Eastern Orthodox is the bishop of Rome the successor to Apostle Peter?

[ArmyMatt]

I thought to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit is to never accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior. Everyone who does evil can still be forgiven if they repent and confess.

exactly, to look at Christ and want nothing to do with Him. to prefer the darkness to the light. repentance and confession are both good and prove that you are seeking the good and not darkness.

 

[BNR32FAN]

exactly, to look at Christ and want nothing to do with Him. to prefer the darkness to the light. repentance and confession are both good and prove that you are seeking the good and not darkness.

Yes but only if that person never accepts Jesus his entire life. Do you believe that there are sins that are not forgivable if someone confesses and repents and accepts Jesus?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Yes but only if that person never accepts Jesus his entire life. Do you believe that there are sins that are not forgivable if someone confesses and repents and accepts Jesus?

no, Judas accepted Christ and knew Who He is, that was why His betrayal was so great. the blasphemy is one Who knows Christ is Lord, and refuses Him.

and no, anyone who sincerely repents will be forgiven.

 

[BNR32FAN]

no, Judas accepted Christ and knew Who He is, that was why His betrayal was so great. the blasphemy is one Who knows Christ is Lord, and refuses Him.

and no, anyone who sincerely repents will be forgiven.

Ahh yes that’s an excellent point about Judas but did he ever truly accept Jesus? I believe in once saved always saved. I believe these two scriptures are making that point.

“My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one can snatch them away from me, for my Father has given them to me, and he is more powerful than anyone else. No one can snatch them from the Father’s hand.”
‭‭John‬ ‭10:27-29 NLT

““Anyone who listens to my teaching and follows it is wise, like a person who builds a house on solid rock. Though the rain comes in torrents and the floodwaters rise and the winds beat against that house, it won’t collapse because it is built on bedrock. But anyone who hears my teaching and doesn’t obey it is foolish, like a person who builds a house on sand. When the rains and floods come and the winds beat against that house, it will collapse with a mighty crash.””
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭7:24-27‬ ‭NLT‬‬

I believe that if someone “falls away” from Christ they were never truly saved to begin with. What are your thoughts? Also I’d like to say thank you for sharing with me. I appreciate you taking the time to help me understand the Orthodox teaching. God bless you brother

 

[ArmyMatt]

Ahh yes that’s an excellent point about Judas but did he ever truly accept Jesus? I believe in once saved always saved. I believe these two scriptures are making that point.

“My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one can snatch them away from me, for my Father has given them to me, and he is more powerful than anyone else. No one can snatch them from the Father’s hand.”
‭‭John‬ ‭10:27-29 NLT

““Anyone who listens to my teaching and follows it is wise, like a person who builds a house on solid rock. Though the rain comes in torrents and the floodwaters rise and the winds beat against that house, it won’t collapse because it is built on bedrock. But anyone who hears my teaching and doesn’t obey it is foolish, like a person who builds a house on sand. When the rains and floods come and the winds beat against that house, it will collapse with a mighty crash.””
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭7:24-27‬ ‭NLT‬‬

I believe that if someone “falls away” from Christ they were never truly saved to begin with. What are your thoughts? Also I’d like to say thank you for sharing with me. I appreciate you taking the time to help me understand the Orthodox teaching. God bless you brother

well, we tend to view salvation as a process, since it is put in past, present, and future tenses in Scripture. there is not simply the idea that once you are saved, then that is it and you are saved. yes, you can find that salvation is in the past in Scripture, but you also gotta look at the other verses as well. so while it is true that no one can snatch me away from Christ, I can leave on my own should I choose to do so.

 

[BNR32FAN]

well, we tend to view salvation as a process, since it is put in past, present, and future tenses in Scripture. there is not simply the idea that once you are saved, then that is it and you are saved. yes, you can find that salvation is in the past, but you also gotta look at the other verses as well. so while it is true that no one can snatch me away from Christ, I can leave on my own should I choose to do so.

I think if you chose to leave Christ it would be satan who has snatched you away. I do agree that we must constantly work out our salvation. From what I’ve seen in the scriptures the past, present, and future tenses are determined by who is being spoken to. In the cases of people who are said to be saved in the past and present tense they have already come to know Christ. In the cases of people who will be saved are referring to people who are learning about Christ and have not come to know Him yet. If we can fall away from knowing Christ then satan can snatch us away from God and the house that is built on solid rock can collapse. That’s why I question the validity of someone who is truly saved if they fall away. I believe in the case of Judas that he was chosen to betray Christ. Surely God had foreseen this from the beginning. I believe that Judas can still be saved even tho he did betray Jesus because of his remorse. He went back to the priests and declared that he had sinned and he had betrayed an innocent man and threw the 30 pieces of silver on the floor. Then he went and killed himself. So I think it is possible that he could still be saved. This is evidence that satan did not remain in him and that Judas had confessed his sin. In Matthew 26:50 Jesus says to Judas.

“Jesus said, “My friend, go ahead and do what you have come for.” Then the others grabbed Jesus and arrested him.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭26:50‬ ‭NLT‬‬

What are your thoughts?

 

[~Anastasia~]

Just an aside, because I think Matt is doing a fine job of answering ...

I am often reminded of Hebrews 6 ...

4For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6and thenhave fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.

I see no other way to take this than someone who was already "saved" (in Protestant understanding) ... or converted.

They are enlightened. The Holy Spirit must be our Helper in understanding the things of God, they are foolishness to those who are perishing and without the Spirit of Truth.

They have tasted of the heavenly gift. I'm not positive, but I think almost certainly they are in Eucharistic fellowship, which means they have been taught, have been baptized, and have been participating in the believing community and receiving Holy Communion.

They have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, so again they have been sacramentally brought into the Church (which means they have been converted).

And so on. Some argue that these were "never saved" but that can't make sense. Christians were facing death for converting, sometimes, so how does it make sense that someone would pretend to convert and put their lives as risk for something they didn't believe in at all? I see no other way of understanding this in honesty except to say that it is a warning against falling away from true faith, so if this writing is true and inspired by God (and I think we all agree that it is), then such a thing must be possible.

Hebrews 10 seems to make the same warning, but the 6th chapter is a bit more to the point, I think.

But also, again the point is made that repentance is needed (so it would be accepted by God) ... the problem is the condition of some who might refuse ever to repent.

Lord have mercy.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I think if you chose to leave Christ it would be satan who has snatched you away. I do agree that we must constantly work out our salvation. From what I’ve seen in the scriptures the past, present, and future tenses are determined by who is being spoken to. In the cases of people who are said to be saved in the past and present tense they have already come to know Christ. In the cases of people who will be saved are referring to people who are learning about Christ and have not come to know Him yet. If we can fall away from knowing Christ then satan can snatch us away from God and the house that is built on solid rock can collapse. That’s why I question the validity of someone who is truly saved if they fall away. I believe in the case of Judas that he was chosen to betray Christ. Surely God had foreseen this from the beginning. I believe that Judas can still be saved even tho he did betray Jesus because of his remorse. He went back to the priests and declared that he had sinned and he had betrayed an innocent man and threw the 30 pieces of silver on the floor. Then he went and killed himself. So I think it is possible that he could still be saved. This is evidence that satan did not remain in him and that Judas had confessed his sin. In Matthew 26:50 Jesus says to Judas.

“Jesus said, “My friend, go ahead and do what you have come for.” Then the others grabbed Jesus and arrested him.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭26:50‬ ‭NLT‬‬

What are your thoughts?

Satan doesn't snatch us as much as we leave the open arms of the Father and choose the arms of the enemy. we can fall away at any time not because the foundation on the rock becomes weak, but we choose the foundation on the sand. the rock is still strong, we just often don't want it.

as far as Judas, while Christ does know he will fall away, still offers him a chance to return. that is why the Lord asked him if he would betray with a kiss. in other words, even then Christ is offering salvation.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Just an aside, because I think Matt is doing a fine job of answering ...

I am often reminded of Hebrews 6 ...

4For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6and thenhave fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.

I see no other way to take this than someone who was already "saved" (in Protestant understanding) ... or converted.

They are enlightened. The Holy Spirit must be our Helper in understanding the things of God, they are foolishness to those who are perishing and without the Spirit of Truth.

They have tasted of the heavenly gift. I'm not positive, but I think almost certainly they are in Eucharistic fellowship, which means they have been taught, have been baptized, and have been participating in the believing community and receiving Holy Communion.

They have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, so again they have been sacramentally brought into the Church (which means they have been converted).

And so on. Some argue that these were "never saved" but that can't make sense. Christians were facing death for converting, sometimes, so how does it make sense that someone would pretend to convert and put their lives as risk for something they didn't believe in at all? I see no other way of understanding this in honesty except to say that it is a warning against falling away from true faith, so if this writing is true and inspired by God (and I think we all agree that it is), then such a thing must be possible.

Hebrews 10 seems to make the same warning, but the 6th chapter is a bit more to the point, I think.

But also, again the point is made that repentance is needed (so it would be accepted by God) ... the problem is the condition of some who might refuse ever to repent.

Lord have mercy.

Thank you that is very compelling evidence. If they were partakers in the Holy Spirit then I would have to agree that this is evidence of having a true faith. The only other explanation that I can think of is that someone could receive guidance from the Holy Spirit and not truly be saved but I don’t think that would make much sense. This is very difficult to process. Is Jesus and the Holy Spirit omniscient and omnipresent? Do they share those qualities with God The Father? If so it makes me wonder why Jesus would send the Holy Spirit to someone who would fall away? I have a hard time believing that both Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not omniscient and omnipresent. I guess the why is not important because according to Hebrews 6 it does happen. Perhaps Jesus must give them the opportunity to receive the Holy Spirit in order for that person to make their decision. Otherwise if they were never given that opportunity they wouldn’t be guilty of refusing the Holy Spirit. That’s a tough one to process. I think in the end it’s not really that important as long as we understand that we must continue to love, honor, and obey God, confess and repent of sins, do good works, and love others as Christ loves us.

 

[~Anastasia~]

If God refuses the Holy Spirit to anyone who will eventually choose to fall away, then you have essentially what one could argue was double predestination. You would have to say God knew a person would choose to fall away and so refused to save him.

All I can tell you is that it just doesn't work that way. God desires all to be saved. He provides opportunity and what is needed. But He leaves the choice to us. And we still have a choice even after converting. God never forces. We have had a choice since Adam and Eve - He does not deny it to anyone.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Christ also, in a sense, sends the Spirit to all, but whether the person resists the Spirit, accepts the Spirit, or accepts then refuses the Spirit is on that person and not the Lord. to be a temple of the Holy Spirit is why we were created in the first place.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Christ also, in a sense, sends the Spirit to all, but whether the person resists the Spirit, accepts the Spirit, or accepts then refuses the Spirit is on that person and not the Lord. to be a temple of the Holy Spirit is why we were created in the first place.

Hi brother Matt. I have a question. A person on YouTube claimed that the Eastern Orthodox Church had committed terrible atrocities in the past so I did a search and came across a page where someone claims that the EOC was somehow responsible for the Great Fire in Smyrnea in 1922. He posted links to Wikipedia and after reading it I don’t see anything indicating that the EOC was responsible for this. I was wondering if you knew anything about it and could share any information on it? Here’s a link to the website that the person claims EOC is responsible What atrocities were commited by the Eastern Orthodox Church? The links to Wikipedia are in the article.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Hi brother Matt. I have a question. A person on YouTube claimed that the Eastern Orthodox Church had committed terrible atrocities in the past so I did a search and came across a page where someone claims that the EOC was somehow responsible for the Great Fire in Smyrnea in 1922. He posted links to Wikipedia and after reading it I don’t see anything indicating that the EOC was responsible for this. I was wondering if you knew anything about it and could share any information on it? Here’s a link to the website that the person claims EOC is responsible What atrocities were commited by the Eastern Orthodox Church? The links to Wikipedia are in the article.

while there have been atrocities committed by Orthodox, the link you showed seems to show atrocities committed against the Orthodox and other Christians by the Turks and such.

 

[mark kennedy]

yes, all bishops are successors of St Peter since all are called to make his confession of Faith. speaking historically, Antioch was founded by Peter before Rome, so we are in communion with that historic line as well.

as for Peter being the rock, yes we believe that. we also believe the Fathers who said Christ is the rock, the confession itself is the rock, and the Apostles collectively is the rock. all are true.

I suppose it should go without saying the Christ and the Apostles were the foundation of the church, but sometimes it bears repeating. The way I get it Orthodox leadership is based on synods and other councils of the Orthodox that trace the ecclesiastical authority back to Antioch. Rome on the other hand appoints a presiding bishop, called the Pope. Both have impressive ecclesiastical traditions, they are often refereed to was the western church and the eastern church. Peter did have an important leadership role, no one seriously questions that. He made a landmark argument against the circumcision of Gentiles at the Jerusalem Council and ministered in Rome for some time supposedly. Let's not forget John and Paul were also very important to founding the churches in Asia Minor, a thriving missionary group of churches that saw explosive growth.

The eastern churches did not leave Rome, they were excommunicated after a thousand years of peace between them. Their theology is close but not identical, some serious problems but nothing that couldn't be reconciled. I can well understand how the Eastern Orthodox are not so keen on being subordinated to Rome. They have a sound tradition and have managed without Rome's help for a thousand years, I don't really see them needing a Pope.

The work of the ministry goes on, the vital importance of Apostolic authority remains foundational. What a tribute to the Apostle Peter that Christians are jealous of one another in laying claim to the continuation of his ministry. We should all be so zealous in our desire to minister in the name of Christ, I only wish more of my Protestant brethren were.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[BNR32FAN]

while there have been atrocities committed by Orthodox, the link you showed seems to show atrocities committed against the Orthodox and other Christians by the Turks and such.

Yes I don’t see anything saying the EOC was responsible. The reason I was looking is because I often discuss the teachings of the Bible with Roman Catholics and when they can’t back certain doctrines with the scriptures they turn to apostolic succession. I always point out that apostolic succession does not work. The Holy Spirit is not passed on thru apostolic succession. If it was then the inquisitions would’ve never taken place. My biggest objection is to purgatory. I just don’t see evidence of purgatory in the Bible. The scriptures they use to support purgatory are completely taken out of context. I point out that the doctrine of purgatory was formulated at the councils of Florence and Trent which were both held during the time of the inquisitions and during the absence of the Holy Spirit’s guidance. I think it is very possible that purgatory was instituted to solicit more indulgences but that is purely speculation. Someone replied that EOC, RCC, and Protestants all committed atrocities. I am unaware of atrocities committed by EOC so I wanted to investigate that to see if I could learn what happened. Would you mind sharing some of the atrocities that EOC has committed in the past?

 

[BNR32FAN]

I suppose it should go without saying the Christ and the Apostles were the foundation of the church, but sometimes it bears repeating. The way I get it Orthodox leadership is based on synods and other councils of the Orthodox that trace the ecclesiastical authority back to Antioch. Rome on the other hand appoints a presiding bishop, called the Pope. Both have impressive ecclesiastical traditions, they are often refereed to was the western church and the eastern church. Peter did have an important leadership role, no one seriously questions that. He made a landmark argument against the circumcision of Gentiles at the Jerusalem Council and ministered in Rome for some time supposedly. Let's not forget John and Paul were also very important to founding the churches in Asia Minor, a thriving missionary group of churches that saw explosive growth.

The eastern churches did not leave Rome, they were excommunicated after a thousand years of peace between them. Their theology is close but not identical, some serious problems but nothing that couldn't be reconciled. I can well understand how the Eastern Orthodox are not so keen on being subordinated to Rome. They have a sound tradition and have managed without Rome's help for a thousand years, I don't really see them needing a Pope.

The work of the ministry goes on, the vital importance of Apostolic authority remains foundational. What a tribute to the Apostle Peter that Christians are jealous of one another in laying claim to the continuation of his ministry. We should all be so zealous in our desire to minister in the name of Christ, I only wish more of my Protestant brethren were.

Grace and peace,
Mark

As for the foundation of our faith I believe that ultimately it is the Holy Spirit that is at the heart of the matter. In Matthew 16 Peter had been the first of the 12 apostles to receive guidance from the Holy Spirit when he confessed that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God. I believe it was because of this revelation that Jesus told Peter upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hades will not prevail against it. I believe all of the apostles were guided by the Spirit equally and everything that came from the apostles was ultimately from the Holy Spirit. What are your thoughts?

 

[mark kennedy]

As for the foundation of our faith I believe that ultimately it is the Holy Spirit that is at the heart of the matter. In Matthew 16 Peter had been the first of the 12 apostles to receive guidance from the Holy Spirit when he confessed that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God. I believe it was because of this revelation that Jesus told Peter upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hades will not prevail against it. I believe all of the apostles were guided by the Spirit equally and everything that came from the apostles was ultimately from the Holy Spirit. What are your thoughts?

Of course I would agree with that as any serious Christian would. The church is described by Paul as a temple, built on the foundation of the Apostles, Christ being the chief cornerstone. When we edify (build up) the church we are building it up like a great temple wherein the Holy Spirit dwells. Peter was a leader, not a ruling Apostle but he had a distinctive leadership role. Jews converted at Pentecost had a thriving Christian community in Rome, apparently Peter ministered there. The Jews were exiled from Rome and two of them, Priscilla and Aquila met the Apostle Paul and were instrumental in founding the church in Ephesus, which in turn founded the churches in Asian Minor. The missionary journeys of Paul were commissioned, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, by the council in Antioch. Both Orthodox and Catholic traditions lay claim to that tradition, having some differences with regard to the legacy of apostolic authority.

As Paul said, I planted, others watered but God gave the increase. Peter had a vital ministry, a leader among the Apostles but so was Paul and John. Jesus said if you would be great in the kingdom of heaven you must be servant to all. Both the Orthodox and Catholics are jealous for that title of being servant to all, indeed we all should.

Oh and btw, if you look hard enough you will find that some Eastern Orthodox were guilty of some pretty serious atrocities. What you will also find is that there was very little of that as compared to Rome, for instance. Every group has it's criminal element, there is no getting around that. But overall the Eastern Orthodox haven't been that bad, a few incidents from time to time, but nothing I've seen indicates a pattern.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[ArmyMatt]

Yes I don’t see anything saying the EOC was responsible. The reason I was looking is because I often discuss the teachings of the Bible with Roman Catholics and when they can’t back certain doctrines with the scriptures they turn to apostolic succession. I always point out that apostolic succession does not work. The Holy Spirit is not passed on thru apostolic succession. If it was then the inquisitions would’ve never taken place. My biggest objection is to purgatory. I just don’t see evidence of purgatory in the Bible. The scriptures they use to support purgatory are completely taken out of context. I point out that the doctrine of purgatory was formulated at the councils of Florence and Trent which were both held during the time of the inquisitions and during the absence of the Holy Spirit’s guidance. I think it is very possible that purgatory was instituted to solicit more indulgences but that is purely speculation. Someone replied that EOC, RCC, and Protestants all committed atrocities. I am unaware of atrocities committed by EOC so I wanted to investigate that to see if I could learn what happened. Would you mind sharing some of the atrocities that EOC has committed in the past?

well, Apostolic succession does work but it is not simply a historical tie to the past. it also means you maintain the Apostolic faith in every generation. which means even when people start acting evil in the name of Christ, or introduce heresy, there will always be a champion to stand for the Truth. Apostolic succession absolutely works and is the reason the Bible exists as it does.

we definitely persecuted the non-Chalcedonians after Chalcedon and in response to their rejection of the Council.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I suppose it should go without saying the Christ and the Apostles were the foundation of the church, but sometimes it bears repeating. The way I get it Orthodox leadership is based on synods and other councils of the Orthodox that trace the ecclesiastical authority back to Antioch. Rome on the other hand appoints a presiding bishop, called the Pope. Both have impressive ecclesiastical traditions, they are often refereed to was the western church and the eastern church. Peter did have an important leadership role, no one seriously questions that. He made a landmark argument against the circumcision of Gentiles at the Jerusalem Council and ministered in Rome for some time supposedly. Let's not forget John and Paul were also very important to founding the churches in Asia Minor, a thriving missionary group of churches that saw explosive growth.

The eastern churches did not leave Rome, they were excommunicated after a thousand years of peace between them. Their theology is close but not identical, some serious problems but nothing that couldn't be reconciled. I can well understand how the Eastern Orthodox are not so keen on being subordinated to Rome. They have a sound tradition and have managed without Rome's help for a thousand years, I don't really see them needing a Pope.

The work of the ministry goes on, the vital importance of Apostolic authority remains foundational. What a tribute to the Apostle Peter that Christians are jealous of one another in laying claim to the continuation of his ministry. We should all be so zealous in our desire to minister in the name of Christ, I only wish more of my Protestant brethren were.

Grace and peace,
Mark

I would only dispute that our differences now are irreconcilable. we disagree with Rome on basically everything. and Rome was never seen as the sole Presiding bishop. even in Acts, while St Peter has an important role, it was St James who presided since he was the bishop of Jerusalem.

 

[mark kennedy]

I would only dispute that our differences now are irreconcilable. we disagree with Rome on basically everything. and Rome was never seen as the sole Presiding bishop. even in Acts, while St Peter has an important role, it was St James who presided since he was the bishop of Jerusalem.

Of course I understand the differences between Orthodox and Catholic authority are irreconcilable, certainly that much is clear. When it comes to how a person comes to Christ the gospel is clear, God decides who is called and who is chosen and this is based on faith. Indeed, James did preside over the Council of Jerusalem. James would have been considered royalty because he to was from the House of David, the brother of Jesus. It makes sense given the cultural context but let's remember, he wasn't an Apostle, at least not in the sense of the 12. His role in this proceeding was no less vital, just as the council at Antioch of Syria was vital.