How can it be called orthodox if it is not biblical?

[Lucis]

Ok. The word "saint" seem to have a different meaning to the orthodox church then the way it is written in the bible. When I read the bible I get the impression that all believers are saints, but with the icons it seems like some of them is having a higher status then a normal believer, almost like the are gods. Or is this just my misunderstanding?

And what view does the Orthodox church got about gifts of the Spirit? I've been to some Pentecostal churches and there it seems like it is a really big importance placed on the gifts, almost like people are not real Christians if they don't speak in tongues or something, and they also seem to be unbiblical about it, like with speaking in tongues without having it translated. And I've been to a Lutheran church and they seem to be in the other side of the scale with no interest in the gifts at all, or simply not talking about it. Is the Orthodox church something like the Lutheran like that, is it individual and different from person to person, or is it normal to talk about being "Spirit-filled" and to talk prophecy's, heal, talk in tongues etc there?

Thanks again for all the answers.

 

[HandmaidenOfGod]

Thanks for several interesting answers, specially Buzuxi02 that took the time to explain by scripture some of the things I questioned in my opening post. I could however not see anything in the verses you gave that suggested that Christians should use icons

“Moreover you shall make the tabernacle with ten curtains of fine woven linen and blue, purple, and scarlet thread; with artistic designs of cherubim you shall weave them.” Exodus 26:1

God thought iconography was good enough to put in His place of worship in the Old Testament. We carry the same opinion.

Furthermore, we do not worship icons. In the example you cited about the golden calf, the Isrealites were worshiping a false idol. In the Orthodox Church, worship is reserved for God and God alone; Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Icons are venerated in the same way that Americans salute the flag. Although the body language may be different (kissing the icon verses hand over heart), the intent is the same: to show respect to what the object stands for.

or pray to saints and angels. Remember the golden calf that the Israelis made. The bible also warn about summoning the dead. The angels themselves warned the prophets that tried to worship them and clearly told them not to do that.

We do not pray to saints or angels. We ask them to pray for us.

We believe the soul lives forever. James 5:16 says “the effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much.” Therefore, wouldn’t it stand to reason that the prayers of those great Christians who have lived before us and “finished the race” would be beneficial to us?

Furthermore, does not St. Paul write in his first letter to Timothy, “Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence?” (1 Timothy 2:1) If St. Paul is telling us to pray for one another while we are still on earth, why wouldn’t we continue to pray for one another once our bodies have died and our souls live on in heaven?

In regards to praying for the dead, you must understand two things: a) we are not summoning the dead. We are asking that God have mercy on their soul during the Last Judgment. B) This practice is completely scriptural.

If you read 2 Maccabees 12:38-42 it says the following:

“Then Judas retrieved his army and entered the city of Adullam. As the seventh day was dawning, they purified themselves according to custom and spent the Sabbath there. The following day, as was now necessary, Judas and his men left to gather up the bodies of those killed in battle, to bring them back to rest with their kindred in the tombs of their forefathers. But under the tunics of each of the dead, they uncovered sacred tokens of the Jamnian idols, which the Jews are forbidden by law to wear. So the reason these men died in battle became clear to everyone. Thus they all blessed the ways of the Lord, the righteous judge, who reveals the hidden things. They turned to supplication and prayed that the sin they had committed might be completely blotted out.”

Having read the above, let us look at one of the prayers read during the Memorial Service for the dead:
“Christ our eternal King and God, You have destroyed death and the devil by Your Cross and have restored man to life by Your Resurrection; give rest, Lord, to the soul of Your servant (name) who has fallen asleep, in Your Kingdom, where there is no pain, sorrow or suffering. In Your goodness and love for all men, pardon all the sins he (she) has committed in thought word or deed, for there is no man or woman who lives and sins not, You only are without sin.

For You are the Resurrection, the Life, and Repose of Your servant (name), departed this life, O Christ our God; and to You do we send up glory with Your Eternal Father and Your All-holy, Good and Life-creating Spirit; both now and forever and to the ages of ages. Amen”

2 Maccabees talks about them asking God to forgive the fallen for their sins. That is exactly what we are doing when we pray for the dead. This is completely scriptural.

I really am interested in the "ancient way", in the original Christianity, in the gospel as pure as it can get, and how the first Christians was living. And I haven't really thought of the idea that the bible came after the Christians before, but it is true. Is there any texts that are being used by the orthodox church that is not part of the standard bible? I do got the apocrypha's, but are there more of them?

The only Sacred text that is honored by the Orthodox Church is the Bible. The Apocrypha is part of the Bible. Luther threw it out. So in our view, we are using the “standardized” text approved by the Council of Carthage in 367 AD. It is the Protestants who are using the “unauthorized” version.

If you are referring to Prayer books, liturgical books, and the like, there are hundreds of them.

For now, I would suggest you pick up a copy of “The Orthodox Church” by Timothy Ware in addition to a copy of The Orthodox Study Bible, contact a local Orthodox priest, and go from there.

In XC,

Maureen

 

[Michael G]

Lucis, before you sling bible verses arround go read 1 Timothy 3;15.

 

[fuerein]

Ok. The word "saint" seem to have a different meaning to the orthodox church then the way it is written in the bible. When I read the bible I get the impression that all believers are saints, but with the icons it seems like some of them is having a higher status then a normal believer, almost like the are gods. Or is this just my misunderstanding?

The church does teach that all believers are saints. However we do greatly respect those who have died after living a Godly life and we do refer as Saints. It is not that we are assigning them a higher place than the normal believer. They have achieved it. I could turn and walk away tomorrow and never think positively about God again. They have completed the race. Think of Hebrews 11-12. In 11 a list of those Godly men that came in the OT is written. Then in 12 it says that we are surrounded by that cloud of witnesses. Those who have come before and completed the race. It is not that we are assigning them a higher place. We are merely recognizing they have successfully completed the race and that they have joined that cloud surrounding us.

And what view does the Orthodox church got about gifts of the Spirit? I've been to some Pentecostal churches and there it seems like it is a really big importance placed on the gifts, almost like people are not real Christians if they don't speak in tongues or something, and they also seem to be unbiblical about it, like with speaking in tongues without having it translated. And I've been to a Lutheran church and they seem to be in the other side of the scale with no interest in the gifts at all, or simply not talking about it. Is the Orthodox church something like the Lutheran like that, is it individual and different from person to person, or is it normal to talk about being "Spirit-filled" and to talk prophecy's, heal, talk in tongues etc there?

Thanks again for all the answers.

The Orthodox church believes in the Gifts of the Spirit, after all the Bible does talk about it. We even have the Sacrament of Holy Unction where we anoint the sick (and even the physically healthy since we are all afflicted with a spiritual sickness) believing it can heal. However it is generally not a concept emphasized in the way it is in many Charismatic churches. Further, I am not entirely sure about the church's stance on the modern concept of tongues but you would not encounter anything like at some Charismatic churches where people would get up in the middle of service and announce a prophecy or start speaking in tongues.

 

[Julina]

for the Church's position on "speaking in tongues" look here: Charismatic Revival As a Sign of the Times

 

[ArmyMatt]

yeah, it's true that all believers are saints. you hit the nail on the proverbial head when you said that one. the difference is that some men and women have grown so close to Christ that they serve as examples that the Church should recognize. these become the saints with a capital "S."

we see on Scripture that the souls of those who were righteous can know by God's grace what is happening on Earth (ie Moses and Elijah at the Transfiguration, the saints prayers in the Apocalypse, Abraham knowing the Law and Prophets in Lazarus and the rich man, etc). so if they are alive in Christ, and heaven is one Divine Church service, and they are like Christ so they love the rest of us, it makes sense that they would pray for us.

there is no practical difference in the Orthodox point of view in asking a saint to pray for you or asking a buddy to pray for you.

hope this helps

 

[-Kyriaki-]

for the Church's position on "speaking in tongues" look here: Charismatic Revival As a Sign of the Times

There's that, but there's also the *positive* side. Basically our take on such things is that God grants miraculous and amazing gifts to people, but to those who have drawn very close to him, the truly holy ones. He can work through anyone, but when we think of Charismatic (gifted) people in the Orthodox Church we would usually think of the Elders - usually monks and nuns who have spent their entire life focussing on God, praying, dying to themselves and desiring God and only Him. With these people you do hear of things like healings by a touch or a word, spiritual insight into people they've never met or talked to, miracles, the ability to talk to people without a common language (this would be a case of the gift of speaking in unknown tongues), prophecy, etc. But you're not going to find that sort of thing in a usual Church service, especially since they are usually for a specific individual or group of people and done privately rather than as a public spectacle. Orthodoxy frowns on drawing undue attention to oneself, an attitude we draw from Scripture.

As for "forgetting Scripture" - uhhhh...have you read the prayers of the Church, and do you know what an Orthodox service looks or sounds like? There is nothing that we say in services that isn't either quoting or referencing Scripture. The "rote prayers" that you criticise are our way or praying Scripture - for instance, if you look at an Orthodox wedding ceremony, many of the marriages spoken of in the Bible are referenced, and when we go to give the couple rings (where is the protestant explanation for that in a wedding ceremony?) we remember the times that rings were used to show special things in the Scriptures, from rings given to Old Testament patriarchs to the ring given by the Father to the prodigal son (if I remember right). Our rote prayers teach us Scripture, teach us correct doctrine, teach us discipline, and teach us to pray.

When Christ was asked "teach us to pray" He didn't give a long sermon on how first you should glorify God and then thank him and remember your sins and ask for things and... he said... "Our Father in Heaven, hallowed be Your name, Your kingdom come, Your will be done..." And that prayer is part of every Orthodox service, it is the prayer on our lips in our prayers as we wake and in our prayers as we go to sleep - if you say the service of Small Compline for evening prayer, you say it twice! If you pray the hours, it is the prayer said every three hours during the day, along with Psalms and other prayers, and it is the prayer said to begin Christian meetings and in the blessing of food. It is never said sitting down in the Orthodox Church, which shows a special honour given to it, and it is said often... like someone said above, we don't mess with it.

As to honour given to Scripture - in our services, the Book of the Gospels is brought out by the priest during the service, in a beautiful ornate cover (usually made of gold in my experience if the parish can afford it, again an example of give our best to the Lord) and held above his head, walking in full view of everyone (in the Greek tradition it is carried in a circle through the Church), in grand ceremony, with the exclamation by the priest - "Wisdom, stand in attendance!" ("Sophia, orphi!") and when it is read from the entire congregation stands. On a given Sunday there will be at least two readings from the Gospels (chunks, not just verses here and there) and one from the Epistles, and maybe an Old Testament reading, plus all the Psalms that are sung during the service. We sing a LOT of Psalms, and if you go to a parish that has services every day the entire book of the Psalms is read every week (twice a week during Lent). We are encouraged to read our Bibles, and to not just read them but study them - that's why a lot of us have the Orthodox Study Bible, because the commentary in it is excellent, quoting from theologians from the first century onward. I'm not sure if it's universal practice, but the Orthodox I know will kiss a Bible (showing respect and honour to God, Who is written about in it and Whose words it contains) when they pick it up to read it or put it down, or both.

I think, whether you meant to offend or not, you better find grounds for your claims before you start accusing us of things. Many of us were Protestants well versed in the Scriptures before we became Orthodox! We hardly did this blindly

May God bless you.

 

[NHB_MMA]

mark 10:14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

This verse that is clearly showing it was inappropriate to exclude children from Christ's presence doesn't establish an Age of Accountability doctrine. What do you consider to be a child and what do you consider to be an adult? There is nothing that indicates a child that dies shortly after birth is saved by default, simply from this Scripture and you are the first person I have ever known to attempt to defend it with Scripture. Every other Protestant I have known has acknowledged there is no Scriptural basis for it, when I have argued that Sola Scriptura is nonsense.

I am not saying I personally believe that such a child would be damned. I do not even know what the OC teaching is on an unbaptized child, but I am simply saying it is not Scripturally supported. Your verse that says child will be in Heaven falls well short of a decree that ALL children will be in Heaven.

john 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

jer 4:22 For my people is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge.

rom 8:9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.

Right...and the literally verbage which I spoke of does not occur in any of those verses, but they occur in EVERY Protestant sermon.

For the OC, baptism would be central to salvation, although I do not think there is any point commonly emphasized in the Protestant "Sinner's Prayer" that the OC would take any theological issue with, IMO. I am not saying Protestants have salvation completely wrong, unless they deny the necessary of baptism, but I am saying they get hung up on the language to the point where they have, in fact, made "faith" into a "work" of sorts.

If we were to get a council of Protestant theologians here and come up with an "official Protestant Sinner's Prayer" what would it contain? There would probably be universal consensus on all of the following:
1. Belief Christ died for my sins and the sins of all others (mankind)
2. Belief in the resurrection
3. Repentance of sins
4. Seeking forgiveness

Somebody please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Orthodox believe in all those elements. They are all part of the Orthodox faith. I believe all are addressed during Chrismation, but I could be wrong, as I am not Orthodox but an Orthodox seeker.

If one has never termed it in language such as "personal savior" or "Jesus in my heart" what happens? If such a person believes in the core tenants of the faith and seeks them in his life, is he not a Christian, even if he never had a particular moment he dropped to his knees and asked "Jesus to come into his heart"? What if he just simply believed and lived it throughout his life? To say such a person is not saved would be like you and I hanging out, spending time, being inseparable since childhood and then one day you snub me. Bewildered, I inquire as to why and you tell me we are not friends anymore because you cannot recall a specific moment where I flat-out ASKED you to be my friend. I simply LIVED it. Do you see the craziness in getting carried away with the specifics of the "Sinner's Prayer"? The faith and living it are far more important than the words.

BTW, the above represent only the thoughts of [NHB_MMA], not any teaching of Orthodoxy. But if you really think Orthodox believe in a way that is lightyears from mainstream Protestantism I would refer you to Fr. John Matusiak in his answer to the question of man and his relationship with God:

OCA - Q & A - Experience of God and Communion with God

For that matter, there are many great resources at The Orthodox Church in America and Orthodox.TV - Internet TV and Radio for Orthodox Christians to search through. I wish I could find this clip I watched a few weeks ago from a priest in Massachusetts talking about the change of heart and I think you would see the commonalities.

rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Of course you should believe it in your heart. What devout Orthodox would possibly contradict your cited verse that says you must believe in your heart that Jesus is Lord and was raised from the dead? That is a lot different than this bizarre language many Protestants get hung up on that makes one think Christ is actually living in you. I suspect many Orthodox theologians would find that kind of demeaning, with a belief that Christ should be within your mind and all your actions too.

See? I can explain my faith. So I would be glad if anyone here would do the same with the things I questioned in my first point. Just verses from the bible that explain the things that is part of the denomination, would be nice. Thanks

I know you have Biblical references for what you believe, some of which seem to be a stretch such as the Age of Accountability example. All I am saying is that I disagree with your beliefs, as I find them to be an incomplete, watered-down form of the faith. That is not meant to be insulting, but I am simply saying I believe Luther (and others to a far greater extent) watered-down the faith.

Nothing you have stated about the OC contradicts any Scripture you have cited. For example, the difference between a seance and prayer through a saint has been addressed. Unless something is specifically prohibited by Scripture, why would you question it by default? To suggest every aspect of Christian worship, faith, etc. is addressed by Scripture would contradict John 21:25.

I would suggest if you have a genuine curiosity that you read Becoming Orthodox by Peter Gillenquist. It has not answered all my questions and I am not sure I agree with every word of it, but it has been a good starting point in understanding a conversion to the OC.

 

[NHB_MMA]

Ok. The word "saint" seem to have a different meaning to the orthodox church then the way it is written in the bible. When I read the bible I get the impression that all believers are saints, but with the icons it seems like some of them is having a higher status then a normal believer, almost like the are gods. Or is this just my misunderstanding?

I think, in a very simple illustration, that my example would be that I, [NHB_MMA] spent many years playing hockey in leagues in Pittsburgh, PA and Columbus, OH. While I played on some good teams at a fairly competitive amateur level, no one will ever hold me in the same regard as Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux, Mark Messier, etc. despite the fact that I was very much indeed a hockey player.

I've been to some Pentecostal churches and there it seems like it is a really big importance placed on the gifts, almost like people are not real Christians if they don't speak in tongues or something, and they also seem to be unbiblical about it, like with speaking in tongues without having it translated.

There are certainly SOME Pentacostals that teach one MUST speak in tongues for true salvation. I cannot view this as anything other than absolute heresy. Nowhere in recorded history can we find evidence that this was practiced prior to the history of the Pentacostal church. I am sure the OC views the gift of tongues as very rare. Personally, with today's language and translation resources, I would be very surprised if the Spirit actually had someone use that means to convey the Gospel to a person.

 

[Macarius]

I could however not see anything in the verses you gave that suggested that Christians should use icons or pray to saints and angels.

Neither are there verses that suggest we shouldn't abort children. Rather, we must, knowing and studying the depth of the faith, learn from it that aborting children is murder in the eyes of God. But there is not one verse in the Bible that directly forbids us from the act.

So if we (and I'm assuming you're with me on this) are both comfortable saying that we shouldn't abort children, then we should also be comfortable using what we know of Christ to learn how we should approach Him. The Bible forms one part of that process, but we cannot limit the Holy Spirit's revelation to the Bible alone.

The use of icons is witnessed to in the very early Church. As soon as we have places of Christian worship (the catacombs) we have icons in those places of worship. Why? Because Christ changed everything. If Christ is a human being, we can paint His picture. Can you think of any reason we ought NOT to paint icons or place them in our churches? You mention idolatry, but we don't WORSHIP icons - we worship God alone.

There seems to be (as I'll address further down) a misunderstanding on your part as to what worship IS. Worship isn't a set of actions (like singing a song, praying, bowing, kissing, whatever), because actions can have different meanings in different contexts. Rather, worship is the total dedication of that which is worshiping to that which is worshiped. As priests of this creation, we represent it and bring it into the worship which God has commanded from us, so that in our worship, we dedicate all of creation to its Creator, fulfilling the original purpose of humanity. Worship is best summarized by this line from the liturgy: "Thine own, of thine own, we offer unto Thee [God], on behalf of all, and for all."

We do nothing of the sort for icons. Rather, we show respect to that which they depict, as that which they depict is the act of God and we would be blaspheming the Holy Spirit if we didn't honor that. We also show respect for God, as part of our worship of Him, and so sometimes those acts of respect can look similar (since respect in one form often imitates respect in another form), but there is NO sense of dedicating all of Creation to an icon... that would be silly.

The bible also warn about summoning the dead.

It's a good thing then that God is the God of the living, and the saints are alive with Him.

The angels themselves warned the prophets that tried to worship them and clearly told them not to do that.

Which is exactly why we don't dedicate the world to angels, or do Eucharists for them, or seek to become the likeness of an angel... These are acts of worship. Recognizing, honoring, and (in humility) requesting the good work they do for us, however, is just being polite. It would be rude, prideful, and bordering on blaspheming the Holy Spirit NOT to honor the gift of God given to us through the angels.

So I'm very skeptical about this and really hope it is not idolatry with the icons,

It isn't, don't worry.

and hope that the prayers to saints and angels is not something that takes the focus of where it should be (Jesus).

It is the opposite - it places our focus squarely on the miracle of Jesus.

Think of it this way: we ask one another to pray for us. There is nothing "taking our focus away from Jesus" in doing this. Rather, we know that by praying for one another, we draw one another closer to Christ and affirm that we are His body, united in and through Him by the grace of the Holy Spirit.

Yet we also affirm that God died. GOD DIED. God is life, so that means LIFE DIED. Yet if Life, and infinite life, died, then death is no more, for death has been FILLED by life and is now a place of COMMUNION with Life (who is Christ). So even when we die, we are filled with Christ, if we have the eye of faith. This is VERY Scriptural, if you need, I'm willing to put together the verses that demonstrate that, but I'm trusting you know the New Testament well enough that I don't need to. Let me know and I'll get to work

So if death is no longer separation from God - God being the God of the living, and the saints being very much the people of God - that is to say, IF the dead can be ONE with Christ, and WE are one with Christ, THEN we are still one with one another. "Praying" to saints (more properly, asking them to pray for us) is no more scandalous than asking one another to pray.

If anything, refusing to ask saints for their prayers denies the power of Christ to unite them to Himself. It separates the Body of Christ into two halves - living and dead - and in dividing Christ it diminishes Him. So if your concern is to have all our focus on Christ, the only way to do so is to honor His saving power. We ask one another for prayers. Whether we are present in the flesh or not is irrelevant, since our unity is not found in the flesh, but IN CHRIST.

I have never seen anything that suggest that this is something Christians should do.

Then you should study Church History. The first group to deny that we CAN ask the departed for their prayers was the Protestants. They didn't show up until the 1500's. As such, the teaching you are professing is a "tradition of men," which Scripture commands we should deny.

And that is basically why I'm questioning it, to see how it is justified.

It is justified entirely in two things:

There is no death in Christ, for Christ is life.
AND
We are united to one another through Christ, and there is no division in Him.

In my opinion it would be better to avoid something that Christians isn't clearly told to do by God. But that's just me.

Yet you prescribe only ONE means by which God can reveal something! Why should we limit God so?

God HAS revealed this teaching to us, by means of the Holy Spirit's continuing guidance of the Church. To be certain, the Church makes many errors, but this teaching (that we ask the saints for their prayers), is ancient and UNIVERSAL. The whole Body of Christ did it before the Reformation. If it were so damaging, then you'd have to assert that the Church died, and, according to Matt 16, that is unacceptable. Further, if you deny the Holy Spirit's continuing presence in the Church, you blaspheme the Holy Spirit and dishonor the lives of true Christians far more holy than you or I.

Who am I that I should challenge what so many venerable Christians, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, have done and taught? Am I wiser than them? Is my command of the Scripture so much greater than them? Am I that much closer to the Holy Spirit?

I dare not say so.

I really am interested in the "ancient way", in the original Christianity, in the gospel as pure as it can get, and how the first Christians was living.

May God bless you in this journey, and guide you to Himself, that He alone may be glorified.

And I haven't really thought of the idea that the bible came after the Christians before, but it is true.

Here's a question for you: how do you know what books are in your Bible? How did that list get constructed?

Is there any texts that are being used by the orthodox church that is not part of the standard bible? I do got the apocrypha's, but are there more of them?

There is nothing else in the Bible - but remember that we aren't sola scriptura, so we don't use the Bible alone as witness to our doctrine. We do, however, use the Bible as a verbal icon of Christ (it reveals Christ to us, though it isn't itself Christ).

I would add that the Creed and Liturgy also reveal our doctrine, and we study and learn from the fathers and mothers of the Church as well, though we don't consider them infallible (as the Creed is).

Forgive me,
Macarius

 

[Macarius]

Ok. The word "saint" seem to have a different meaning to the orthodox church then the way it is written in the bible. When I read the bible I get the impression that all believers are saints,

That is exactly the meaning of saint in the Orthodox Church. All true Christians are saints.

but with the icons it seems like some of them is having a higher status then a normal believer,

The Church is just cautious about who it holds up as an example of a true Christian. There are MANY MANY MANY unknown saints. But only a few has God chosen to reveal to us as examples that, by venerating and honoring God's actions in their lives, we may grow closer to Him.

almost like the are gods.

They are the likeness of God. Does the psalmist not say "Behold, ye are gods"? In so much as the psalmist meant that, we agree that as the likeness of God they have the likeness of divinity.

But they are not "gods" in any pagan sense - merely the likeness of the One God, who is Christ our Lord. In this likeness, we venerate God's grace in their life, and honor it, as God has revealed to us that they are true Christians.

In point of fact, given the Holy Spirit's endorsement of these Christians as Christians, doesn't failing to honor them border on blaspheming the Holy Spirit?

Or is this just my misunderstanding?

I think it is.

And what view does the Orthodox church got about gifts of the Spirit?

The Spirit gives them as His people are purified by Him, and gives them that God may be glorified. We glorify God for His spiritual gifts.

I've been to some Pentecostal churches and there it seems like it is a really big importance placed on the gifts, almost like people are not real Christians if they don't speak in tongues or something,

We do not have that doctrine in the least, but REAL spiritual gifts DO exist (presently) in the Orthodox Church. Ask around, and you'll find stories of the miraculous. God is very much alive in the Church, though we don't ASK for a sign, as a wicked generation asks for a sign, and we already have the sign of Jonah. Instead, we, like the Apostles, follow Christ. And since Christ is the miracle of God, in following Him we are privileged to see Him glorified in ways commonly called miraculous.

and they also seem to be unbiblical about it, like with speaking in tongues without having it translated.

I would agree. Their claims concerning spiritual gifts is a tradition of men. It didn't exist anywhere in the Church prior to the late 1800's!

And I've been to a Lutheran church and they seem to be in the other side of the scale with no interest in the gifts at all, or simply not talking about it. Is the Orthodox church something like the Lutheran like that, is it individual and different from person to person, or is it normal to talk about being "Spirit-filled" and to talk prophecy's, heal, talk in tongues etc there?

For the sake of humility, we don't advertise it in a sensationalistic way, and, also for humility's sake, we are warned sternly not to think ourselves too great or mighty. If God gives a spiritual gift, there will be no doubt, and so no, we don't tend to discuss it, but we honor it if it happens (and it DOES happen).

If you like, I have a few books I can recommend witnessing to Spiritual gifts within the Orthodox Church.

In Christ,
Macarius

 

[Chesterton]

Our priest had a funny one today: After liturgy, he welcomed visiting guests and asked "First time at an Orthodox service?" They said "yes" and he said "We've been around 2,000 years, what took you so long?"

 

[ArmyMatt]

Is there any texts that are being used by the orthodox church that is not part of the standard bible? I do got the apocrypha's, but are there more of them?

you betcha, they are the Church Fathers and they start with St Clement of Rome who is writing in the 1st Century. St Ignatius of Antioch and St Justin Martyr are also two really good early writers of the Church.

thoughts?

 

[choirfiend]

There is 2000 years' worth of writings that are used to inform and uplift the Church, but Church Fathers' writings are, of course, not scripture and not considered on equal terms with scripture. In terms of Scripture, the canon is slightly different from the Catholics and hugely different from the Protestants. Check out my original link:
OCA - The Orthodox Faith
and click through the Bible and Church History section.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Church Fathers' writings are, of course, not scripture and not considered on equal terms with scripture.

true story, thanks for clarifying

 

[Dorothea]

The bible is precisely just that: Tradition- and not the totality of it. The bible is not greater than the Church which bore it.

Following "only" the bible is proof that ones denomination was created years after the bible was written. For how can the church be "bible only" whhen it was born of the Holy Spirit on pentecost in 33 A.D., yet the NT was written of a span from 50 a.d. to 100 a.d.? Was there no church before the gospel of John was written in 95 a.d.? If so, to which 'established' community was John writing to then?

Churches relying on the "bible only" (a belief rejected by that same bible) is proof that they are not the ancient church of the NT. It is proof that such an organization was organized centuries later, and needing instruction found it in hindsdight searching through the past, to find something to grasp onto, that is the bible.

Such an organization could not even have existed before 380 a.d., since no NT canon had yet existed. It is also proof that such an organization allowed the Orthodox Church to choose its canon, since before this period many writings existed which were considered divinely inspired by some and fraudulent by others, such as the gospel of the Egyptians or pseudo-Clement. Also certain texts which are found in the NT canon were not considered NT at all in 100 a.d. or 200 a.d. for that matter. Such was the book of Revelation and the book of Hebrews.

Thats why we are the "ancient way" because we precede the NT, and deciphered which are the divinely inspired books. First by our Father Cyril of Jerusalem in 350 a.d. who first compiled the exact NT that we have today minus the book of Revelation. Then this NT list of St Cyril's was approved at the church council of Laodicea in 363 a.d. and along with certain latin councils of the late 4th century have passed down to you the bible in its present form. Anotherwords the bible used by the "bible only" believers is the bible WE TOLD YOU TO USE. It is the authority for some denominations because WE TOLD THEM IT WAS AUTHORATATIVE. And these "bible only denominations" humbled themselves and obediently accepted the memoirs of the apostles as we deemed them.

And all those things you mentioned not being in the bible, certainly are in the bible, such as the earthly saints praying to the heavenly saints (Rev 5.8) and to angels (Rev 8.3, Zech 1.12-13) for intercessions.
And the bible does indeed mention incense. In fact the bible prophecies that the gentiles will one day offer incense to the True God (Mal 1.11). Who are these gentiles? Obviously they are the christians of the Orthodox church.
And yes icons are permitted as well, the first icon being Jesus Christ himself, Who being God and invisible, took on the form of matter and became visible. Thus the incarnation of the Lord made flesh appeared in a bodily form and thus could be depicted. As Christ said to his disciple, "He who has seen me has seen the Father". He is the visible image of the invisible God. And other images and relics were allowed (Heb 9.2-5, Acts 19.12)

 

[ArmyMatt]

the first icon being Jesus Christ himself, Who being God and invisible, took on the form of matter and became visible.

this is a good point, and you can take it back even further, by saying that Adam was made in the image and according to the likeness of God. so Adam before the Fall is the first icon. so God is the first iconographer in that sense.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Wouldn't "church tradition" be a better way to describe this denomination? The bible never mention anything about praying to dead people or angels or the mother of Jesus. Instead it says that it is just one name that people can be saved by. And I don't want to offend anyone, but it seems like in this denomination people are very interested in empty rituals , long beards , fancy clothes, long ritualized prayers , incense, icons etc. and seem to be forgetting the words in the bible that the Kingdom of God is within us.

So how can this denomination that seen to got so much unbiblical be called things like "the ancient way", when the bible tells nothing about the tings that is common in it? Surely the true ancient way would be more like some of the non-denominational churches of today that only rely on the bible and nothing more , and that those churches would be the true orthodox churches.

Not writing this to offend anyone, just curious about things that seem strange to me. God bless.

the early Church was not really like the "non denom" churches of today.. it had Tradition, priests, bishops, and yes, rituals. The early Church was not "sola scriptura", it did not rely on "Bible alone". That idea is an innovation from the 1500s.

all the traditions, incense, icons, etc, I don't see how there's a competition between them and "God's kingdom being within us"... what they do, is they point people towards God, not away from Him. They're reminders of spiritual realities. What you called "ritual" helps people to open up to God's grace and understand more about Him, and to participate in worship.

I used to really think too that all the prayers to Saints, angels, Mary, etc, distracted people from God... but I think what they do, is they actually bring us closer to Him, because all the Saints glorify God and exist for His sake. There's no competition between Our Lord and His Mother, and the Saints, or anyone who serves Him in Heaven. (or earth)

I'm not Orthodox but this is something I struggled with in my journey from Protestantism to Catholicism, cause Catholics have "traditions" too, so thought I'd comment...

God bless

 

[E.C.]

Welcome to TAW!

All those things that you mention are biblical. You haven't read your Old Testament very carefully.

That is quite true.

Everything the OT says is fulfilled with Christ. We can't have the NT without the OT and we certainly can not understand liturgics without understanding what was liturgics before Christ.

Thanks for several interesting answers, specially Buzuxi02 that took the time to explain by scripture some of the things I questioned in my opening post. I could however not see anything in the verses you gave that suggested that Christians should use icons or pray to saints and angels.

An interesting note: in the oldest of the churches that are found in archaeological digs in Egypt, Turkey, Jordan, Palestine, and all of those other fancy places there is something that I think is interesting: they all have icons. Actually many of the archaeologists say "paintings", but ignorance is an easy to forgive sin.

They do not find churches with bare walls and a mere cross on some table. They do not find pews. They do not even find a Bible raised upon some pedestal. They certainly do not find grape juice and they do not find evidence of some preacher guy pontificating about politics.

They find icons. They do not find the Bible because many of the sites date to the first two to three centuries. The Bible did not come about until sometime around the 5th.
I think the fact that they always find icons overrides a lot of the iconoclast claims and polemics about "there were no fancy artworks in the early churches!" I actually heard a hard-core Baptist say that once. Unfortunately, the way he said it (maybe he was from Texas?) caused me to start laughing! But that is irrelevant here.

Remember the golden calf that the Israelis made. The bible also warn about summoning the dead. The angels themselves warned the prophets that tried to worship them and clearly told them not to do that. So I'm very skeptical about this and really hope it is not idolatry with the icons, and hope that the prayers to saints and angels is not something that takes the focus of where it should be (Jesus).

Idolatry can be about anything. We can make idols out of golden calves. We can make idols out of computers, iPods, money, politics, people, sports. Anything under the sun can be made into an idol.

Ok. The word "saint" seem to have a different meaning to the orthodox church then the way it is written in the bible. When I read the bible I get the impression that all believers are saints, but with the icons it seems like some of them is having a higher status then a normal believer, almost like the are gods. Or is this just my misunderstanding?

There are saints and there are Saints. We are all saints, but some are Saints.

Let's think baseball for a minute. There are many baseball players, but how many Babe Ruths? How many Nolan Ryans? How many Jackie Robinsons? How many Willie Mays? How many Mickey Mantles? How many Joe DiMagios?

Those guys were great baseball players and they are known for it. They are in the Hall of Fame. They did great stuff and someone thought they deserved some bit of recognition. The same can be said for those with the title of "Saint". Some were martyrs. Some were monks. Some were converters of entire nations. Some were translators of texts into other languages. Some just had such faith that would make the rest of us pale in comparison.

The Saints are like the Babe Ruths, the Nolan Ryans, the Jackie Robinsons, etc. They all did great stuff and are thus recognized for it.

And what view does the Orthodox church got about gifts of the Spirit? I've been to some Pentecostal churches and there it seems like it is a really big importance placed on the gifts, almost like people are not real Christians if they don't speak in tongues or something, and they also seem to be unbiblical about it, like with speaking in tongues without having it translated.

The Pentecostals made a mountain out of the molehill of tongues.

Our priest had a funny one today: After liturgy, he welcomed visiting guests and asked "First time at an Orthodox service?" They said "yes" and he said "We've been around 2,000 years, what took you so long?"

 

[choirfiend]

So, did these posts help?