My statement is certainly not deceptive, in fact the opposite is true. You paint a picture of tranquility among the churches
Tranquility, not so much; agreement in basics insofar as these other types of Christians affirm and abide by the faith as outlined in the Nicene Creed (which again is the statement of faith of this very website, and this website is "
Christianforums.com", not "Lutheranforums", or "Copticforums", or "Catholic forums", etc.), absolutely. Only a fool would pretend as though there is not basic agreement, and we do not tolerate any who say otherwise. One of our own metropolitans who shall remain nameless was very recently ordered by the Holy Synod to retract his words after he erroneously said that Catholics and Protestants will not be saved because they are not Orthodox. That is not our determination to make, and we have never taught such a thing. That retraction presumably wouldn't happen if it weren't for the recognition of others' Christianity, however flawed it may be in the specifics according to us. (Keeping in mind here that the Creed is an
outline to which all can agree; it does not fill in the specifics.)
and you know very well that there are irreconcilable differences that will not allow for the mending of even ancient schisms.
I don't actually agree with that. In recent years alone, the Antiochians and the Syriac Orthodox have agreed to allow intercommunion among their people, the Copts and the Greeks in Alexandria proper have allowed the same (and also inter-communal marriage and recognizing one another's baptisms). Internal schisms between the Eastern Orthodox and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia in the Eastern Orthodox communion and the Oriental Orthodox and the Ethiopian Synod in Resistance have both been healed, restoring internal unity to these hurting parts of the respective communions.
No, the large schisms of Chalcedon or of 1054 are not yet healed, but I believe and must believe that with God all things are possible. Such a degree of cordiality as we see now between my communion and the Greeks, for instance, would likely have seemed impossible or at the very best a waste of time (as some still see it) before recent decades, and yet we have made substantial, if slow and regional, progress in our talks together, as befits our respective commitments to the Orthodox faith (that no one rush in unwisely towards any union not based on real, substantial agreement in faith).
Frankly, that this is not enough for someone who is not a Christian of any kind is of absolutely no consequence whatsoever. Everything will be done in God's time, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit -- the One God, homoousios. +
You are right, many churches believe that God is 3 persons in 1 God. But go one step further and try to reconcile how they interact with each other or how they are of the same substance or that Jesus is miaphysite, and always this statement: if you do not believe this, you are anathema to our communion forever. Believe me, I am not the only deceptive one.
Yes you
are being deceptive, because we don't say that. We anathematize the Tome and its reception by the Council of Chalcedon because we do not believe it to have maintained the Orthodox faith as we (
all Christians) have received it, but anathematizing
the people stopped long enough ago that already in the middle ages we had contact between the Byzantines and the Armenians wherein the Armenians, under HH St. Nerses Shnorhali (r. 1166-1173) were in council with the Byzantines regarding reunion, and it nearly happened but for the unacceptable terms of reunion put forth by the Byzantine emperor. All the polemics from the time that you can find (primarily from the Syrians like St. Dionysius Bar Salibi and others) all talk about the heresy of Chalcedonianism, but say nothing of the state of the people or that they are "anathema to our communion forever". HH St. Timothy II, the direct successor to the exiled pope HH St. Dioscorus, offered the simplest terms for reconciliation of Chalcedonians that is possible: reception by confession of faith only, after an appropriate period of discernment to make sure that this is what they really believed and wanted to do. (Because at that time it was very much "taking sides", and a Chalcedonian could presumably lose quite a lot in returning.)
Could you please stop lying about my communion in a thread that isn't even about us? Thank you.
There is a common base or cornerstone, and that cornerstone is Christ. However, all the different churches have built upon the base a different house, or a different gospel of Christ.
Sure, the communions are different (that's why they're different communions
), but that does not obscure basic similarities such that we cannot recognize them as fellow Christians. Now as it was then, if they profess the faith as outlined in the Creed, they are Christians. If they do not, they are not. You and I have been through this approximately a bazillion times, so I need not belabor the point.
Even the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has the same base and cornerstone, which is Christ, but our house is different in explaining the gospel too.
No, it is not the same. You do not confess God in three Persons Who are one in essence, so you are a different religion. Orthodox (orthodox...dang English orthographic conventions!) Trinitarianism is the
only acceptable theological expression in Christianity. All trithiests, henotheists, Sabellians, Arians and semi-Arians, Adoptionists, etc. have been cast out of the religion, so they may claim it, but Christians rightly do not accept them. If you know your theology, you will not accept any substitutes.
So which house is explaining the gospel the right way? Do you call the OO the only true church of Jesus Christ in the world today?
Do I
personally do so? No, because that's not my way of talking about ecclesiology in the first place. I say that the Oriental Orthodox Church (really,
the Orthodox Church; this "Oriental" vs. "Eastern" nonsense is a concession to outsiders who might otherwise confuse the Armenians and the Greeks, or the Russians and the Syrians, or whatever; in our Church, it is simply "Orthodox" -- we are
Orthodox) is the Orthodox Church of God, and whatever else is out there is not. This is not exclusive of other groups which do not claim to be Orthodox Christians in the first place, as it is none of my business what makes a person a Lutheran or a Methodist or a Catholic or a whatever. These are their own Christian traditions, which mostly started in other temporal, political, and cultural contexts than my own Church, so who am I to judge them in any way? Do they confess that Christ has come in the flesh for us men and for our salvation, and by His voluntary death on the cross for us sinners, He has freed us from the bondage of sin and death and granted us eternal life in the resurrection? Then they are Christians. Do they confess that He was incarnate of the Virgin Mary and of the Holy Spirit, and truly became man? Then they are Christians. Etc., etc., etc. There is nothing in the Creed that any of these people should object to, and generally speaking the more that they study the early Church, the more that they come to know the wisdom and truth that has been preserved for us, and the closer and closer they come to Christ, and the more they love Him. I cannot tell you how many times people of various confessions that I know nothing about have written to me even just here on CF to say "You wrote something about a writer in this thread; can you give me a link so that I can read more?", and then they do so, and then they understand and appreciate something they didn't previously know about. The fathers and mothers (e.g., the Desert Mothers like Amma Syncletica and Amma Sarah, who are the female equals to the Desert Fathers like St. Anthony and St. Pachomios) are lights along the path, fit for everyone who wants to know how our own ancestors in the Christian faith walked it. Even if they were mostly Egyptians, Syrians, Palestinians, whatever, everyone who knows them is greatly enriched. God planted them for us just as surely as He has not abandoned us, wherever we are, but has put us here together for a good end in defending our faith against the slander of Mormonism which says it died, it was taken away, it was corrupted, etc. No.
I was just explaining to Phoebe Ann that if she would have stuck to her bible in the time of Christ, she probably would not have converted to Christianity. That is all I was trying to say.
Yes, but you did it in a way that sort of decided for her what would happen. You did that to me earlier in this reply when you said that I know that schisms are not healable. I don't believe that, but you say I do because that is your picture of what others would do, according to your understanding. Well who are you to say that your understanding is others' as well? That's my only point. It is better to say "As I understand it, XYZ" than to say "You believe this" or "You would do this". Certainly we all fall into this trap sometimes (I'm sure I have), but it is good to be mindful of it when we can. Maybe other people's
actual answers would surprise you, if you let them answer for themselves.
She may have, but her die-hard rule that if it is in the bible, I believe, and if not, I do not believe, is the very reason that staunch Jews would have nothing to do with the radical Jesus. They had their bibles and they needed not to have this Jesus and his uneducated disciple rabble preaching to them about loving your enemy and gentiles will be given the same opportunity as the Jews, who were the beloved of God.
I think mmksparbud just said what I would have said. The point is that all of these people who
did convert only had the OT writings, so it's not correct to assume that people with only the preexisting Biblical scriptures would not convert, because
the entire first generation of the Church was people in exactly that state (with only the OT) who did exactly that. So Peter and all of the apostles likewise, all of the disciples, and all of those who heard them preach either before or while the NT was being written. And we have the accounts of some of those people still, like St. Polycarp and St. Ignatius. They personally knew the apostles, and witnessed their preaching.
Of course you can still say "But they were not the majority of Jews", which is not wrong, but again, as I asked you before: Did Mormonism gain all of its eventual followers right away? No. So that is not really relevant to what we are talking about. Even in the case that is arguably closest to that -- that of the spread of Islam (since it was so incredibly fast, relative to the slower spread of Christianity before it) -- the solidification of the Islamic community was not really achieved until the victory of the forces of the Rashidun caliphate in the Ridda wars (note: Ridda in Arabic means "apostasy"; these were groups of Arabs who had converted to follow
Muhammad, but did not want to stay in the religion after his death/did not recognize those who claimed to succeed him in authority). Granted, this was in the immediate aftermath of Muhammad's death in 632 (so they coalesced as a community incredibly quickly, basically by winning a war and forcing people to either submit or leave/die), but there is evidence of Christians even in what is today Saudi Arabia (i.e., Muhammad's own area) until about the 10th century, in the oasis of Najran. (see, for example, the Najran accord with the Christians and Jews of the area, under Zaidi Imam al-Hussein, 897 AD)
So even in that case they didn't really have solid control and one community even in their home area for several centuries. And remember, I'm bringing this up in the first place because this is literally the 'best case scenario', i.e., the quickest, most complete, most decisive, etc. So this is pretty normal, as mass conversion such that there are simply no other types of people anymore is really quite rare.
I do appreciate your less confrontational approach, and I will try to do the same. I do enjoy our discussions and the debate that ensues. You are a worthy person to debate, actually superior to me. So please excuse my sometimes dumb approach to things.
Thank you, Peter. I do appreciate it, and I don't think you're dumb. We just disagree on some things. I am truly sorry if I've ever offended you or any other Mormon who might read this or made you feel stupid or like I thought you were beneath me in intellect or whatever. That is not my intention, and I don't think that is the case.
But I do believe that our foundations are the same, and that is simply, we believe in Jesus Christ, but I know that our houses are different, based on a different view of who this Jesus is and all that he is about.
I have to disagree. I appreciate the conciliatory tone, but I simply do not believe at all that your God(s) and your Christ are somehow the same as the God of Christianity. It's not really even just a matter of "We disagree on their relation" (as though it is an 'intellectual' disagreement on
how exactly the Persons are united, similar to being of this or that mind on the Tome of Leo), but rather
God either revealed Himself to mankind in this particular way (as Christians assert) or He didn't. (As Mormons assert.)
So God either
is or He isn't. And He says "I AM", so since He
is, Mormonism is false. To accept Mormon theology completely eviscerates the Christian belief in the incarnation of Christ our God, and His death and resurrection, and His promise of freedom from sin and eternal life, etc. Basically the entire history and theology of Christianity.
So no, I don't accept that. It is your latter-day revelation versus ours at the Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit descended upon the gathered assembly and ushered in the baptism of the Church into the world, and lead all who had assembled from every nation into all truth by direct revelation, such that all has been realized and cannot be washed away by anything.
The revelation of Christ and of the Holy Spirit Who is sent in His name after His death and resurrection completely seals us off from the revelations of Joseph Smith or anyone else.
All is revealed in Christ by the enlightening and indwelling of we who follow Him by the Holy Spirit, as it is stated in the scriptures that no one can say Christ is Lord but by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:3). Thus we have such late writings as the letter of St. Jerome to Marcella (4th century) which states in the context of combating the infestation of the Montanists (believers in the 'new prophecy' established by their false prophet Montanus in the 2nd century) in Rome that we do not reject prophecy as a thing, only that which does not accord with the scriptures. This has always been the way (hence Montanus and Montanism was condemned
during the lifetime of its founder), and Mormonism is a flagrant violation of it.
