Ever-virgin Mary

C

CelticRebel

Guest
I'm aware of that. There are lots of denominations who believe they are "the same as the Apostles". As a matter of fact, I've never heard one advertise they were "new and improved". ;)

But that's not my point. My point is that the Church was literally One. The Creed put together by the bishops declares "One, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church."

Do you really think you could get the heads of the Catholic, various Baptist, Messianic, Presbyterian, Assemblies of God, Methodist, Church of Christ, Nazarene, Anglican, non-denominational, Lutheran, Episcopalian .... etc. etc. etc. ... to gather together and come up with an agreement of all doctrine, and call themselves "one Church"?

I'm sorry, but you can't even get the different "kinds" of Lutherans or different "kinds" of Baptists to agree on major issues.

In the NT, though, there were only churches, not "The Church".

As to your last couple of paragraphs: Look at the examples of the Church of North India and the Church of South India. Look at the widely diverse denominations that united to form this "Church". It can and has been done.
 
Upvote 0

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,499
13,648
✟426,074.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Again, why look to these later inventions? And from reading about those particular churches on Wiki, it seems like they both "low church" and "high church", depending on which particular church they "united" from (Baptists, I'm assuming, would be low church, while the Indian Anglicans would perhaps be high church -- is this right?). How on earth is that "one" church? Not to mention on the Wiki page for the Church of North India, it says "The merger, which had been in discussions since 1929, came eventually between the Church of India, Pakistan, Burma and Ceylon (Anglican), the United Church of Northern India (Congregationalist and Presbyterian), the Baptist Churches of Northern India (British Baptists), the Church of the Brethren in India, which withdrew in 2006, the Methodist Church (British and Australia Conferences) and the Disciples of Christ denominations."

Yeah, sounds real united...high church over here, low church over there, some just up and leaving. Hmmm...wonder what that's all about?

I think I'll stick with the Syriac Indians, who have been there since AD 52. They're all 'high church', and even with their arguments among themselves about whether to be autocephalous or not (Malankara Orthodox vs. Syriac Orthodox; most Indians I've talked to are ashamed at this foolishness, thank God) still remain in communion, professing one faith, and acknowledged by all their sister churches in the OO communion.

All these Protestant bodies in India are just a travesty, and a result of the overt English colonization of their country (same as the Roman Catholics in Goa and later in the South; the Catholics are just the slightly older group of occupiers). What on earth is there to be praised about that? Because they merged irrespective of their doctrinal differences? Again, doesn't sound very united to me. There's a difference between believing and practicing the same, and just not caring what people do so long as they are willing to unite with you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SF7Ets-YRAU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCcfhdc9iq8

Gee, I just don't know which one to choose! They both have such compelling "claims"! ;)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,468
20,025
41
Earth
✟1,455,670.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I wouldn't say that. There were differences even among the apostles. And then after the apostolic age, there were also differences. There were the Montanists, for example. Now I know the argument is that they weren't the church, but I couldn't say that. And I come back again to the ancient Celtic Church as another example.

I would, when there were differences, they were corrected. there was no live and let live like you see nowadays. if you innovated doctrine, you were a heretic and cast out. groups like the Montanists did just that, they left and cast themselves out.

and in the Scripture there is only mention of THE Church. what town it was in was no big deal. they were united in dogma.
 
Upvote 0
S

SeventhValley

Guest
Again, why look to these later inventions? And from reading about those particular churches on Wiki, it seems like they both "low church" and "high church", depending on which particular church they "united" from (Baptists, I'm assuming, would be low church, while the Indian Anglicans would perhaps be high church -- is this right?). How on earth is that "one" church? Not to mention on the Wiki page for the Church of North India, it says "The merger, which had been in discussions since 1929, came eventually between the Church of India, Pakistan, Burma and Ceylon (Anglican), the United Church of Northern India (Congregationalist and Presbyterian), the Baptist Churches of Northern India (British Baptists), the Church of the Brethren in India, which withdrew in 2006, the Methodist Church (British and Australia Conferences) and the Disciples of Christ denominations."

Yeah, sounds real united...high church over here, low church over there, some just up and leaving. Hmmm...wonder what that's all about?

I think I'll stick with the Syriac Indians, who have been there since AD 52. They're all 'high church', and even with their arguments among themselves about whether to be autocephalous or not (Malankara Orthodox vs. Syriac Orthodox; most Indians I've talked to are ashamed at this foolishness, thank God) still remain in communion, professing one faith, and acknowledged by all their sister churches in the OO communion.

All these Protestant bodies in India are just a travesty, and a result of the overt English colonization of their country (same as the Roman Catholics in Goa and later in the South; the Catholics are just the slightly older group of occupiers). What on earth is there to be praised about that? Because they merged irrespective of their doctrinal differences? Again, doesn't sound very united to me. There's a difference between believing and practicing the same, and just not caring what people do so long as they are willing to unite with you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SF7Ets-YRAU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCcfhdc9iq8

Gee, I just don't know which one to choose! They both have such compelling "claims"! ;)

In the bottom video they are happy while signing to God. Being upset at that is much how people said the Son of God was a drunkard who loved wine and having fun. Just my two cents...

Do not be so quick to judge.
 
Upvote 0
Aug 27, 2012
2,126
573
United States of America
✟41,078.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
"Of course the Orthodox Pharisees were considered evil,while the heterodox Samaratins were considered good(in the good Samaritan parable). So worshipping in the "correct" way is no guarantee of theosis and being outside is no guarantee against it."

The Samaritan was good because he showed mercy, not because he was a samaritan. You are forgetting about the conversation Jesus had with the Samaritan woman. Do you remember what He told her? "you worship what you do not know, we (jews) worship what we know for salvation is of the Jews"

while the Pharisees were criticized for their behavior, they were never criticized for being in the wrong place, in this case, Israel. The Samaritan woman, by contrast, was told she didn't even know who she was worshipping.

The Israel that the Pharisees belonged to is the very same community of God that the Orthodox Church is.
 
Upvote 0
S

SeventhValley

Guest
"Of course the Orthodox Pharisees were considered evil,while the heterodox Samaratins were considered good(in the good Samaritan parable). So worshipping in the "correct" way is no guarantee of theosis and being outside is no guarantee against it."

The Samaritan was good because he showed mercy, not because he was a samaritan. You are forgetting about the conversation Jesus had with the Samaritan woman. Do you remember what He told her? "you worship what you do not know, we (jews) worship what we know for salvation is of the Jews"

while the Pharisees were criticized for their behavior, they were never criticized for being in the wrong place, in this case, Israel. The Samaritan woman, by contrast, was told she didn't even know who she was worshipping.

The Israel that the Pharisees belonged to is the very same community of God that the Orthodox Church is.


Yup like you said where you worship has no bearing on God seeing you as good. God values behavior over belief.
 
Upvote 0

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,499
13,648
✟426,074.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
"Behavior over belief"? If your beliefs and your behavior are separate in your worship of God, something is seriously wrong.

And I am not judging the people in either video I posted, Seventh. My point was to say, in contradistinction from the idea of "claims" that CR has repeated, we are not dealing with historical differences that might cause a person to be on this or that "side" in some controversy. In reality, what the people believe molds what they do. They are inseparable. That's what those videos show -- not that one is "happy" (and what? The Syriac Orthodox are morose? No; they are serious and rooted in the ancient faith brought to India by the apostle St. Thomas, not innovations brought by some British colonizers 17 centuries later), or that I am mad at them for their happiness. That would be silly. But it is clearly not a matter of equally (ir)refutable claims. It is a matter of worshiping as you believe. Because God cares about both, so we ought not discard either. These you should have done without leaving the others undone, as the commandment goes. And lex orandi, lex credendi and all that. These are all very (ahem) Orthodox principles.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Aug 27, 2012
2,126
573
United States of America
✟41,078.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
"I wouldn't say that. There were differences even among the apostles"

That's because we are human, not robots that get programmed and have no free will. But like Matt said, they were corrected.

And yes, if you decide to no longer believe the apostolic faith, then you do separate yourself from the Church. I'm not talking about people who may be mistaken about something, or are ignorant about some particular doctrine, but I'm talking about people who willfully reject the apostolic deposit of faith once and for all delivered to teh saints and is kept in the the Body of Church, the Church. The legacy of Rome and her children, the Protestants, is a legacy of doing exactly that, willfully rejecting some aspect of the apostolic deposit.

Seventhvalley, so what, you could find holiness amongst Muslims or Jews, or Buddists, will that in your mind mean they are within the Body of Christ?
 
Upvote 0

~Anastasia~

† Handmaid of God †
Dec 1, 2013
31,133
17,452
Florida panhandle, USA
✟922,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Do they exist? Where? Ive never met any in High School where I was first taught about them. Is their a congregation anywhere (atleast by me) where worship consists of total silence for an hour like those sects I was taught about in american history. No one Ive ever met has ever said they are cradle puritans or shakers or pilgrims or quakers, never met one to say they were converts neither. Where are the anabaptists? Ive heard of differing baptist sects claim they have succeeded them so they are now defunct.

Really? Yes, they still exist. I've lived in/near STRONG Mennonite communities in two different states. But they do tend to be associated with agricultural areas. I preferred strongly to do business with Mennonite farmers and store owners when I had my farm. I was always impressed that they actually lived their faith better than anyone else I'd met up until then, and considered joining them. Ironically, the doctrines that tripped me up are ones they actually share with Orthodox. One of the local priests is formerly an Anabaptist.

But I think "cradle Shaker" is an oxymoron. ;)
 
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,468
20,025
41
Earth
✟1,455,670.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Of course the Orthodox Pharisees were considered evil,while the heterodox Samaratins were considered good(in the good Samaritan parable). So worshipping in the "correct" way is no guarantee of theosis and being outside is no guarantee against it.

Just my own thoughts.

true, but Christ told the Samaritan woman that salvation is of the Jews, and that it is the Jews who know who they worship. He did not say that they believe in God, have the Torah, and that is good enough, so keep doing what you are doing. He pointed out that they were not in the fullness of the faith at that time. while He did not deny her salvation (she is a saint in the Church), He also did not say she was in the communion of believers just because they agreed on some or most things.
 
Upvote 0

~Anastasia~

† Handmaid of God †
Dec 1, 2013
31,133
17,452
Florida panhandle, USA
✟922,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
In the NT, though, there were only churches, not "The Church".

As to your last couple of paragraphs: Look at the examples of the Church of North India and the Church of South India. Look at the widely diverse denominations that united to form this "Church". It can and has been done.

We really are not talking about the same thing.

And yes, the early Church was united. If they were all so different, how is it that letters to various ones were canonized into our Bible? Talk about confusion ... And why would Paul have authority to write so many? Let Pope Francis write an epistle to the Southern Baptist Convention, telling them how they ought to conduct themselves, and see if it is received. ;)

Ecumenism and an uneasy tolerance is not what I'm talking about.
 
Upvote 0

All4Christ

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙
CF Senior Ambassador
Supporter
Mar 11, 2003
11,682
8,018
PA
Visit site
✟1,013,227.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Kylissa said:
And why would Paul have authority to write so many? Let Pope Francis write an epistle to the Southern Baptist Convention, telling them how they ought to conduct themselves, and see if it is received. ;)

I can imagine :)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Aug 27, 2012
2,126
573
United States of America
✟41,078.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
@Matt, yeah, I said something very similar earlier in the tread:

"Of course the Orthodox Pharisees were considered evil,while the heterodox Samaratins were considered good(in the good Samaritan parable). So worshipping in the "correct" way is no guarantee of theosis and being outside is no guarantee against it."

The Samaritan was good because he showed mercy, not because he was a samaritan. You are forgetting about the conversation Jesus had with the Samaritan woman. Do you remember what He told her? "you worship what you do not know, we (jews) worship what we know for salvation is of the Jews"

while the Pharisees were criticized for their behavior, they were never criticized for being in the wrong place, in this case, Israel. The Samaritan woman, by contrast, was told she didn't even know who she was worshipping.

The Israel that the Pharisees belonged to is the very same community of God that the Orthodox Church is.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums