What EXACTLY is your doctrine on being the True Way?

Jesus4Madrid said:

Well, since these Church Fathers knew the disciples of Christ, the historical method would dictate that such early witnesses would be a good starting point for answering the question you are asking. How did the earliest Christians understand the Scripture you cite? They knew Jesus personally, so they should be credible witnesses to what the Gospel really teaches, don’t you think? Or do you think you are better equipped to understand Scripture than those who actually knew the authors?

Click to expand...

Sorry, I was thinking this was a continuation of what we were already discussing.

My theology comes from people like John Piper, my churches statement of faith and the like as well as what I have understood from being preached.

I do plan to read the church fathers in my time of studying. I do want to get close to those early on in the church as I have stated in this thread already I think.

If there are specific things you take issue with, please comment in those threads and not this one as I only gave what I believe from those threads because it seemed that people were assuming what I believed as being an "Evangelical" and didn't actually ask me what I believe but instead assumed I must believe exactly the same as other evangelicals.

Jesus4Madrid said:

Have you read St. Irenaeus? He attests to Church unity:

As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. . . (Against Heresies I.10.2).

Click to expand...

Yes, good quote. One wonders what Irenaeus means by "Languages of the world are dissimilar".

ArmyMatt said:

well, yes, they had strengths and weaknesses, but St Paul was usually encouraging them to persist in what is correct, or he was recalling them to what is correct when in error.

which is the same for the Churches in Revelation. it assumes they were united, went off track if they did, and then were recalled to that original teaching.

Click to expand...

I agree with this, so the question is where we differ from church to church. In my understanding, the profession of Jesus as Lord is the cornerstone of our faith, but just as we might profess the same thing in a general sense, our day to day lives are surely diverse based on different tribes, tongues, people's, and nations. In some sense the differences should not be "what" we believe, but "how" it impacts our daily lives.

I have thought the idea that there are many "different churches" is a thing of beauty. Not in the division or divisive nature of church splits, mind you, but the fact that we all celebrate the same Truth in different ways much like the different authors of the Bible had different personalities and that this comes through in how they present the Word of God.

Blessings.

Justin-H.S. said:

Btw, I thought you were here to learn about our faith and not to debate about our faith?

Click to expand...

It is absolutely not my intention to debate anything. I might share my perspective, but this does not mean I expect others to subscribe to my views necessarily. There was a matter of contention on what I believe as I felt in some ways attacked because people had assumed they know what I believe and acted as though they had license to attack such positions that I might not actually hold.

Justin-H.S. said:

We say the saints are more alive now than when they were “alive” as dust, because they are with the source of life Himself. And if they’re alive, they hear us asking them to pray to God for us, because their icon are windows to heaven.

Here’s a quickish video about how we see the world. We don’t really separate between the natural world and the supernatural.

Click to expand...

Hmm. I guess that is a lot different than my views, but my views are quite a bite different than the common views expressed in the video.

How does the EOC see Jesus return and his judging the living and the dead? Or the resurrection of the saints?

ArmyMatt said:

I would agree, but we should not disagree on dogma, and we do.

Click to expand...

Far be it from me to say dogma is evil, however, there are different ways to understand what it was that Christ was getting at when He, for example, healed on the Sabbath. One of the most pointed questions Jesus asked of others is, "Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath?" which to me represents so much as it was completely revolutionary at the time, not maybe so for us today, but from the authorities at the time who thought such things unthinkable even though they still circumcised and brought their animal out of the muck on the sabbath.

In any case, I do not mean to be contentious at all. I am only pointing out my perspective on dogma. If you have a different view than me as an EO, please explain it in a way I can understand as I would guess you would want to convince me of the Truth of your perspective. I am open to learning.

Justin-H.S. said:

And when you feel attacked about your beliefs just know that it’s not necessarily you we’re talking about. You’re not the first Evangelical we’ve come across. A lot of us were Evangelicals. But, evangelicalism is like a box of chocolates. You never know what beliefs you’re going to get. So, long story short, please forgive me if you felt slighted. I’m a sinful man.

Click to expand...

I will not hold it against you. In fact, I have never been any good at holding grudges even sometimes to my detriment.

Hermit76 said:

It is imperative to understand that differences in interpretation ultimately go back to what we believe about God. You mentioned John Piper. The reformed gospel describes a much different character of God than The Church (The Fathers) worshipped, taught, and believed in. Orthodoxy sees this as a barrier to salvation. There is no beauty or unity in error. The Tradition of Orthodoxy has kept The Church from these errors. The Reformation just sewed seeds of error... and they are perennial.

Click to expand...

This doesn't help me. Simply saying "bad, wrong" isn't any way to convince anyone of anything.

Justin-H.S. said:

Do you understand First Principles? He’s saying that our First Principles are so far apart, that unless we address the First Principles we won’t get anywhere.

Basically, the conversation goes:
Orthodox: *says anything*
Evangelical: No, I disagree. I just don’t get it.

First Principles, my man. They are in a different solar system.

Click to expand...

Our first principles are the same which is that Jesus is Lord. I am an honest seeker. I do not understand how that can not be respected. I came here to learn, not to be told everything I believe is incorrect as that is not the point of my being on this forum. I am not alone in trying to find out what the correct way is. John Piper is also one who tries to understand what is true. Saying he and I are wrong without saying where we are wrong doesn't help me understand why you think we are wrong, just that what you think is that I am wrong. Even if I were to say I am wrong, it doesn't help me without some sort of direction to go in. As far as I can see every denomination and church gets some things wrong. I am not a pluralist, so please do not assume that about me. No one has accused me of that yet, but that seems to be where this is headed. I am not a pluralist, meaning, I do not believe there are "multiple truths" that we can pick and choose from like a buffet. Read my introduction post here: Hello! I'm not here to tell people they are wrong, I am here to find out who of the Christian faith has the best idea of things. You claim a monopoly on Truth. So do the Catholics and the reformers and the [insert christian belief here]. As far as I have seen no one has it perfect. But my point here, I reiterate, is to find out who has the best understanding of Christ and what he taught in congruence with what Paul, Peter, John, James, Hebrews, the prophets, Moses, Judges, and everything in between.

Far be it from me to be a fool and despise correction as the Proverbs and Psalms are very clear on having multiple counselors. But if I do not know "what" is wrong with "everyone else" then all I can say is "how" do you know you are without error?