Christianity Today on Orthodoxy (Hank Hanegraaff) discussion

"Then he said something that threw me for a loop, the Scriptures were confirmed and authorized by Rome in the first place."

Not quite. It was not just Rome alone, but the whole Church that confirmed and authorized the canon of Scriptures. Roman Catholics sometimes like to paint a picture of Rome summoning the rest of the Church and then she (Rome) dictates to everyone else how's it going be, but that was most certainly not how it went down.


"Sure but they had the Apostles, and minsters trained and discipled by them."

They did, yet they still had disagreements and conflicts, causing the writers of what became the New Testament to feel they needed to put into writing what was revealed to them, and to respond to those specific disagreements and conflicts.

mark kennedy said:

It's just so strange, there were differences between the eastern and western churches but somehow a conflict of authority arose and they were divided.

Click to expand...

well, the main issue was authority. the filioque is a theological difference. the real differences in the early days were only in practice and not in faith. that is why a lot of early Popes sound Orthodox....because they were. they were not what Rome has become.

mark kennedy said:

I can certainly see how rewriting the Nicene Creed would send people into turmoil. I'm not judgmental about devotions to Mary or the saints but draw the line at praying to God in their name. I know that seems trivial but for me, that was a deal breaker. It's inconceivable that you would ever try to approach God except in the name of Christ. I've studied for years the Wesleyan ideas concerning the moving of the Holy Spirit and certainly the gifts.

Click to expand...

we don't pray to God in their name. we ask them to pray for us in Christ's Name, just like we would ask each other to do so. God is the God of the living, and not of the dead.

mark kennedy said:

Sure but they had the Apostles, and minsters trained and discipled by them. From 50 AD to 70 AD they were starting to lose Apostles. Notice we have Paul's letters to the Corinthians but we don't have a clue what was in their letter to him. The key to any New Testament book is Apostolic authority and, of course, nearly universal acceptance among Christians. They knew him and even though Christians took a while to canonize the Scriptures, we know the difference between the genuine and a fraud.

Click to expand...

yes, but the disciples of the Disciples wrote stuff down. and that was one of the criteria for determining the NT canon. they knew the NT was legit and the gnostic stuff was not, because the Fathers' writings and lives, reflected what was written by the Apostles and verified it. every generation has had their own Fathers that keep in line what was handed down. even to this day.

mark kennedy said:

I suppose we all search this out in our own way but the one standard I've always went back to is the Scriptures. That should be our common ground, it just seems to me the rest has to be lined up with that clear and authoritative witness or we scatter to the four winds.

Click to expand...

we agree, Orthodoxy has never not lined with the Scriptures, and everything we believe and have is the same pulse that Christ gave His Apostles 2000 years ago. we are not the closest to the Apostolic Church, we are the Apostolic Church. nothing we believe contradicts Scripture.

mark kennedy said:

Let me just say I appreciate this, since your posting this from personal insight I'm not all that worried and it being precise. It's actually kind of fascinating. What I'm gleaning from all of this is the Rome was getting pretty high handed with it's perceived ecumenical authority. That's what is driving me crazy with the Protestant churches, you don't just get to form a group and rewrite Christian doctrine, Apostolic authority doesn't depend on and is not subject to anything other then Christ and the Apostles.

That's not intended as a rant, I'm just saying, I can understand the frustration. I was in a debate with a Catholic seminary student who was a very interesting guy. It was all very interesting and cordial so I was enjoying the exchange. Then he said something that threw me for a loop, the Scriptures were confirmed and authorized by Rome in the first place. I still can't wrap my mind around this, if anything, Rome is confirmed and authorized by Apostolic authority.

I remain convinced that the Scriptures represent the doctrine of the Apostles, and that the Old Testament is the eternal testimony of Levitical and Prophetic authority confirmed by God himself. I'd like to have the same confidence in tradition but unfortunately I have never been able to find the moorings for such a confidence.

You seem really sincere and I wish you all the best. I feel a little weightless considering these things, or maybe it's just being dwarfed by the enormity of subject matter.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Click to expand...

This is what's lead me to consider Orthodoxy...Catholics like to say, "All roads lead to Rome." And well, in a sense that's true...when you look at the various denominations that have sprung up since the reformation, they all either broke away from Rome, or from a church that broke away from Rome...but there's a thousand years of history before this. So my theory is that people like Luther and Calvin saw the major issues with Rome, and attempted to correct that, when really all they needed to do was return to Orthodoxy.

My journey is just beginning...I attend a nondenominational church currently...but the history leads me to the East...and when I read the writings of folks like Wesley...and more contemporary theologians like NT Wright, I can see where they are heavily influenced by the East.

One thing that appeals to me about the EOC is that the gospel doesn't seem to be centered around Augustine's Original Sin, which I feel is prominent in the West, and really taken to the extreme with Calvinism.

As an interesting side note...my wife is very anti traditional churches...her mom had a bad experience in the Catholic church, and my wife herself had a bad experience with Messianic Judaism...so this left a sour taste in her mouth. But the other day she told me to read a friend's post on Facebook...our friend is a Mormon, and this post was about their beliefs in the after life...my wife thought it was a joke, because it was so out there...I told her that it's what they really believe, at one point in the discussion she said, "You know maybe we do just need to become Catholic, because it seems like you need more than scripture for authority, or else you get crazy ideas like this." Which lead to be discussion Orthodoxy with her...because, well...I'm beginning to see that while all roads lead to Rome, Rome may just be a pit stop driving East...

Just stumbled upon this, you guys might find it interesting/helpful:

About

Big Drew said:

This is what's lead me to consider Orthodoxy...Catholics like to say, "All roads lead to Rome." And well, in a sense that's true...when you look at the various denominations that have sprung up since the reformation, they all either broke away from Rome, or from a church that broke away from Rome...but there's a thousand years of history before this. So my theory is that people like Luther and Calvin saw the major issues with Rome, and attempted to correct that, when really all they needed to do was return to Orthodoxy.

My journey is just beginning...I attend a nondenominational church currently...but the history leads me to the East...and when I read the writings of folks like Wesley...and more contemporary theologians like NT Wright, I can see where they are heavily influenced by the East.

One thing that appeals to me about the EOC is that the gospel doesn't seem to be centered around Augustine's Original Sin, which I feel is prominent in the West, and really taken to the extreme with Calvinism.

As an interesting side note...my wife is very anti traditional churches...her mom had a bad experience in the Catholic church, and my wife herself had a bad experience with Messianic Judaism...so this left a sour taste in her mouth. But the other day she told me to read a friend's post on Facebook...our friend is a Mormon, and this post was about their beliefs in the after life...my wife thought it was a joke, because it was so out there...I told her that it's what they really believe, at one point in the discussion she said, "You know maybe we do just need to become Catholic, because it seems like you need more than scripture for authority, or else you get crazy ideas like this." Which lead to be discussion Orthodoxy with her...because, well...I'm beginning to see that while all roads lead to Rome, Rome may just be a pit stop driving East...

Click to expand...

Keep searching and keep investigating. I was in your place about 10 years ago, leading a start up Vineyard church in my home and wondering about what the authentic Christian church was and should be like.

So I read the Early Church Fathers. At first, I thought they didn't understand New Covenant Christianity (Lord have mercy!). Soon, I began to entertain the remote possibility that I might be wrong...that I might understand Christianity less well than disciples of the Apostles such as St. Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Polycarp.

The Christianity of the Apostles still exists and can be found in the Orthodox Church. Taste and see that the Lord is good!