Orthodox view on Catholicism

East of Eden · May 30, 2021

FenderTL5 said:
2) most protestants accept the Anselm/Augustinian view of Original Sin and the Atonement (see GreekOrthodox's post quoted below for reference)

This view was around long before Augustine:

For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. (1 Cor 15:21-22)

If you don’t believe in the fall of humanity as a single historical event, what is your alternative?

Really, so I am clear, can someone explain to me the Orthodox view of salvation? How would you answer someone who asked the question, "What must I do to be saved?"

Lukaris · May 30, 2021

East of Eden said:
This view was around long before Augustine:

For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. (1 Cor 15:21-22)

If you don’t believe in the fall of humanity as a single historical event, what is your alternative?

Really, so I am clear, can someone explain to me the Orthodox view of salvation? How would you answer someone who asked the question, "What must I do to be saved?"

I think Colossians 1 with an emphasis on verses 10-14 & 23 is a good example.

Lukaris · May 30, 2021

I have a theory based on matters that St. Augustine was struggling with that led to a tightening of his theology. He was confronting Donatists, Arians, runaway Pelagianism etc. While it seems it could be argued that Donatists had a point that Christians who comprised with their persecutors before Constantine were comprised, how could that be when St. Augustine lived? He testified of their bad fruit in his Enchiridion, that band of them were out to assassinate him. Augustine’s death, while of natural causes, was at the risk of his life & physical exhaustion while under siege by Arians attests to his sainthood.

On the Pelagian issue is where I believe he drew a line in the sand ( justifiably but maybe with a bad conclusion?). I read the book: Early Christian Doctrines by JND Kelly which is really good & above my intellectual pay scale ( the book is actually very readable but I am not real bright). Despite this, I gathered & have guessed ( Kelly did not but I am weighing his facts) that Pelagius himself did not seem to teach a graceless salvation. The problem is that his teachings seem to leave a loophole for such a heresy. A student of Pelagius, Julian of Eclanum, taught such a doctrine. Augustine did not immediately condemn Pelagius but I think people like Julian must have ( understandably) caused him to lay down the law. Unfortunately, I think Pelagius might have been condemned too much but his teachings did seem to weaken the concept of assurance in Christ as our salvation by grace. It was from this that someone like Julian gave too much assurance to good works instead of faith in the Lord in which we are saved.

This is a theory of mine and I am a warehouse worker & janitor so take it with extreme caution.

edit note: the word “comprised” in my post should read as “compromised”. For some reason, software thought I meant otherwise.

Christislove · May 30, 2021

Lukaris said:
I have a theory based on matters that St. Augustine was struggling with that led to a tightening of his theology. He was confronting Donatists, Arians, runaway Pelagianism etc. While it seems it could be argued that Donatists had a point that Christians who comprised with their persecutors before Constantine were comprised, how could that be when St. Augustine lived? He testified of their bad fruit in his Enchiridion, that band of them were out to assassinate him. Augustine’s death, while of natural causes, was at the risk of his life & physical exhaustion while under siege by Arians attests to his sainthood.

On the Pelagian issue is where I believe he drew a line in the sand ( justifiably but maybe with a bad conclusion?). I read the book: Early Christian Doctrines by JND Kelly which is really good & above my intellectual pay scale ( the book is actually very readable but I am not real bright). Despite this, I gathered & have guessed ( Kelly did not but I am weighing his facts) that Pelagius himself did not seem to teach a graceless salvation. The problem is that his teachings seem to leave a loophole for such a heresy. A student of Pelagius, Julian of Eclanum, taught such a doctrine. Augustine did not immediately condemn Pelagius but I think people like Julian must have ( understandably) caused him to lay down the law. Unfortunately, I think Pelagius might have been condemned too much but his teachings did seem to weaken the concept of assurance in Christ as our salvation by grace. It was from this that someone like Julian gave too much assurance to good works instead of faith in the Lord in which we are saved.

This is a theory of mine and I am a warehouse worker & janitor so take it with extreme caution.

Many of the disciples were mere fisherman with less education and training than probably anybody here. The Lord chooses the most improbable people at times, probably to show that it is Him doing the work and not the worker himself. To Him be the glory forever...

East of Eden · May 30, 2021

Christislove said:
Many of the disciples were mere fisherman with less education and training than probably anybody here. The Lord chooses the most improbable people at times, probably to show that it is Him doing the work and not the worker himself. To Him be the glory forever...

It was the most educated of Jesus' time who opposed him the most.

ArmyMatt · May 30, 2021

East of Eden said:
What about the group the disciples asked Jesus to make them stop, because they weren't one of them? They were rightly rebuked.

I'm not against rituals as long as the worshippers understand the full meaning behind them, that isn't always the case.

1. that was before Pentecost and the establishment of Apostolic succession.

2. then the issue is with individuals who don't delve into the rituals, not that Orthodoxy is too ritualistic.

rusmeister · May 30, 2021

Hi there!
(Raised as a northern fundamental Baptist here)

East of Eden said:
What about the group the disciples asked Jesus to make them stop, because they weren't one of them? They were rightly rebuked.

Yes. And you have Matthew 12:30/Luke 11:23 to balance against THAT and prevent a simplistic assumption that “it therefore doesn’t matter”.

East of Eden said:
I'm not against rituals as long as the worshippers understand the full meaning behind them, that isn't always the case.

Insofar as you mean that we ought to desire the full meaning behind rituals as far as we can, we would quite agree.
But if you mean that a believer ought not participate in a ritual part of the Liturgy unless/until he understands it “fully” we would quite disagree. It’s an issue of whether you trust the authority of the Church or not, or seek to hold yourself as the ultimate arbiter of the Faith, your own pope, if you will. Little children don’t understand a lot of things, like why we make them take baths. Over time, they will come to understand. We are like little children when we enter the Church, and you can spend a lifetime trying to understand things, and will never understand everything. It’s discovering that there ARE things to discover, that these rituals have meaning and purpose, which we can to some degree understand. Can you understand the meaning of crowns held above the heads of a couple being wed? Sure, we can quickly get one of the ideas superficially, such as the idea of a crown of martyrdom of the self to love the other as Christ commanded, and not merely as our feelings dictate. But can you FULLY understand even that? I think you have to live a married lifetime to the end to even begin to “fully” understand it.

FenderTL5 · May 31, 2021

East of Eden said:
This view was around long before Augustine:

For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. (1 Cor 15:21-22)

That passage in no way even suggests that Adam's guilt is transferred throughout humanity.
Death, the consequence of Adam's sin, yes that certainly was introduced with sin and continues because of sin. A line that sums up the Orthodox Church’s understanding of the Fall: “I am an image of Your indescribable glory, though I bear the scars of my sins” is found in our Memorial Service.

When I first encountered this (being Baptist at the time), something that struck me as truly fascinating was that when Augustine wrote on this topic; he was addressing what happens to infants who were yet to be baptized. Pelagius was teaching that infants could be saved without Baptism. In countering Pelagius, Augustine was led to state that infants who die without Baptism are consigned to hell. My Baptist congregation accepted his view of depravity - yet at the same time rejected his solution.

If you don’t believe in the fall of humanity as a single historical event, what is your alternative?

Orthodoxy believes in The Fall, but not the concept of 'Original Sin' that is found in the west.
A good read is found here (Ancestral Versus Original Sin)
excerpt: In Orthodox thought God did not threaten Adam and Eve with punishment nor was He angered or offended by their sin; He was moved to compassion. The expulsion from the Garden and from the Tree of Life was an act of love and not vengeance so that humanity would not "become immortal in sin" (Romanides, 2002, p. 32). Thus began the preparation for the Incarnation of the Son of God and the solution that alone could rectify the situation: the destruction of the enemies of humanity and God, death (I Corinthians 15:26, 56), sin, corruption and the devil..

Really, so I am clear, can someone explain to me the Orthodox view of salvation? How would you answer someone who asked the question, "What must I do to be saved?"

Believe, be baptized, take up your cross and follow Christ. Salvation is not a one moment juridical event, it is a life-long process.
I like the way Bishop Kallistos Ware expressed it, I'm inserting a condensed (7 minute) 'sit down' version of a presentation he gives on the topic. The full hour version is worth finding.

GreekOrthodox · May 31, 2021

East of Eden said:
This view was around long before Augustine:

For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. (1 Cor 15:21-22)

Dear East, This is from the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod explanation of Luther's Small Catechism

81. What is original sin?
A. Original sin is that total corruption of our whole human nature which we have inherited from Adam through our parents.

82. What has original sin done to human nature?
A. Original sin has brought guilt and condemnation to all people;
B. Has left everyone without true fear and love of God, that is, spiritually blind,
C. Causes everyone to commit all kinds of actual sins.dead, and enemies of God;

So from the Augustinian and Anselmian perspective, we do not just suffer the consequences of Adam's sin, we are conceived with Adam's guilt of committing original sin. That's where western theology starts its teaching on salvation.

The ultimate conclusion becomes Jonathon Edward's sermon, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God". It also can lead one on the precipice of Marcionism, who taught that the OT god of Israel was not the same as the Trinity and is the enemy of mankind. You can see this in all kinds of accusations against Christianity, that Jesus was made incarnate to satisfy the anger of the Father.

East of Eden · May 31, 2021

rusmeister said:
Hi there!
(Raised as a northern fundamental Baptist here)

Yes. And you have Matthew 12:30/Luke 11:23 to balance against THAT and prevent a simplistic assumption that “it therefore doesn’t matter”.

First, let me say I'm walking a fine line here between trying to understand Orthodox thinking and not sounding like I'm crashing your forum trying to argue with you and debate, contrary to forum rules.

As to Matthew 12:30, I think it a stretch to say other Christian denominations are not 'with Christ'. As I have said to Catholics on this forum, you don't have to go through Rome to get to Jesus.

Insofar as you mean that we ought to desire the full meaning behind rituals as far as we can, we would quite agree.
But if you mean that a believer ought not participate in a ritual part of the Liturgy unless/until he understands it “fully” we would quite disagree. It’s an issue of whether you trust the authority of the Church or not, or seek to hold yourself as the ultimate arbiter of the Faith, your own pope, if you will. Little children don’t understand a lot of things, like why we make them take baths. Over time, they will come to understand. We are like little children when we enter the Church, and you can spend a lifetime trying to understand things, and will never understand everything. It’s discovering that there ARE things to discover, that these rituals have meaning and purpose, which we can to some degree understand. Can you understand the meaning of crowns held above the heads of a couple being wed? Sure, we can quickly get one of the ideas superficially, such as the idea of a crown of martyrdom of the self to love the other as Christ commanded, and not merely as our feelings dictate. But can you FULLY understand even that? I think you have to live a married lifetime to the end to even begin to “fully” understand it.

Interesting point.

Off topic, but are you familiar with 'The Bible Answer Man' Hank Hanagraf becoming Orthodox a few years ago? I can respect his decision, but it was a bad career move, few in his audience took that well.

East of Eden · May 31, 2021

FenderTL5 said:
That passage in no way even suggests that Adam's guilt is transferred throughout humanity.
Death, the consequence of Adam's sin, yes that certainly was introduced with sin and continues because of sin. A line that sums up the Orthodox Church’s understanding of the Fall: “I am an image of Your indescribable glory, though I bear the scars of my sins” is found in our Memorial Service.

When I first encountered this (being Baptist at the time), something that struck me as truly fascinating was that when Augustine wrote on this topic; he was addressing what happens to infants who were yet to be baptized. Pelagius was teaching that infants could be saved without Baptism. In countering Pelagius, Augustine was led to state that infants who die without Baptism are consigned to hell. My Baptist congregation accepted his view of depravity - yet at the same time rejected his solution.

Orthodoxy believes in The Fall, but not the concept of 'Original Sin' that is found in the west.
A good read is found here (Ancestral Versus Original Sin)
excerpt: In Orthodox thought God did not threaten Adam and Eve with punishment nor was He angered or offended by their sin; He was moved to compassion. The expulsion from the Garden and from the Tree of Life was an act of love and not vengeance so that humanity would not "become immortal in sin" (Romanides, 2002, p. 32). Thus began the preparation for the Incarnation of the Son of God and the solution that alone could rectify the situation: the destruction of the enemies of humanity and God, death (I Corinthians 15:26, 56), sin, corruption and the devil..

We'll have to agree to disagree there. Someone half jokingly once said if you don't believe in the doctrine of original sin, just look at your average two year old.

Believe, be baptized, take up your cross and follow Christ. Salvation is not a one moment juridical event, it is a life-long process.

What about the thief on the cross? Was he not saved at that moment? I agree we all need to be more deeply converted, and that that process will continue in Eternity.

I like the way Bishop Kallistos Ware expressed it, I'm inserting a condensed (7 minute) 'sit down' version of a presentation he gives on the topic. The full hour version is worth finding.

I'm familiar with Bp. Ware, and may have read 'The Orthodox Way' at some point. I do think it possible for us to have assurance of salvation. Consider 1 John 5:11–13: “And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life” (emphasis added).

And also, “I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand” (John 10:28–29)

rusmeister · May 31, 2021

East of Eden said:
First, let me say I'm walking a fine line here between trying to understand Orthodox thinking and not sounding like I'm crashing your forum trying to argue with you and debate, contrary to forum rules.

As to Matthew 12:30, I think it a stretch to say other Christian denominations are not 'with Christ'. As I have said to Catholics on this forum, you don't have to go through Rome to get to Jesus.

Interesting point.

Off topic, but are you familiar with 'The Bible Answer Man' Hank Hanagraf becoming Orthodox a few years ago? I can respect his decision, but it was a bad career move, few in his audience took that well.

I think you'd find the consensus here that other Christian faiths are also Christian. But we are not in communion, and would not agree that they are part of the visible Church here on Earth. (God can do what He wants, and by His grace make anyone part of His Church, if that is His will. But we may not decide on our own that people outside the Orthodox Church are nevertheless part of the Church. We have to say that, as far as we know, in the here and now, they are not, though they seek to follow Christ (and I, personally, do think He will honor that, if we are doing the best we know how). So no, we are NOT saying that others are "not with Christ".

On Hanagraf, one's reaction is liable to be partisan. He would have lost determined Protestant listeners, especially those who think us "crypto-Catholics" and the Orthodox Church as "non-Christian", but he gained others. So whether the career move (if it can be so called) was good or bad depends on what you believe.

But you're welcome here. I don't see you attacking our beliefs.We're cool with visitors, and have even had "honorary (non-Orthodox) members of TAW". (I myself haven't bothered going to other forums here for many years now.)

Christislove · May 31, 2021

FenderTL5 said:
As an ex-Protestant (Independent Baptist/SBC)I think that depends on what is being discussed. As one drills down into some individual doctrines/aspects that could very well be true.

However, from an over-arching, high level; protestants adhere to core Catholicism in at least a couple of very significant ways.
1) most protestants view the Holy Trinity (if they accept the Trinity at all) through the lense of the filioque (even if tacitly).
2) most protestants accept the Anselm/Augustinian view of Original Sin and the Atonement (see GreekOrthodox's post quoted below for reference)

The first changes the nature of who God is. The second changes the nature of man and his/her relationship to God. Once you've made those changes, an orthodox understanding/belief is difficult (but not impossible) to attain imho.

I was searching the web to see what information I can find regarding this. I ran across this podcast from Dr. William lane craig who stated that an orthodox scientist he interviewed felt more in line with the evangelicals because of their view on the Holy Spirit. So on your first point, I don't believe there is any concrete teaching here in the Protestant church. Because of that they have a more mystical approach. Dr. Craig also debated a Catholic on Absolute Divine Simplicity in that video. This video was made by a Orthodox person and you can view the debate on Divine Simplicity at the end and view the point in the video where Dr. Craig mentions how the orthodox scientist felt more in line with evangelicals here:

As far as your second Point, I will agree that I have heard original sin mentioned in the protestant sphere. However, many do not hold to the doctrine. For instance, Baptists do not.

Finally, I watched this video where at the end Hank Hanegraaff mentions how alike protestants and the orthodox are because of their rejection of many doctrines of the Catholic church like what has been mentioned here. Interesting enough, one of the biggest critiques of the Orthodox church from the protestant is the view of Faith only versus Faith with works salvation. This is that video if you want to view it which was composed by an orthodox person so will be pro ortho:

Finally, one of the best known protestants of the last century, Southern Baptist Billy Graham, would preach in Orthodox churches. Of course, Billy Graham was more of a Christian like CS Lewis in that he championed mere christianity and so tried to unify Christians.

ArmyMatt said:
just look at how salvation is approached.

The protestants that I have been hanging with always criticize other churches if they are too legalistic. They view repentance as more of a spirit/heart/internal condition where when you receive the Holy Spirit the lord enables you to live a life for Him. It is not a do this and do that thing but rather a heart change... Of course, I have been hanging out with Baptists lately so perhaps that is why.

ArmyMatt · May 31, 2021

Christislove said:
The protestants that I have been hanging with always criticize other churches if they are too legalistic. They view repentance as more of a spirit/heart/internal condition where when you receive the Holy Spirit the lord enables you to live a life for Him. It is not a do this and do that thing but rather a heart change... Of course, I have been hanging out with Baptists lately so perhaps that is why.

yes, but they don't have what God gives for that internal change. hence a lot of "say the sinners prayer with sincerity and you get born again" stuff. that is legalism of if I do x, God does y. quid pro quo.

East of Eden · May 31, 2021

Christislove said:
I was searching the web to see what information I can find regarding this. I ran across this podcast from Dr. William lane craig who stated that an orthodox scientist he interviewed felt more in line with the evangelicals because of their view on the Holy Spirit. So on your first point, I don't believe there is any concrete teaching here in the Protestant church. Because of that they have a more mystical approach. Dr. Craig also debated a Catholic on Absolute Divine Simplicity in that video. This video was made by a Orthodox person and you can view the debate on Divine Simplicity at the end and view the point in the video where Dr. Craig mentions how the orthodox scientist felt more in line with evangelicals here:

As far as your second Point, I will agree that I have heard original sin mentioned in the protestant sphere. However, many do not hold to the doctrine. For instance, Baptists do not.

That isn't universally true, see The Age (or State) of Accountability and Original Sin, One Baptist’s Perspective

Note Romans 5 in support of original sin.

Finally, I watched this video where at the end Hank Hanegraaff mentions how alike protestants and the orthodox are because of their rejection of many doctrines of the Catholic church like what has been mentioned here. Interesting enough, one of the biggest critiques of the Orthodox church from the protestant is the view of Faith only versus Faith with works salvation. This is that video if you want to view it which was composed by an orthodox person so will be pro ortho:

Finally, one of the best known protestants of the last century, Southern Baptist Billy Graham, would preach in Orthodox churches. Of course, Billy Graham was more of a Christian like CS Lewis in that he championed mere christianity and so tried to unify Christians.

Yes, I mentioned this earlier in the thread, Billy Graham said God's people are found in all Christian denominations, he wasn't referring to cults such as Mormons, Jehovah's Witness, etc.

East of Eden · May 31, 2021

ArmyMatt said:
yes, but they don't have what God gives for that internal change. hence a lot of "say the sinners prayer with sincerity and you get born again" stuff. that is legalism of if I do x, God does y. quid pro quo.

What about John 3:16 and Acts 16:13?

ArmyMatt · May 31, 2021

East of Eden said:
What about John 3:16 and Acts 16:13?

what about them?

E.C. · May 31, 2021

Christislove said:
What is the orthodox view on catholicism? If my understand is correct you do believe that the church in Rome held a primacy in the early church. But this primacy was mainly due to both Peter and Paul founding the church in Rome and because Rome, being the capital back then, served as a central hub.

Howdy, welcome to TAW! :wave:

So, I was raised Roman Catholic and converted at the age of sixteen for a myriad of reasons. Basically, the Roman Catholic Church has gone into heresy and teaches heretical stuff. Does that mean each and every individual Roman Catholic is a heretic? No, because a heretic has to knowingly reject Truth. Not all Roman Catholics do that, but were simply raised in a heretical body.
Do we wish Roman Catholics ill? No. Unfortunately, there are too many ex-Protestant Orthodox who never quite dumped their anti-Catholic baggage and at times sound as anti-Catholic as Jack Chick and other wackos. I even had the misfortune of meeting one priest who refused to recognize my chrismation to Orthodoxy because I was simply chrismated (confirmed) and not rebaptized since my Roman Catholic baptism is viewed as valid in the Orthodox Church - part of that "one baptism for the remission of sins" bit. I wrote that priest's bishop and he was suspended for a time.

Christislove · May 31, 2021

I could never understand the reason why protestants took such a big deal when Orthodox stated Faith with works for salvation.

For one thing you need to have a rational view as to what James was saying in James 2:14-26:

14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. 19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder. 20 You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[a]? 21 Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. 24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone. 25 In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26 As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

While I personally do not think Paul and James disagreed on anything, but even if they did it seems quite clear from scripture that James was viewed "higher" in the church than Paul. So if there was a disagreement you should go to James to get the full picture.

I know I am preaching to the choir here but I just want to make sure I understand the ortho view. I don't see how James 2:24 could be more clear: "You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone."

Now this is my personal view to join both Paul and James understanding of this because Paul does talk about faith only which needs to be reconciled with James.

Galatians 2:16 ESV
Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

Romans 3:28 ESV
For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

John 3:16 ESV
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Please feel free to correct me if it is incorrect. I am going to try to use an analogy to better picture this. Lets say that there is a group of people, all claim to be Christians, and all claim to have faith. They all have flashlights and these flashlights represent the faith they claim to have. The light that these flashlights give off represent works that they do. In this group of people some have good flashlights (good faith) and some have bad flashlights (false faith like only saying you believe for vain reasons). The bad flashlights (bad faith) will not produce light (works), but the good flashlights (good faith) will produce light (works). Now just like if you have a properly functioning flashlight it will shine light so will a person having good faith produce good works because it naturally flows from it. The faith only is "technically" correct because good works will naturally flow through a person with good faith. But I think that James is trying to differentiate between people with correct faith versus false faith by saying that you can better judge a person whether there faith is genuine or not by the works that they do. Only God knows the heart. However, while faith only is "technically" correct I think that the Ortho view gives a fuller picture because all good faith will produce good works. I do think that the Protestants shy away from this because the whole work thing for them seems to imply the Christian is doing something meritorious when in reality that isn't the implication. A person with good faith will receive the Holy Spirit and through the Spirit the person will be able to overcome sin. So it is only through God that he champions sin not on his or her own. So no boasting allowed.

Feel free to critique that as much as you want. The more the merrier

. I am here to learn and listen...

Christislove · May 31, 2021

East of Eden said:
That isn't universally true, see The Age (or State) of Accountability and Original Sin, One Baptist’s Perspective

Note Romans 5 in support of original sin.

With regards to original sin, I haven't studied this to come to any firm conclusion, so I will appeal to James and refrain from being a teacher:
James 3:1 Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.

I was more interested in which groups believed in it and which didn't...

Feel free to critique my faith with works post if you have any insight :oldthumbsup:

.

Orthodox view on Catholicism

Well-Known Member

Orthodox Christian

Orthodox Christian

Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian

Κύριε, ἐλέησον.

Psalti Chrysostom

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian

Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Member

Similar threads