others I've grown up with who were very zealous for the Anabaptist view). As much as I may be thankful for the work of the Anabaptists (often called by others the "step-children of the Reformers" in how they went further than the Reformers in wanting radical change), I do think there can be a lot of misunderstanding who they are.

We cannot forget events such as what occurred certain radicals attempted set up an Anabaptist kingdom at Munster in Westphalia, Germany. ..if remembering Melchior Hoffman and the followers of his special branch of Anabaptism (known as “Melchiorites”, a group that rejected the pacifism of other Anabaptist groups and advocated the violent over-throw of the existing society in anticipation of the imminent coming of God's Kingdom). We cannot ignore how in 1535, Democratic-Anabaptist types stormed the Amsterdam city hall while others seized and fortified a Friesland monastery ..and we cannot ignore what happened with others actually promoting polygamy, as even German Communist intellectual Karl Kautsky vociferously defended the Münster Anabaptists......and events such as Munster are ones which others do not wish to tackle when it comes to noting why the Anabaptist were persecuted so intensely this catastrophe commenced a long period of persecution and reckoning due to the violence done by Anabaptist.

For reference:

• The Anabaptist Kingdom of Münster: The Radical Fringe of the Reformation

• "For the Honor of God and to Fulfill His Will": The Role of Polygamy in the Anabapist Kingdom of Munster

• A mystery in the history of Anabaptists

The Anabaptist kingdom of Munster, with its millenarian fervor, polygamy, and communalism (all of it done in the name of being against Church/State together) is something we cannot forget if being fair. There's a reason others have noted that he Anabaptists were often much opposed and convicted because the Anabaptists in the 1520's and 1530's were radical, violent revolutionaries...some even claiming "it is impossible to be Christian and wealthy at the same time"; "all authorities, secular and clerical, must be deprived of their offices once and for all or be killed by the sword…" (as noted best by Igor Shafarevich in his book The Socialist Phenomenon where he documents the teachings and activities of two important Anabaptist leaders, Thomas Muntzer and John of Leyden).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIwGzkz8tA0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ns8a-GxZG2I

 

[dzheremi]

Look, I have tried to have a civil conversation with you, even reaching out to you in order to do so, but this is difficult considering your continued offensive manner. You can insult and question my intelligence, but all that deos is cast doubt on your own.

Excuse me? I am not seeing what you are seeing in my post. Where did I question your intelligence? What I did say is that the existence of enemies of a church does not validate that church's claims, because the mere existence of alternative histories/claims/etc. is insufficient to do so. If every church/ecclesiastical body has had its enemies at some time, then how can the existence of these enemies say anything about the truthfulness of any given church's position? Again, are the Nestorians right by virtue of having been opposed by the Orthodox? And if so, then are the Orthodox right for having been opposed by the Nestorians (or the Arians, or the whoevers)?

I will state that I am certified to teach history at the 7-12 grade levels, in addition to my other educational qualifications that I wrote about elsewhere.

I'm sorry, I must've missed this bit of information earlier. My apologies. I suppose I should have specified "ecclesiastical historian", then, but I would imagine that secular history functions the same, does it not? I mean this in as serious and impartial a manner as possible: You do not teach your students that the existence of histories written from other viewpoints beyond those from which you teach necessarily makes those other viewpoints "correct", do you? Because it's hard for me to see how this would not also be the case with historical ecclesiastical sources.

I would suggest you do some study on the ancient Celtic Church, which existed from the earliest times and had teachings and practices different from Catholicism and Orthodoxy, one being the prominence they gave to woemn in leadership roles; I have evidence of that, and I can post it if needed. The Celtic Church developed separately from Orthodoxy and Catholicism until the Synod of Whitby. You might want to look these things up.

I have done at least some reading on the Celtic Church. Although it is not a primary interest of mine, there is at least some interesting material out there to be found (written from an OO perspective, from our beloved brethren in the British Orthodox Church under HE Metropolitan Seraphim) that suggests that the Celtic Church was not only Orthodox, but heavily influenced by Coptic monasticism. (This seems speculative to me, but certainly not entirely outside of the realm of possibility.)

An objective history is just that -- a history based on fact and NOT on whether one personally agrees with it or not.

Yes, certainly. I would only say, with respect, that it is strange to seek such a thing to answer a strictly polemical question, such as which church is true. That was my point in saying that in the first place -- I have OO sources that I trust, and EO have theirs, and RC theirs, and Protestants theirs, etc. but is one is "objective" and the others not? I would not say so, because by virtue of having been written by the people who wrote them, in the context in which they were written (political, historical, etc.), they can't be. I was just reading today, in fact, in some of the writings of Dionysus of Tel Mahre, a bit about how the emperor Heraclius visited Edessa (today's Sanliurfa, Turkey), which was in his day a center of non-Chalcedonian Syriac Christianity, and upon being refused the Eucharist in one of the city's cathedrals due to his own adherence to Chalcedon, he became enraged and handed over the cathedral to the Chalcedonians, after kicking out the presiding bishop and all of his people. Is there any way to say for sure that this happened as recounted? Would it make any sense at all to look to the enemies of the non-Chalcedonians, the ones who by this account inherited the cathedral by this action, to give us the "truth" regarding what really happened? No, of course not. The story itself is polemical, and any response to it from the Chalcedonians (and any alternative history regarding how they came to control the cathedral, should they have one) would likewise be polemical. That is not to say that there is no one true sequence of events (i.e., obviously something happened, either along the lines of this story or a different retelling), only that you won't be finding an objective history of it anywhere you look, as everyone has their own biases. I would think that the job of the historian would then be to sift through the biases inherent in their sources to try to come to some sort of consensus among the ancient historians who cover the same event and determine what is most likely the basic facts, and what is later embellishment -- not to hope for an objective history which can only be reasonably approximated after having done that. This is why I am confused by your approach. The EO people in this thread have told you things from their viewpoints, which you are of course free to believe or disbelieve, but the idea that they should be judged as being "biased"...well, yes, of course they are, but so are the Roman Catholic, Lutheran, etc. sources that you have mentioned. So is everyone.

I have always been interested in such and only such because I was interested in the truth, not someone's opinion, including yours. All of those Bodies that I mentioned would have as much disdain for you and your version of truth as you do for them and their version.

I would expect them to, though. That's the difference, I think, between the two of us. To me, whether it's the RCs saying what they say, or the EO saying what they say, or whoever else saying what they say, so long as they are being consistent with regard to their own historical sources, I don't see a problem. I absolutely do the same thing. Who can do otherwise, in service of what they have been taught or otherwise embraced as correct?

I have always wanted to and been able to look at these issues from an objective and unbiased position, as much as is possible for a human being, simply for one reason: I wanted to know the truth, wherever it lead me. And where it has lead me is to know that no one Body of Christians is exclusively the "one true church". Maybe sometimes I wish that wasn't so, but at other times I can see the danger if it was so.

I am sorry, I don't want to enrage you further, but I just don't see this as a lack of bias. Perhaps it hasn't led you to a specific church over others, but the relatively frequent mentions of the Baptists and others as somehow being equal (or equally plausible) claimants to the faith of the ancient church certainly does not strike me as being "objective and unbiased". By virtue of the fact that you have dismissed EO claims as being biased while clinging to RC, Protestant, etc. sources and claims, it is clear that you're certainly not biased towards the EO -- but perhaps the environment of this particular subforum, where people are unwilling to entertain the idea that somehow these other bodies have equal truth claims or equal validity in their historical sources of interpretation of church history and/or scripture, has produced bias against the EO. As I wrote before (I'll try to reword it here, so as to be less biased): If the claims of the EO can be dismissed out of hand as being "sheer bias", why is the same level of scrutiny not subjected to the sources you have brought forth to substantiate your own belief, or lack of belief, in other particular ecclesiastical bodies or churches? Why are the EO wrong but these other churches not as obviously so/potentially right? Is a Catholic or Baptist source inherently more trustworthy, and if so, why?

Again, I have openly stated that my own sources are biased. Perhaps not surprisingly, then, I am biased against anything that is outside of my own communion, because I believe that it is true and others' are not.

 

[rusmeister]

Of course what you say is sheer bias. When a Roman Catholic Cardinal admits to the existence of Anabaptists back to the early centuries of the church, I believe it carries some weight. You may say game over, but there is history to refute that, as I have shown. People of Catholic persuasion have always tried to cut Anabaptists off from the church, figuratively and literally, but it hasn't worked.

And your claim that the RCC has major substantiation is what is sheer ignorance. The RCC is the greatest innovator in all of Christendom; they have many doctrines which not only cannot be substantiated by scripture but are antithetical to scripture, and they have continued to develop doctrine, well into the 20th Century. The RCC is thus an institution teaching much false doctrine, a pagan-infiltrated institution with a dark history of persecution and murder. If it were the only choice, I still would not choose it. I would be a Christian outside of Romanism, like all those Dissenters down through the ages who were persecuted nearly out of existence but survived.

All bias means is "having come to a conclusion" - which I have. You are biased as to whether Jesus Christ is Lord, as far as I can tell - and rightly so.

No, I don't believe the opinion of a Roman Catholic prelate, in itself, carries any special weight.
Yes, people invent alternate and revisionist histories. I only say, where are the primary sources? What is NOT the product of modern historians?

You are incredibly biased against the RCC; I think my view more balanced and liberal (in the sense of free) because I can concede that they have many things right while still thinking them wrong; your view has to deny their doctrines largely across the board, and leaves you in the contradictory position of accepting a Scriptural canon determined by that ancient united Church that later split, while having that SAME institution at the SAME time that it was determining the canon be an agent of the devil.

 

[RDKirk]

We cannot forget events such as what occurred certain radicals attempted set up an Anabaptist kingdom at Munster in Westphalia, Germany. ..if remembering Melchior Hoffman and the followers of his special branch of Anabaptism (known as “Melchiorites”, a group that rejected the pacifism of other Anabaptist groups and advocated the violent over-throw of the existing society in anticipation of the imminent coming of God's Kingdom). We cannot ignore how in 1535, Democratic-Anabaptist types stormed the Amsterdam city hall while others seized and fortified a Friesland monastery ..and we cannot ignore what happened with others actually promoting polygamy, as even German Communist intellectual Karl Kautsky vociferously defended the Münster Anabaptists......and events such as Munster are ones which others do not wish to tackle when it comes to noting why the Anabaptist were persecuted so intensely this catastrophe commenced a long period of persecution and reckoning due to the violence done by Anabaptist.

What all this tells me is that citizens of Heaven can't ever be trusted with the King's sword. Are there any examples of the Church taking dominion followed by a kingdom that will last until Kingdom come? Or do they all fall just like any other kingdom?

Any kingdom in this fallen world must use the sword to maintain its power and wealth, and all who live by the sword will die by the sword.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

What all this tells me is that citizens of Heaven can't ever be trusted with the King's sword.

Any kingdom in this fallen world must use the sword to maintain its power and wealth, and all who live by the sword will die by the sword.
__________________

Unfortunately, it wasn't the King's sword in the case which was noted since it was essentially what Fr. Seraphim Rose alluded to with the spirit of revolution (based in nihilism) where others did not want government involved with the Church and felt violence was the only means of addressing the situation. One side believes the Church should govern things from the top down (as it concerns imperialistic Christianity), whereas another may tend to believe in anarchy/establishing no governments to rule by force (in favor of believers guiding things) from the bottom up.

Of course, if one wants to do a discussion on whether believers are ever allowed to use the sword on any level, that's another discussion. I've shared my own thoughts more in-depth in threads dedicated to the issue, as seen in places like Monks/Monastics vs Military Might: Is Self-Defense against Perversion Right? - and no, I do not believe scripture condemns all uses of the sword since the times it does condemn it specifically deal with times where there was a call to martyrdom and not using it as a first resort (as opposed to using to enforce your will upon all).

 

[RDKirk]

Unfortunately, it wasn't the King's sword in the case which was noted since it was essentially what Fr. Seraphim Rose alluded to with the spirit of revolution (based in nihilism) where others did not want government involved with the Church and felt violence was the only means of addressing the situation. One side believes the Church should govern things from the top down (as it concerns imperialistic Christianity), whereas another may tend to believe in anarchy/establishing no governments to rule by force (in favor of believers guiding things) from the bottom up.

Of course, if one wants to do a discussion on whether believers are ever allowed to use the sword on any level, that's another discussion.

No, it is this discussion, because as I said, in this fallen world every kingdom must use the sword to maintain its wealth and power. We can't discuss the Body of Christ taking part in the king's activities without acknowledging that stealing, killing, and destroying must always be the king's activities in this fallen world.

So the discussion of Church and State is very much about the Body of Christ in every country being linked to the king's stealing, killing, and destroying.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

No, it is this discussion, because as I said, in this fallen world every kingdom must use the sword to maintain its wealth and power. We can't discuss the Body of Christ taking part in the king's activities without acknowledging that stealing, killing, and destroying must always be the king's activities in this fallen world.

So the discussion of Church and State is very much about the Body of Christ in every country being linked to the king's stealing, killing, and destroying.

If bringing things in from the perspective that the State has often used forced conversions through pain of death (be it the Byzantines or the Arians as they did in the Goth and 'Barbarian' territories outside of Rome's power - or the Reformer's in their own attempts at theocratic nations or the Dutch Reformed in South Africa eliminating the Natives when it came to the issue of claiming them to be Cannanites..or the entire concept of a 'Christian Nation' when witnessing the evils of Manifest Destiny and the harm done to Native Americans...the list goes on), of course killing/destroying is wrong.

Of course, as said before, that is a separate conversation from whether ALL uses of the sword were ever condemned by Christ or the Apostles who oversaw the Church - and again, there were multiple times (especially if rights were violated, as was the case with abusing others or allowing others to be harmed) where it was noted that believers have the freedom to defend themselves ...and this is said in light of seeing the merits that come with monastic living when seeing how the fathers often resisted any use of the sword in favor of a lifestyle that essentially advocated for a mindset similar to the Buddhist way of non-violence ..and yet there were other monks who noted how God is never honored in allowing injustice to flourish.

This is why I have noted before where I can support certain revolutions that happened in history when others were abusing people - from the Hatian Revolution and the actions of Toussaint L'Ouverture was actually a Devout Catholic who wanted to address the evils of slavery...and it is why I agree with what occurred when Cuba helped Nelson Mandela and others achieve freedom. It is because of this that I support others who resisted the KKK physically rather than letting them harm others in the name of the Lord (as was the case with Robert Williams and others noting that guns made the Civil Rights movement possible) and it's why I support Native Americans who resisted colonialism and the intrusion of Europeans on their land and did not willingly go with the aggression done in the name of Imperialistic Christianity.


And on a humurous note, understanding the godly use of the sword (as Romans 13 notes on those God has called to wield it) and ensuring honor is why one of my favorite movies is "V for Vendetta" - as it concerns addressing the ways that others abusing the power God gives them is never something citizens should go with


We can't mix the two categories together (i.e. "Living by the Sword"/violence as a lifestyle for the sake of it vs. "Using the sword for self-defense"/violence as a last resort after other options are used to be a peacemaker), as it was understanding what Christ and the scriptures as a whole said on the Sword that allowed for others to resist things such as slavery/kidnapping (punishable by death according to the OT) or rape and it was understanding when to resist that made the difference. The sword was NEVER just the activity of the King, as is often claimed - and one has to show consistently from scripture that to be the case before making the claim that it is always of the world to use the sword in any capacity (as we already have Christ commanding the apostles to carry swords with them on their journey during the Last Supper in Luke 22 and Cornelius the Roman centurion holding the sword in Acts 10-11 by virtue of his profession - as St. John already noted to not be a problem in Luke 3 when noting what Centurions and soldiers had to do to enter the Kingdom of God, with the use of the sword NOT being what was condemned as much as injustice was). Living by the sword is not the same as using a sword in certain cases (i.e. self-defense)

As said previously in the thread mentioned before:

..one of the reasons St Alexander Nevsky is a saint, is because he defended his homeland from invaders. St Davit the Builder as well.

Part of me has been processing often whether or not the example of Warrior Monks was the more Biblical concept (i.e. others willing to fight when necessary even though they were devout monks/saints..from soldiers to guards/other things) - or if the other example of being willing to die/not resist is what to go with. Those for the latter have often noted that one should wonder what's so special about their lives that they have to fight to preserve it/that of others at all costs - but I also understand those of the former view who note that many godly freedoms came at the cost of being willing to protect others/promote justice.

And in reading Acts 16:16-40 with Paul demanding that he/Silas be treated properly after they were unjustly beaten (with the punishment to those violating that law being DEATH) so that others would not experience the same mistreatment, I cannot understand where it is the case that it's ungodly for others to fight back to protect themselves when they see their lives or loved ones threatened. You also have Luke 3:13-15 showing how soldiers seeking to serve the Lord were never condemned for being soldiers/charged to protect lives - in addition to Cornelius in Acts 10-11 and the Roman Centurion who was noted by Christ for having greater faith than all in Israel in Matthew 8/Luke 7:1-9...and the soldier from Acts 16 who got saved alongside the rest of his family...

Granted, where I currently struggle is in regards to passages of scripture where it seems others have often used to say a believer should NOT resist the government physically when it comes to wrong-doing.

1 Peter 2:21-23 is one passage that comes to mind...

Some have noted that nowhere [FONT=&quot]in scripture did Jesus, or His followers, the apostles, or the early Church joined the military, caused physical harm to any man, or used physical self-defence - and when I study the rest of God's Holy War and the examples of the Early Church, it seems that those issues were often debated strongly. For reference:[/FONT]

• CPF - War and the Early Church
• The Early Christian View of War and Military Service
• "Were the Church Fathers Pacifists? » First Thoughts | A First Things …" ( )

When reading I Peter 2 and what it says on submission to government - and considering how Peter noted that in a time of persecution against the Church - something I've had to consider is that the point about Peter’s discussion on Church Government may allow for one to see it as both being true while also not being for the mindset of supporting oppression of others.

For if the Law of God itself already discussed how INJUSTICES—-opressing the poor, ignoring the plight of the fatherless/widows, practicing sexual immorality, bribery, etc—-were all EVILS that God condemned in government and commanded his people to speak on....and it'd be silly to think that any Jew would take what Peter was saying to mean that all actions of a government should be submitted to. I Peter 2:13-25 may have a different context in mind that many may be missing when its discussing submitting to every institution.

Perhaps it was in the sense of when accused of wrong-doing—as that’s what Peter mentioned later on with the example of Christ and Him speaking out against evils, yet trusting in the Lord when He was put on trial for it/crucified by Divine Order…and likewise, as many believers were being blamed for the wrongs in their day, they were to trust the Lord when they were put on trial…knowing that God would vindicate them against slander.

For there’s something about reacting to accusation with defense that often makes one look more “guilty”..and acting with dignity seems to go far many times since people will trip on you. Peter did seem to make clear that God would give justice upon those who did wrong====and I do wonder if perhaps he had the mindset that many slaves had when they felt as if remaining as “slaves with good attitutes” was their only real option to make it to tommorrow……….instead of fighting back all the time, knowing that it would not be forever (just as it wasn’t forever for Christ when he was mistreated).

The audience he was speaking is in no way seen to be the one for ALL ages/situations—-as Paul already said in I Corinthians 7 that if one is a slave, they should SEEK their freedom..and in II Peter 3, Peter told the audience that they needed to listen to Paul in the scriptures he had written….so there is a degree of progression of thought. I've just never been able to read through the scriptures on what Paul/Peter noted - and assume that they were somehow for the thought that it was NEVER just for a slave or someone to fight back at ANY point ...even in times when they discussed things such as submission/changing corruption by godly examples Part of it automatically thinks back to how much mess occurred in times of slavery within the Americas - when others used the words of Paul and Peter to suggest that blacks were not allowed to either seek out freedom...or resist in any kind of way to the perversions of humanity they experienced (i.e. kidnapping, brutality, sexual exploitation, starvation, murder, etc.) daily - and often promoted IN THE NAME OF CHRIST.

..................

I've seen others who go against the concept of self-defense against evil go to what Jesus says in Matthew 26:52…to Peter when saying, ”Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.” But of course, Jesus was specifically stilling Peter and the others from preventing his necessary trip to the cross. Just prior to his betrayal and this incident, Jesus had said to the disciples (Luke 22:35-36) to "carry a sword" with them when traveling.

Many interpreters take this to be a metaphorical statement commanding the disciples to be armed spiritually to fight spiritual foes...as seen in Ephesians 6:10-17. In favor of this view: (1) In Luke 22:38, the disciples misunderstand Jesus' command and produce literal swords....and on this view, Jesus' response that "it is enough" is a rebuke, saying essentially, "Enough of this talk about swords."....and of course, just a few minutes later Jesus will again prohibit the use of a literal sword in Luke 22:49-51, Matthew 26:51-52, John 18:10-11, etc).

Others, however, take this command to have a literal sword for self-defense and protection from robbers. In support of this view: (a) The moneybag and knapsack and cloak in this same verse are literal, and so the sword must be taken literally as well...and Jesus disciples that "it is enough" actually approves the swords the disciples have as being enough...and Jesus's later rebuke in verses 49-51 only prohibits them from blocking his arrest and suffering in John 18:11, that is, from seeking to advance the Kingdom of God by force.

The very fact that the disciples possess swords suggests that Jesus has not prohibited them from carrying swords up till to this point....and Jesus never prohibited self defense.

For further review, one can investigate Mike Anderson's Ancient History Blog: Was Jesus a Militant ..

 

[Gxg (G²)]

One of the greatest tragedies of Christian history was the uniting of church and state

The early church long before Constantine was never against the state protecting the Church since they advocated for it often - from Esther in Persia with the Jews (Esther 9-10) to the time of Ezra with the return under King Cyrus (called the Lord's servant in Isaiah 42 and Ezra 1) and many other eras. Believers influencing the state was not something God condemned when believers did those things, although what mattered above all else was that the message was preached and others were not forced to believe it simply because - the Kingdom of God cannot be forced onto others.

And of course, when the State violates believers and mankind, believers technically were called to resist that (even if it meant taking control of the state) - as the saying goes, "people should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people." Addressing corrupt regimes is not a new concept for believers in the Lord - and to be clear, there are many examples of where Church/State were challenged and yet reformatted in order to reflect Christ...as noted before:

As said before..

In fact, Many felt that Orthodoxy was not tied to any specific governmental - tsarism being the most relevant at the time - and thus, at the time of the 1917 Revolution, those arguments made it possible for many leaders within Orthodoxy to accept the overthrow of the tsar. Many already had previously protested the Tsar and his government when he was alive - making the same arguments of mistreatment of the poor and marginalized that the Revolutionaries did.

.. it's interesting when seeing where other leaders described what they called the Orthodox Roots of Russian Bolshevism. The Bolsheviks were very diverse indeed and spread into differing areas, even with it having connections later in Nazi Germany when seeing the Russian Roots of Nazism....or, for that matter, the ways that the Bolsheviks impacted those in Russia who were Muslim and for Islam/ (more here and here), due to how Islam was one of the three principle religious groups in the Russian Empire and were given much autonomy

But priests were not separate from the Bolshevik Revolution. There was already preparation for it in earlier times, as seen in the 1905 Revolution (called "The Dress Rehearsal" for the 1917 Revolutions in light of the protests occurring after Russia's losses in war to Japan and "Bloody Sunday" where 200,000 workers led by Father Gapon marched on the Winter Palace to hand a petition to the Tsar - with the Tsar's troops opening fire and killing hundreds of marchers, leading to mutiny in the navy and strikes/attacks on property and worker's soviets (councils) set up). There can be no escaping connection with some of the aspects with the Bolshevik Revolution and Orthodoxy when seeing the work of Father Gcorgii Gapon, the young Orthodox priest who inspired and led the workers' organization...as well as other activities many are not aware of when it comes to his radical stances...his actions playing a key role in the coming Russian Revolution., even though others noted he was the priest who was prepared to "bargain with the devil" if it meant change (and later ended up joining the Russian Socialist Revolutionary Party when he went abroad) - more shared in Father Gapon’s role in Bloody Sunday | I hear their dolls are full of themselves and “Bloody Sunday’s” Father Gapon: the agent who provocateured too much. | www.seanmunger.com. The fact that Lenin had lengthy dialogues with Father Gapon and respected him, as well as incorporating many of his ideas later, is noteworthy

​

​

​

The reasons for the Russian Revolution of 1917 are complex and varied - we see others in the Orthodox Church who joined the Bolsheviks - even if not outright revolting, at least in silent consent or approval.

.. Seraphim's Rose "Youth of the Apocalypse and the Last True Rebellion" and NIHILISM : The Root of the Revolution of the Modern Age ... claimed that monarchy is the natural order man was meant to live - others noting the same as seen in MUST AN ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN BE A MONARCHIST? (Written by Vladimir Moss) and Biblical Monarchy and the book of Judges | The Orthodox Life as well as http://www.czipm.org/azkoul.html

Orthodox Monarchy - YouTube

... if considering the concept of Orthodox Barbarians or who adopted some of the Barbarian lifestyle as Orthodox individuals (as discussed before here/here), many of the Barbarian societies were what you'd call Anarchists in many respects - they did not universally believe that all Monarchs were automatically Orthodox simply because they either grew up within the Church or claimed to speak for the CHurch. Of course the Barbarians had kings and queens of their own who they supported - but they felt there were limits on the matter. Some of the others in history went so far as to suggest that even Christ Himself supported certain forms of anarchism - in light of the fact that the purpose and goal of anarchism is to separate ourselves from the violent state which constantly uses force to murder and oppress people all over the world for the crime of not agreeing with its moral values....anarcho-pacifist systems come to mind. Christ did not follow the religious rulers in his day and there seem to be several instances where the governing ways & authorities didn't have his full support. One of such the currency "But to satisfy them..." (Matthew 17:27) and "Who's face do you see..." (Matthew 22) - and "The only authority you have over me is that which my father gave you" (John 18-19), as that was sort of a circumvention of governing authority. Christ said "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's", clearly demarcating a separation between the two and an indifference between them. ...and when the State or the Monarchy was wrong, he had no issue speaking out against it and challenging it in multiple ways...

..one can be both an Orthodox individual and an Anarchist (more in Russian orthodox anarchism in the 21st century ). It'd be no different than when CHristians were deemed "atheists" by the Roman State for not worshiping their gods or supporting the monarchy when it was in idolatry - with it being striking that early Christians were in fact called atheists because they refused to participate in the "religion" of the day, with the followers of Jesus being blamed for Rome's woes and how Justin responded to that....and yet even being willing to be labeled as "atheists" for not worshiping the Roman gods or the Emperor, they understood that accepting being seen as atheists did not mean automatically that faith in God was up for grabs....

And the same can go for anarchy being a term believers can accept (no different than others saying they are both Orthodox and Marxist or Communist). Of course, , there are differing variations of anarchist thought. For a nuanced look on civilization and anarchy, one may go either here or here:

Rethinking Civilization - Crash Course World History 201 - YouTube

Others who have accepted that God can appoint Orthodox Monarchs and yet feel their authority is not absolute/above being challenged would fall under the category of what's known as Anarcho-Monarchism - people that "believe in the existence of a King or leader, but advocate this leader as a voluntary individual whose sole existence is meant to represent a sense of celebration and kinship in the souls of the men" - and if you violated the people, you were no longer supported without challenge. In the system of Anarcho-Monarchism, any relationship with the king would be completely voluntary in nature rather than forced upon others simply because of his being King, In example, if you wanted to show him monetary support, you would do so because you want to and because of how he connects others with the community - in the same way that kings and leaders in the Old Testament had to be in line with God's Laws per Deuteronomy 17 in order to be valid and could not oppress the people with God's Blessing. Anarcho-Monarchism is anthropologically proven and it exists in the real world as expressed by the theocratic Papacy and the former caesaropapist Byzantine Empire - and the Catholic Church (separate from the papal states) can be seen as a worldwide Anarcho-Monarchy, as is the Eastern Orthodox Church.

• Anarcho-Monarchism | David Bentley Hart | First Things

• Toward a Pansemiotic Politics: The Wind in the Willows and Our Nixon |

• • The Young Monarchist: Anarcho-Monarchism - the Details
  
  
  • Fourth of July Reflection: Holy Kingship and Ecology | Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I'll definitely look into that! I've been wanting to read some books on the Desert Mothers anyways Thanks for the resources!

Not a problem in regards to the resources and I do hope they come in handy for you. Reading the lives of the saints and how they handled issues is always fascinating

 

[Gxg (G²)]

...they didn't break off from the Church and form the Celtic Church...the expression of the Church may have had differences, such as women in leadership, but they were still in communion with the rest of the Church. That is the key.

Agreed - differences because of having isolation geographically and thus a different evolutionary tract in development doesn't mean they didn't have convergence with the Church at many levels.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Jesus would NEVER have supported an alliance of the church with the state.

He already had friends/family in the state, of course - as was the case with Luke 8:3 noting Joanana who was the wife of Herod's manager of household. And he also worked with others in the government, as was the case with saving tax collectors like Zachaeus in Luke 19 (who did not cease his profession just as others still did as they did). And Jesus was QUITE political in his actions, to the point of stirring up the Roman Empire and leading Christians to be so effective in their witness that the empire sought to eradicate things such as slavery, child labor and many other evils.

The Lord never said believers cannot work in government or influence it - otherwise, the Church should never have accepted the empire following their example with taking care of orphans...or making hospitals. On the issue of where Church and State came together with beautiful things, As I have shared elsewhere, I am forever grateful on how I was blessed to come across an excellent work on Social Welfare from the perspective of Byzantine Christianity, concerning the ways believers were bridges between the State and the Church in seeking the social welfare of others. It's called The Orphans of Byzantium: child welfare in the Christian empire By Timothy S. Miller [/COLOR]

​

Again, I thought it was really enjoyable learning on how the Byzantine Empire had an extensive social safety net - funded by the govt. and private donations, and administrated by the Church. This included (free) services such as:[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]

*Hospitals - which were also teaching hospitals, providing education and training for both male and female physicians

*Orphanages - which included medical care and free education/training through the age of majority (abortion and abandonment were illegal, but women were free to and encouraged to give their infants and children into orphan care)

*Hostels/housing for travelers and indigents - for the unemployed, each concern had a state paid official to help with job placement (if employment by the able bodied in these institutions was refused, they were escorted to the edge of town - to leave)

*Gerontikons - day and long term care centers for the elderly so that their families could work

*Free bread distribution (up to 60,000 loaves a day), staffed by the previously unemployed

*Halfway houses for women who desired to leave prostitution (instituted by Empress Theodora iirc, who would buy the prostitutes freedom from their pimps with her own money)
​

From what I understood, the idea was that as a Christian nation, it was incumbent to live according to the ethos of Christ....with the Emperor caring for the physical needs of the people while the patriarch took care of the spiritual needs of the people.

In the book "The Orphans of Byzantium" the author gave a very unique/insightful ,study of the evolution of orphanages in the Byzantine Empire. Medieval child-welfare systems were sophisticated, especially in the Byzantine world. Combining ancient Roman legal institutions with Christian concepts of charity, the Byzantine Empire evolved a child-welfare system that tried either to select foster parents for homeless children or to place them in group homes that could provide food, shelter, and education. The book also did an wonderful job showing how successive Byzantine emperors tried to improve Roman regulations to provide greater security for orphans, and notes that they achieved their greatest success when they widened the pool of potential guardians by allowing women relatives to accept the duties of guardianship. The book did an excellent job showing how Byzantine orphanages provided models for later Western group homes, especially in Italy. From these renaissance orphan asylums evolved the system of modern European and American religious orphanages until the foster care movement emerged at the beginning of the twentieth century.

IMHO, it's truly a noteworthy study of differing systems which can provide useful models for reforming the troubled child-welfare system today.....and showing that the Church and the State as separate is not always as "beneficial" as others make it out to be ...

• "Blog of the Dormition: The Role of the Church in Social Welfare" ( )
• "Women and Philanthropy in the History of Hellenism" ( )
• "Embodying the New Society: The Byzantine Christian Instinct of Philanthropy" ( ).

But of course, some of the developments that occurred between the Church and the State did not simply happen because others were inclined to do so through good will. There were events outside of the Church and the State which caused a massive shift in priorities and allegiances made, as noted before with the Black Plague forcing others to re-evaluate. As noted before:

... the Bubonic Plague (in the time of Justinian) gave much in regards to the world of learning and impacting how others could handle the situation. As said earlier, part of examining the treasures of antiquity in Eastern Christianity and the Islamic world means realizing how The Birth of the Hospital and the rise of the importance of Public Health arose in the 6th century and it is no small matter that the Black Plague was a part of the reasoning. The plague forced Justinian to reform the system of health care and to give more attention to community health.

• Piety and Plague: From Byzantium to the Baroque - Google Books

 

[Gxg (G²)]

When a Roman Catholic Cardinal admits to the existence of Anabaptists back to the early centuries of the church, I believe it carries some weight.

There have always been others noting the spirit of the Anabaptist tradition echoing aspects of the early church. One of the resources I've often used when it comes to sustainable development in the environment has noted it in their review entitled Anabaptism: Re-monking the Church After Christendom - Sustainable Traditions..

And for others, One excellent book on the issue is entitled Anabaptism and Asceticism

​

As said there, for brief review:

Kenneth Davis, in his book Anabaptism and Asceticism, sets forth the idea that Anabaptism represents the laicization of Catholic monastic spirituality, not the logical outgrowth of the teaching of Luther or Zwingli. Anabaptism denotes the radicalization of the lay-oriented, ascetic reformation for which Erasmus is the principle spokesman.

Anabaptism arose within a Protestant context, and is Protestant in the sense that it chose to separate from the institutionalized sacramental-sacerdotal system of the Roman Church. It severed itself just as “necessarily” from the Protestant State-Church complex.

“Christian Asceticism,” as defined by Davis, encompasses three main principles. The first involves inner and exterior mortification: controlling fleshly desire and the need to do penance. The second indicates methodical effort toward the development of Christian virtue: “Faith without works is dead.” The third principle is an ideal of perfection which undergirds both the positive and negative efforts aimed at its attainment. {352} All three of these principles are fundamental to Anabaptist teaching. They embrace the basic tenets of Anabaptism.

The ascetic tradition teaches a limited doctrine of free will. It is neither Augustinian nor Pelagian. Like the Anabaptists, ascetics believe that each individual has an innate capacity to accept or reject God’s grace. God’s grace is still necessary, however, to sanctification (to the individual’s ability to “perform the good”).

Davis traces the ascetic tradition from the fourth century “Desert Fathers” through the monastic system to the Catholic reform movement in the Fifteenth Century. Davis insists that the essential Anabaptist teaching—the necessity for all Christians to strive toward holiness within a Christian community—was alive in the late Middle Ages. It is evidenced in the teachings of Franciscan monks (especially Third Order Franciscans), and the Brethren of the Common Life (the Devotio Moderna tradition).​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Thomas Jefferson and others used the expression separation of church and state as a way to explain the intent and function of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Obviously, in other countries the Constitution of America doesn't apply...but that clause is essentially interpreted as separation of church and state. Perhaps that isn't the meaning of it in what others here are referring to?

Also, I agree that what you said is separation of church and state as well

Ditto on what you noted....

 

[CelticRebel]

Gxg, people always bring up the Munster situation, but this was an aberrant event in Anabaptism. The Anabaptists were pacifists. Still are today.

 

[CelticRebel]

Excuse me? I am not seeing what you are seeing in my post. Where did I question your intelligence? What I did say is that the existence of enemies of a church does not validate that church's claims, because the mere existence of alternative histories/claims/etc. is insufficient to do so. If every church/ecclesiastical body has had its enemies at some time, then how can the existence of these enemies say anything about the truthfulness of any given church's position? Again, are the Nestorians right by virtue of having been opposed by the Orthodox? And if so, then are the Orthodox right for having been opposed by the Nestorians (or the Arians, or the whoevers)?

I'm sorry, I must've missed this bit of information earlier. My apologies. I suppose I should have specified "ecclesiastical historian", then, but I would imagine that secular history functions the same, does it not? I mean this in as serious and impartial a manner as possible: You do not teach your students that the existence of histories written from other viewpoints beyond those from which you teach necessarily makes those other viewpoints "correct", do you? Because it's hard for me to see how this would not also be the case with historical ecclesiastical sources.

I have done at least some reading on the Celtic Church. Although it is not a primary interest of mine, there is at least some interesting material out there to be found (written from an OO perspective, from our beloved brethren in the British Orthodox Church under HE Metropolitan Seraphim) that suggests that the Celtic Church was not only Orthodox, but heavily influenced by Coptic monasticism. (This seems speculative to me, but certainly not entirely outside of the realm of possibility.)

Yes, certainly. I would only say, with respect, that it is strange to seek such a thing to answer a strictly polemical question, such as which church is true. That was my point in saying that in the first place -- I have OO sources that I trust, and EO have theirs, and RC theirs, and Protestants theirs, etc. but is one is "objective" and the others not? I would not say so, because by virtue of having been written by the people who wrote them, in the context in which they were written (political, historical, etc.), they can't be. I was just reading today, in fact, in some of the writings of Dionysus of Tel Mahre, a bit about how the emperor Heraclius visited Edessa (today's Sanliurfa, Turkey), which was in his day a center of non-Chalcedonian Syriac Christianity, and upon being refused the Eucharist in one of the city's cathedrals due to his own adherence to Chalcedon, he became enraged and handed over the cathedral to the Chalcedonians, after kicking out the presiding bishop and all of his people. Is there any way to say for sure that this happened as recounted? Would it make any sense at all to look to the enemies of the non-Chalcedonians, the ones who by this account inherited the cathedral by this action, to give us the "truth" regarding what really happened? No, of course not. The story itself is polemical, and any response to it from the Chalcedonians (and any alternative history regarding how they came to control the cathedral, should they have one) would likewise be polemical. That is not to say that there is no one true sequence of events (i.e., obviously something happened, either along the lines of this story or a different retelling), only that you won't be finding an objective history of it anywhere you look, as everyone has their own biases. I would think that the job of the historian would then be to sift through the biases inherent in their sources to try to come to some sort of consensus among the ancient historians who cover the same event and determine what is most likely the basic facts, and what is later embellishment -- not to hope for an objective history which can only be reasonably approximated after having done that. This is why I am confused by your approach. The EO people in this thread have told you things from their viewpoints, which you are of course free to believe or disbelieve, but the idea that they should be judged as being "biased"...well, yes, of course they are, but so are the Roman Catholic, Lutheran, etc. sources that you have mentioned. So is everyone.

I would expect them to, though. That's the difference, I think, between the two of us. To me, whether it's the RCs saying what they say, or the EO saying what they say, or whoever else saying what they say, so long as they are being consistent with regard to their own historical sources, I don't see a problem. I absolutely do the same thing. Who can do otherwise, in service of what they have been taught or otherwise embraced as correct?

I am sorry, I don't want to enrage you further, but I just don't see this as a lack of bias. Perhaps it hasn't led you to a specific church over others, but the relatively frequent mentions of the Baptists and others as somehow being equal (or equally plausible) claimants to the faith of the ancient church certainly does not strike me as being "objective and unbiased". By virtue of the fact that you have dismissed EO claims as being biased while clinging to RC, Protestant, etc. sources and claims, it is clear that you're certainly not biased towards the EO -- but perhaps the environment of this particular subforum, where people are unwilling to entertain the idea that somehow these other bodies have equal truth claims or equal validity in their historical sources of interpretation of church history and/or scripture, has produced bias against the EO. As I wrote before (I'll try to reword it here, so as to be less biased): If the claims of the EO can be dismissed out of hand as being "sheer bias", why is the same level of scrutiny not subjected to the sources you have brought forth to substantiate your own belief, or lack of belief, in other particular ecclesiastical bodies or churches? Why are the EO wrong but these other churches not as obviously so/potentially right? Is a Catholic or Baptist source inherently more trustworthy, and if so, why?

Again, I have openly stated that my own sources are biased. Perhaps not surprisingly, then, I am biased against anything that is outside of my own communion, because I believe that it is true and others' are not.

Please look at the small part of your post that I put in bold and try to understand what I am saying: I am NOT "clinging" to RC and Protestant sources and claims. I have said that I think the EOC is closer to apostolic teaching than either RC or Protestant. I am very much opposed especially to the RCC and Magisterial Protestantism. When I relate what these Bodies believe, I am doing so for several purposes: to show how they differ from the EOC, to show what they base their claims on, to show why they feel that they are closest to apostolic teaching, or are the true church. As I have stated in several places, I feel the two Bodies who are closest to apostolic teaching are the EOC and the Anabaptists, and these two Bodies are actually close in their views of God, man, sin, salvation, atonement, even though they are different in other areas.

 

[CelticRebel]

All bias means is "having come to a conclusion" - which I have. You are biased as to whether Jesus Christ is Lord, as far as I can tell - and rightly so.

No, I don't believe the opinion of a Roman Catholic prelate, in itself, carries any special weight.
Yes, people invent alternate and revisionist histories. I only say, where are the primary sources? What is NOT the product of modern historians?

You are incredibly biased against the RCC; I think my view more balanced and liberal (in the sense of free) because I can concede that they have many things right while still thinking them wrong; your view has to deny their doctrines largely across the board, and leaves you in the contradictory position of accepting a Scriptural canon determined by that ancient united Church that later split, while having that SAME institution at the SAME time that it was determining the canon be an agent of the devil.

Now THAT is putting words in my mouth. And I deny that "The Church" determined the canon. The local churches recognized the canon -- which was completed in the first century -- by a gradual consensual process.