DENOMINATIONALISM (Open to All)

[Koey]

Many Orthodox believe they are the one true church because they are the oldest and that Protestants are apostate. Many Catholics believe they are the one true church because of Peter and that Protestants are apostate. Many Saturday sabbatarian churches believe they are the one true church and that Catholics and Protestants are the harlot and daughters of the harlot of Babylon. Many Pentecostal and Charistmatic churches believe they are spirit-filled because of tongues and other churches are deficient in Spirit and disobedient. Many Baptists believe that they are the ants pants because of tee totaling and immersion. On I could go...

However, most mainstream churches agree on the essentials of the faith such as: -

1. the teachings of Jesus
2. the teachings of his apostles
3. the value of the Old Testament
4. at least 5 of the first 7 Ecumenical Councils including
5. the canonization of the New Testament
6. the Nicene Creed (ex. filioque) and the Apostles' Creed
7. the addition of Christmas around 300 or so
8. the change of Easter (Christian Passover) from a date on the Hebrew calendar to a Good-Friday/Easter-Sunday celebration

Those things that divide are sometimes labeled as dogmas, sometimes not. Some dogmas only became so within the past century, others are very old.

Can the essentials above be improved upon? What can we do about the division? How can we foster unity? Do dogmas apart from the essentials above, often cause more problems than they are worth? Are they really necessary, or are they more important than unity?

 

[ROGER459]

Once I asked ONE who professed to be a Christian, WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE?

He simply answered, I BELIEVE WHAT MY PASTOR BELIEVES!

I then asked what does your pastor believe? He answered, HE BELIEVES WHAT MY CHURCH BELIEVES!

I then asked, AND WHAT DOES YOUR CHURCH BELIEVE?

He answered, WE ALL BELIEVE THE SAME THING!

I ONLY BELIEVE WHAT THE WORD OF GOD TEACHES = Not what some Churhc or Denomination = teaches or Believes!

(2Timothy 3:16-17) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
(2Ti 3:17) That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.


Thanks, Roger459

 

[Koey]

Roger, I'm puzzled by your naivité. All churches believe the Bible. The problem comes when they believe it says different things. For instance:

Baptists believe from the same Bible in the literal interpretation of the Greek word baptizo (immerse). Others say this is only half the truth, because even in the Bible baptizo is used in a non-literal sense, to wash.

Catholics believe from the same Bible that the keys to the kingdom were given to Peter and hence to Rome, and hence to the successors of the Roman bishops. Others believe from the same Bible that the keys to the kingdom are given to the spiritual successors of Peter, all true believers.

Orthodox Christians believe from the same Bible that they are the oldest Christian church, and continue the true faith.

Pentecostals believe from the same Bible that their tongues are the same tongues as in the Bible, and that those who do not make speaking in tongues a dogma of their faith are not up to date with what God is doing today.

Calvinists believe from the same Bible that specific people were designated for hell from the beginning. Arminians and Catholics believe from the same Bible that all humans will have a free choice in such matters.

I could go on. It's not as simple as your comment implied.

 

[Llauralin]

Orthodox and Catholics do not generally say that Protestants are apostate. I think (don't take my word for this though) that they're considered schismatic. Apostacy is to wilfully turn one's back on Christ and His Church, something no protestant I've ever known has done.

 

[karen freeinchristman]

However, most mainstream churches agree on the essentials of the faith such as: -

1. the teachings of Jesus
2. the teachings of his apostles
3. the value of the Old Testament
4. at least 5 of the first 7 Ecumenical Councils including
5. the canonization of the New Testament
6. the Nicene Creed (ex. filioque) and the Apostles' Creed
7. the addition of Christmas around 300 or so
8. the change of Easter (Christian Passover) from a date on the Hebrew calendar to a Good-Friday/Easter-Sunday celebration

Those things that divide are sometimes labeled as dogmas, sometimes not. Some dogmas only became so within the past century, others are very old.

Can the essentials above be improved upon? What can we do about the division? How can we foster unity? Do dogmas apart from the essentials above, often cause more problems than they are worth? Are they really necessary, or are they more important than unity?

I think many denominations differ when it comes to the interpretation of point number 2: the teachings of the apostles. Some denominations place great faith in the views put forward by the early church fathers; the point being that those early fathers were so closely linked to the apostles (in terms of time and contacts) that whatever those fathers said is viewed as being inerrant, even if those things cannot be found in Scripture.

This is one of the problems, anyway.

How can we foster unity? That's the million dollar question.

 

[QuantaCura]

From the Catholic perspective: it is dogma that all enter the Catholic Church through water Baptism as if through a door (or the explicit or implicit desire for water Baptism). So, all Christians at their Baptism are made members of the Church--the Body of Christ.

One seperates himself from the Church through willful schism (separation from communion with the Bishop of Rome), heresy (an obstinate denial of an article of faith), or apostacy (a total repudiation of Christ). For the most part, I assume Baptized non-Catholics are not willfully guilty of these things (although that is for God to judge). But, Christ wills us to be of one mind and one communion. But, this must be done in truth since God is Truth and ignoring parts of His revelation and Divine Will so we can claim to be one is a false unity.

It is good that the different churches and ecclesial communities are on good terms and we believe that through their Baptism and faith in Christ other Christians can receive the divine life because they are not fully separated from the Body of Christ--but every man is bound by conscience to search for the Truth. Full communion--that of doctrine, sacraments, and hierarchy--is the goal and each individual must do their part in achieving that goal.

Information about our beliefs as Catholics can easily be obtained as well as information as to where our beliefs come from. All we can ask is that each individual gives the Faith an honest chance.

 

[QuantaCura]

How can we foster unity? That's the million dollar question.

An honest love for Truth will bring us to that Truth and therefore to ecclesial unity. The problem is that our fallen nature hinders us in this search. If we had perfect faith and perfect reason we would all come to the same conclusion. Our sinfulness makes these imperfect, so we have different conclusions. The key then is for each individual to strive towards perfect humilty and personal holiness--making the heart vulnerable to the Spirit while searching out and studying God's revealed while praying for His divine light--after that, it is in His hands

 

[karen freeinchristman]

An honest love for Truth will bring us to that Truth and therefore to ecclesial unity. The problem is that our fallen nature hinders us in this search. If we had perfect faith and perfect reason we would all come to the same conclusion. Our sinfulness makes these imperfect, so we have different conclusions. The key then is for each individual to strive towards perfect humilty and personal holiness--making the heart vulnerable to the Spirit while searching out and studying God's revealed while praying for His divine light--after that, it is in His hands

I must say that I agree with this, wholeheartedly!

 

[eoe]

I ONLY BELIEVE WHAT THE WORD OF GOD TEACHES = Not what some Churhc or Denomination = teaches or Believes!

GLORY TO GOD ROGER!
(Colossians 1:18) And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

(John 15:6) If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

It is good to see that someone can drop the doctrines of MAN and get back to the Faith that was once delivered. Delivered NOT by MEN like Luther and Calvin but by Jesus Christ our God!

It is GREAT to see that you are following the Tradition that was given orally!
(2 Thessalonians 2:15) Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Wonderful to see that you agree with the WORD OF GOD!
(James 2:24) Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

 

[Koey]

...It is good to see that someone can drop the doctrines of MAN and get back to the Faith that was once delivered. Delivered NOT by MEN like Luther and Calvin but by Jesus Christ our God!...

So, Mr "faith once delivered" where do you start with your faith once delivered? With Christ by taking wine at communion or have you changed that to grape juice? Grape juice was only introduced a few hundred years ago, for weak reasons, but some think they are valid.

Do you keep the Jewish Sabbath like Christ did or Sunday? Sunday was introduced after Jesus died, for valid reasons, but it was not the original.

Do you keep Easter or Jewish Passover? Easter (Christian Passover) was only formalized after Jesus died, for valid reasons, but it did come much later.

Have you thrown your New Testament out? It was only canonized about 300 years later than the faith once delivered. Those in the faith of the first centuries relied upon a loose collection of books, many of which made it into the NT, others of which did not.

Do you believe in the Trinity? It was only formalized about 300 years later. It is a good doctrine and defense against Arianism or its modern equivalents.

Do you keep Christmas or not? Christmas was introduced 300 years later. It is a good festival, but not part of the faith once delivered.

Do you believe in the Apostles and Nicene Creeds? They are good summaries of Christian essentials, but only came about centuries after the faith once delivered.

Do you believe that no man like Luther or Calvin can read and teach the faith once delivered from the Bible, or should we listen to someone later in history like who? You? I don't agree with everything those guys taught, but they actually taught from the Bible, but as they understood it.

So at what point in history did your "faith once delivered" period exist? What criteria do you use to determine what that even means? Eastern Orthodox Christians claim to have the ancient faith once delivered. Catholics claim to have the authority from heaven to change the faith once delivered. Protestants are all scrambling to get back to the faith once delivered, but don't agree among themselves what that even means.

Why is your definition of the faith once delivered better than Luther's or Augustine's anyone else's?

 

[eoe]

So, Mr "faith once delivered" where do you start with your faith once delivered? With Christ by taking wine at communion or have you changed that to grape juice? Grape juice was only introduced a few hundred years ago, for weak reasons, but some think they are valid.

We use the real stuff, even for the kids.

Do you keep the Jewish Sabbath like Christ did or Sunday?

I refrain from non-necesary work. Of course I do that all the time really....

Sunday was introduced after Jesus died, for valid reasons, but it was not the original.

I assure you that Sunday has been around since the beginning. Even the pagans had 7 days in a week.

Do you keep Easter or Jewish Passover? Easter (Christian Passover) was only formalized after Jesus died, for valid reasons, but it did come much later.

We celebrate the resurrection on Great and Holy Pascha. This year it was about a week ater than Easter I think... It is specifically AFTER the jewish passover. Sometimes it is the same date as Easter in the west but it is not terribly common.

Have you thrown your New Testament out? It was only canonized about 300 years later than the faith once delivered. Those in the faith of the first centuries relied upon a loose collection of books, many of which made it into the NT, others of which did not.

Of course not.

Do you keep Christmas or not? Christmas was introduced 300 years later. It is a good festival, but not part of the faith once delivered.

And?

Do you believe in the Apostles and Nicene Creeds? They are good summaries of Christian essentials, but only came about centuries after the faith once delivered.

And?

Do you believe that no man like Luther or Calvin can read and teach the faith once delivered from the Bible, or should we listen to someone later in history like who? You? I don't agree with everything those guys taught, but they actually taught from the Bible, but as they understood it.

I think you should go back - not forward.

So at what point in history did your "faith once delivered" period exist?

When Jude wrote about it. At the latest 33ad.

What criteria do you use to determine what that even means? Eastern Orthodox Christians claim to have the ancient faith once delivered.

Absolutely.

Catholics claim to have the authority from heaven to change the faith once delivered.

The Pope claims alot of things. That is why he left the Church in 1054, he wanted to ahve more power than an ecumeincal council.

Protestants are all scrambling to get back to the faith once delivered, but don't agree among themselves what that even means.

I know. Some of them have some pretty good intentions but ignore gobs of evidence and end up with some pretty crazy beleifs.

Why is your definition of the faith once delivered better than Luther's or Augustine's anyone else's?

IT isn't mine. It is the Church's. I have no hand whatsoever in shaping or forming it. "My definition" is better because I am not allowed to screw it up - trust me, I would.


Koey - my whole post was a poke at ROGER. Relax bud. The point was that if you really do stick with a statement like:

I ONLY BELIEVE WHAT THE WORD OF GOD TEACHES = Not what some Churhc or Denomination = teaches or Believes!

What you really end up with is "I believe what I want to about what it is that I have read and what my parents taught me".
It si impossible to avoid tradition. Even avoiding tradition s a tradition! If you look at it this way - Martin Luther was simply creating a new tradition - a tradition of MAN - which ironically is exactly what they thought they were fighting against!

I converted to Orthodoxy because of the evidence that it really is what it claims to be. IT includes all of the nasty bits of the bible that protestants want to ignore and it refuses to compromise or alter the parts that are not scritpure. In the end - I am convinced by the evidence. I do not read interpretations of men that lived 1500+ years after the events - I read the documents that were written during the very early years and I find that they all lead me to Orthodoxy.

Again - I was poking at ROGER by posting some of the verses that sometimes make protestants uncomfortalbe, not making some grand statement.

 

[Koey]

Good post. I highly regard and respect the Orthodox Church. For instance, their theory of what Catholics call purgatory is very well thought out. I don't really know if the Orthodox have a word for that other than it being a "re-education" process.

I also highly regard and respect the depth of theology of the Orthodox Church and its history. I had thought about converting myself at one time, but the legalism just seemed a stumbling block.

Example, the rules of iconography are just as much man-made rules as the Pharisees created. Rather than keeping it simple and to the point like saying that an icon is a lesson in picture, not to be idolized.

I stumble over any branch of Christianity when tradition becomes so entrenched and inflexible that it is treated like law. That is when tradition is a prison and a burden, and it smacks of Pharisaism, not Jesus.

I'm also highly offended by the Russian Orthodox Church persecuting Evangelicals. Christians are persecuted. Christians do not persecute.

 

[eoe]

Good post. I highly regard and respect the Orthodox Church. For instance, their theory of what Catholics call purgatory is very well thought out. I don't really know if the Orthodox have a word for that other than it being a "re-education" process.

All of life is a growth. Even in the next life we will grow in "Christ-likeness" or the likeness of God. Given that God is an eternal and infinite being there can be no end to that growth. This is called "Theosis". Death is just the beginning my friend - this life is so very short, a blink of the eye in comparison.

I also highly regard and respect the depth of theology of the Orthodox Church and its history. I had thought about converting myself at one time, but the legalism just seemed a stumbling block.

I think you will find that like any other group of people it will vary from parish to parish and even from person to person. Some ultra conservative ROCOR parishes require headcoverings for women and men and women still stand on the appropriate sides. At other parishes the women do not cover their heads and stand anyplace they choose.
There is a parish downtown that I visit that is quite liberal. People will come in barefoot, in flip flops, jeans, etc. The funny thing is that they are also far more physical in their worship, ie - prostrations, metany, kissing one another etc... They also tend to wander a bit more. The Greeks tend to stay put.

People do have their individual expressions of piety and what seems to be extreme legalism to one would seem terribly lax to another. The trick of course in all of this is to manage to express your own self without passing judgement on others - therein lies the rub.

Don't let some yia yia ruin it for you tho. Some of them have a hard time not acting like your own grandma and scolding for having your hands in your pockets or something...(The counter side to that is that they will also love you like they are your own grandma once they know you...). Maybe consider visiting a different parish next time.

Example, the rules of iconography are just as much man-made rules as the Pharisees created. Rather than keeping it simple and to the point like saying that an icon is a lesson in picture, not to be idolized.

Rules? Are you speaking of the rules that an iconographer would follow or the rules about veneration?

I really do not know all that much about writing icons but I can tell you that, just as above, every single person venerates icons differently and no one should care two hoots about how someone else is doing it. Doing so would only lead to vainglory and judgement.

I stumble over any branch of Christianity when tradition becomes so entrenched and inflexible that it is treated like law.

As would I. In Orthodoxy there is Oikonomia - economy that is used in such things. I don;t feel (myself) that tradition is used as such. I see it more as a fence around a playground that is located next to a highway. As long as we are inside the fence we are safe and can play.

That is when tradition is a prison and a burden, and it smacks of Pharisaism, not Jesus.

I think I would agree.

I'm also highly offended by the Russian Orthodox Church persecuting Evangelicals. Christians are persecuted. Christians do not persecute.

Ah. Need to get the whole story there before you settle on taking sides. There is much more to this issue than meets the eye. This is a giant booger of a topic tho and not one that I can deal with.

 

[Koey]

Good dialog! I suppose you and I would agree that no church is perfect, even those on the healthier end of the spectrum, whatever that means. Iconography is the teaching that icons may only be made out of certain substances and use certain designs. It becomes rather tedious.

I know that the motives for the rules were good, but I also believe that the Pharisees had good motives for their rules. Iconography smacks of silly (to be blunt) Pharisaism. That having been said, I'm sure there is much good there as well, and NO church is exempt from human stupidity enshrined in church rules. Even tho I disagree with that part of it, iconography does not stop me from having highest regard for Orthodoxy.

 

[Llauralin]

Good dialog! I suppose you and I would agree that no church is perfect, even those on the healthier end of the spectrum, whatever that means. Iconography is the teaching that icons may only be made out of certain substances and use certain designs. It becomes rather tedious.

I know that the motives for the rules were good, but I also believe that the Pharisees had good motives for their rules. Iconography smacks of silly (to be blunt) Pharisaism. That having been said, I'm sure there is much good there as well, and NO church is exempt from human stupidity enshrined in church rules. Even tho I disagree with that part of it, iconography does not stop me from having highest regard for Orthodoxy.

*raises eyebrow*

Iconography is the making of icons. There are canons to govern the iconography. Icons in a church are not only there to be beatuiful, and keep our minds on God and the "great cloud of witnesses," but to instruct as well. To say that it is "tedious" and "stupid" to have rules to govern the making of icons, without providing one such canon that you disagree with is, to be blunt, shallow and ignorant.

Do you want to walk into an Orthodox church and find an icon of Martin Luther King dancing with Malcom X? Because that's exactly the kind of artwork that can be found in Episcopal churches, where there are no such "silly" rules.

Forgive me...

 

[Koey]

Nothing to forgive! Your comment is a reasonable response and I appreciate your mature willingness to discuss the topic without merely storming off and calling me an idiot for expressing an honest opinion.

My reply is that I do not find icons themselves to be stupid. They are very useful as illustrations of biblical events. I find that limiting icons to only a certain style of art, and only a certain facial flat-faced, unnatural perspective, to be legalistic. I do not believe that such rules need to be made.

As far as the extreme example of icons of Martin Luther King dancing with Malcom X goes, I still don't believe we need a rule, just a decision by someone with some sense, that that is not appropriate. An extreme does not prove that a Pharisaic list of rules need to be made, only that common sense needs to prevail.

 

[eoe]

Good dialog! I suppose you and I would agree that no church is perfect, even those on the healthier end of the spectrum, whatever that means.

Well no not really. The Orthodox Church is THE CHURCH. While there are indeed many very broken people inside it as an whole entitiy it is perfect. I don't expect you to agree of course...

Iconography is the teaching that icons may only be made out of certain substances and use certain designs. It becomes rather tedious.

erm...

I know that the motives for the rules were good, but I also believe that the Pharisees had good motives for their rules. Iconography smacks of silly (to be blunt) Pharisaism. That having been said, I'm sure there is much good there as well, and NO church is exempt from human stupidity enshrined in church rules. Even tho I disagree with that part of it, iconography does not stop me from having highest regard for Orthodoxy.

Thanks Koey.

As far as the extreme example of icons of Martin Luther King dancing with Malcom X goes, I still don't believe we need a rule, just a decision by someone with some sense, that that is not appropriate. An extreme does not prove that a Pharisaic list of rules need to be made, only that common sense needs to prevail.

You would think that would be enough wouldn't you? Still there are "iconographers" (non-orthodox ones that is_ that write "icons" of All manner of heterodox and even anti-Christian people. Ghandi? There really is a need for those rules.

Having said that 99.999% of Orthodox people will never ever even see those rules or care two hoots about them. I don't know them and it does not prevent me from living an Orthodox life.

 

[Koey]

You have convinced me that perhaps a simple rule such as only biblical characters in icons. However, I'm so very sorry, please don't be offended, but you have not convinced me that iconography needs all its rules about perpective, materials and style. Nevertheless, I still highly regard the Orthodox Church as having one of the most sensible theologies in many, many other areas.

 

[bdarien]

for those here and everywhere who are so sure that they are so right and everyone else is so wrong Paul as usual gave the truly humble and Christlike answer of a true Christian

1 Cor 2:2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

 

[Koey]

An excellent post. Christ-ianity is primarily and essentially what Christ taught. The rest of the New Testament teaches is secondary. What the Old Testament teaches is tertiary. What the Fathers taught is a distant 4th. What the rest of Christian history (including tradition) teaches is an even further distant 5th.

The problem with Christianity is that we focus on men other than Christ (apostolic successors), doctrines (the ideas of men about God), and institutions (organizations of men) ahead of the One who is the Head of the Church. Especially do we get so easily off track by focusing on twigs of doctrine (tongues, transubstantiation, apostolic succession, infallibility, iconography, immersionism, etc.) instead of focusing on the teachings of the founder of Christ-ianity, Christ. Jesus taught none of those things as mandatory; he focused on far more important doctrines.