Is Eastern Orthodox the one true church?

[Erik Nelson]

As you've undoubtedly noticed I'm try to quote scripture in my posts for support. And concerning this 'point of difference', I'll do the same. Paul is 'recounting' his AD 50 Jerusalem visit in AD 52 Galatians.

GAL 2:1 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.


That too is an opinion you are entitled to have, but I don't see scripture supporting it. If you do please provide it. But as I read it, Acts 15 never implied that Gentiles would ever have to be Jews. I think it just allowed the religiously indoctrinated "stiff necked" Jewish Christians to continue practicing a mixture of law and grace concerning things which no longer had any value for justification. So again please support that opinion with a verse if you would.

1 Cor 9:20, "To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law."

First Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) vindicated Paul's evangelism. Paul never taught gentiles to become full practicing Jews first, and only then accept Jesus as Messiah. He always taught gentiles to be "righteous gentiles" following his understanding of the so-called "Noachide Laws".

However, Paul also realized that the "Old Covenant" should not be a stumbling block to Jews seeking Christ, either. If continuing to keep the Jewish Law could comfort Jews new to Christ then so much the better.

So, Paul always taught a "bi-cameral Christianity":

Jews = Jewish Law + Jesus Christ
gentiles = Noachide Law + Jesus Christ​

Acts 15 vindicated & endorsed his approach. Acts 21 was a malicious rumor, gossip circulated by Paul's opponents, confusing the above, and slanderously accusing Paul of teaching:

Jews = Noachide Law (or less) + Jesus Christ​

Paul didn't teach that, per se, though the truthful basis of the rumor may have been, that, as Paul said (1 Cor 9:20), technically Jews didn't have to keep the full Jewish Law because Jesus Christ was already the fulfillment of the same. But his opponents spun that into an allegation, that Paul was actively saying that Jews must not keep the Law.

"don't have to"(1 Cor 9:20) --> "can't / shouldn't / oughtn't / mustn't" (calumny)​

Acts 21 = Paul supporting Jerusalem Bishop James the Just and the Jewish Christian community, continuing to keep the Law, for the sake of Jesus Christ. The Law only waxed & faded away completely (Heb 8:13) with the destruction of the physical Temple in 70 AD.

Up until then, the Jewish Christian community, centered in Jerusalem, essentially "accommodated" the surrounding non-Christian Jews, "humoring" them by continuing to practice the Law, while the physical Temple was as-yet standing because God's final Judgement had yet to be "handed down" (so to speak). They tolerated legalism so long as God tolerated the Temple.

Yes, they were "accommodating & humoring" non-Christian Jews -- that's why James the Just replaced Peter as Bishop of Jerusalem (Acts 12:17). But if the Law wasn't such of a big deal anymore, then neither should it have been allowed to become a stumbling block to Jews seeking Christ. Continuing to keep the Law was allowed as a "compromise measure" while the physical Temple was being tolerated by God in heaven and allowed to continue to stand.

When the High Priest Ananias martyred James the Just, mockingly having him thrown from the pinnacle of the Temple, as if to see if Angels would indeed break the fall of "the brother of the Jesus Christ" (cp. Luke 4:9-13 = Psalms 91:12)...

For the record, James did indeed survive the fall... in case anybody cares to recall...
Only stones & sticks eventually subdued him...

Anyway, after James the Just was martyred in 62 AD, radical militants qualitatively similar to the infamous Sicarii burned Rome almost to the ground in 64 AD, and relations between Rome & Jerusalem soon soured into war, which raised the Temple in 70 AD, after which "Final Judgement" full Levitical law keeping Judaism, Christian & otherwise, did indeed wax & fadeth away (at least until present day).

All of the early Church "groaned under" powerful pressures from non-Christian Judaism. They did indeed "compromise, accommodate & humor" the same in superficial, superfluous ways, namely allowing "born again native born Jews" to continue keeping the Law so familiar to them, for the sake of not putting anybody off and so leading them away from Christ.

Those powerful pressures prompted Peter to nominate James as his successor as Bishop of Jerusalem (Acts 12). The same pressures "got to" all of the early Church leaders, causing quarrels between "the pillars" of the early Church and Paul. Paul did stand firm, and "the pillars" did acknowledge him in the right and so endorse him (Acts 15), even while they continued to "humor" surrounding non-Christian Jews with superfluous & superficial legalism (Acts 21) until God in heaven brought down the physical Temple in 70 AD.

The early Church survived because of their deft diplomacy & politicking, neatly navigating political pressures whilst preserving the Gospel. They all did their mortal best, they all did remain in united fellowship, and the Church did survive, even amidst a hailstorm of slanderous accusations & spin from all sides. Paul's gospel to the gentiles survived because of support & endorsement from "the pillars" of the early Church.

Ultimately, after Acts 15, no disagreement.

 

[FireDragon76]

I don't know, honestly. They do alot right, their worship is beautiful, many of their practices are too, but there are some things that seem very difficult to fit into the modern world, and I find it hard to believe that's what Jesus wanted.

 

[Hillsage]

1 Cor 9:20, "To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law."

There is a saying; Text, out of context becomes pretext. And I think your verse usage is an example of that saying.

If you put your scripture in context I think you'll realize it doesn't support your pretext concerning Paul's religious life. A life that I personally think, and hope you agree, that would have been absent of the following hypocrisies.

1CO 9:19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself SERVANT unto all, that I might gain the more. 20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; 21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. 22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

The context supports that Paul became acceptable to all these different groups rather than an adversary as so many 'bible thumpers' today who turn the 'staff of life' into a 'club of death' to beat people into religious submission. I certainly don't think the 'context' means he partook of the particular weakness of all these 'groups' in context. What does he mean 'I became as a Jew' he WAS BORN A JEW (after the flesh). And what does he mean in 'your' quoted text 'to them under the law, as under the law'??? Does it mean he practiced 'the law' like a RELIGOUS Jew? Well, if that's the case then I suppose that 'consistency' demands that he also sin like someone who was 'without the law' as well as suddenly truly 'became weak'. Or did he really just have to 'fake' being weak????

I rather suspect that the deeper truth of these passages mean that in order to "gain the more" he accepted them where they were at 'spiritually', in order to witness to them at their level, so as to expose them to that which they did not have. I do the same in 'real life' situations as a Charismatic. I become a Baptist when talking to a Baptist. I become a Pentecostal when talking to a Pentecostal. And I become a Calvinist or Armenianist when talking to those 'mindsets'.

First Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) vindicated Paul's evangelism. Paul never taught gentiles to become full practicing Jews first, and only then accept Jesus as Messiah. He always taught gentiles to be "righteous gentiles" following his understanding of the so-called "Noachide Laws".

I don't think he EVER taught them to be Jews at all. And the Noachide Laws" weren't his motivation either. Those were just the only things mentioned with the "secret" leadership meeting he had with the Jerusalem boys who thought they were "supposed were trying to save face. They were trying to 'save face' a bit. It just so happens that the things they demanded weren't disagreeable to Paul, nor are they to me.

However, Paul also realized that the "Old Covenant" should not be a stumbling block to Jews seeking Christ, either. If continuing to keep the Jewish Law could comfort Jews new to Christ then so much the better.

Scripture would disagree;

ACT 21:21 and they have been told about you/PAUL that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or observe the customs.

So, Paul always taught a "bi-cameral Christianity":

Jews = Jewish Law + Jesus Christ
gentiles = Noachide Law + Jesus Christ​

Jerusalem certainly taught the bi-cameral "gospel of the circumcision", but Paul never did. That's why he condemned Peter to his face for his hypocrisy. A hypocrisy which made the "false brethren" who came 'from James' report the 'liberty" they found Peter experiencing when he was away from Jerusalem.

GAL 2:12 For before certain men came from James, he/PETER ate with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party (Party of the gospel of the circumcision).

The same kind of 'false brethren' who correctly reported what Paul preached and reported back to Jerusalem.

Acts 15 vindicated & endorsed his approach. Acts 21 was a malicious rumor, gossip circulated by Paul's opponents, confusing the above, and slanderously accusing Paul of teaching:

Jews = Noachide Law (or less) + Jesus Christ​

No, the "liberty" and 'new religion' we have in Christ, is liberty from the old religion of "Moses and the law and the Jewish customs" Just as Acts 21:21 quoted above proves. We have a "liberty" from a burden which Peter himself admitted the Jews never were able to bear. And his comment wasn't in the light of 'NOW we can do all those things through Christ in us' either. It was accomplished for us with the cross. Yes it didn't get buried til 70 AD, but it was dead in 33 AD. And no one in Act 15 said the 'false brethren' accusations of Paul's teaching were false, Paul said 'those brethren were false'. Galatians helps us to see more clearly the truth of what Paul dealt with there, in order to not rock Jerusalem's religious boat mixture of 'law and grace'. And all of your 'historical' rhetoric is simply extra biblical, and from those who were in power to write what has been written IMO. The bible ferrets out the truth better I think.

I think I'm done here Erik. May the Spirit of truth enlighten the eye that needs to see things differently, whichever of us, that may be.

 

[Erik Nelson]

There is a saying; Text, out of context becomes pretext. And I think your verse usage is an example of that saying.

If you put your scripture in context I think you'll realize it doesn't support your pretext concerning Paul's religious life. A life that I personally think, and hope you agree, that would have been absent of the following hypocrisies.

1CO 9:19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself SERVANT unto all, that I might gain the more. 20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; 21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. 22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

The context supports that Paul became acceptable to all these different groups...

That's what I'm saying. Paul always acted like a "Law-abiding Jew" whilst amongst law-abiding Jews, just as he told the Corinthians (1 Cor 9), and as he did in Jerusalem (Acts 21). He "wore a different hat" amongst gentiles, amongst whom he "relaxed" and focused on being "under the law to Christ", presumably teaching just some basic "Noachide" requirements (Acts 15) and emphasizing salvation through Jesus Christ.

Paul was "all things to all people" as he openly admitted. But Paul's opponents confused his actions, and mis-represented his teachings, claiming he "relaxed" the Law amongst Jews... and even instructed them to follow suit.

Again, Paul never opposed the Law. He never stopped anyone who was already keeping the Law, from continuing to keep it. He just never made new gentile converts start keeping it. New gentiles converts "merely" had to adopt some form of what modern Jews would call the Noachide Laws of righteous gentiles (Acts 15) and then "skip straight ahead" to fellowship with Jesus Christ in the Church.

Paul was never in error. The whole Church, from Peter to James and the whole Jerusalem congregation, vindicated & endorsed Paul.

.. And what does he mean in 'your' quoted text 'to them under the law, as under the law'??? Does it mean he practiced 'the law' like a RELIGOUS Jew?

Yes, that's exactly what it means. That's exactly what he did in Acts 21, he acted like a law-abiding, Torah-observant Jew.

Immediately after the Jerusalem Council, Paul circumcised Timothy "because of the Jews who were in the area" (Acts 16:3). Paul "accommodated", "humored", and "tolerated" the legalisms of Law-abiding, Torah-observant Jews with superficial (and, from his Christian perspective, superfluous) acts. He knew it wasn't necessary, but neither would it impede Timothy's burgeoning faith... and circumcising Timothy would undermine the slanderous accusations of his opponents.

Paul always "humored", "accommodated" and "tolerated" Torah observance, for the sake of the Gospel, so as not to give the Church's opponents any "dirt" or "mud" to throw. But he also knew it wasn't necessary, and never required full Torah observance of anyone, politics permitting.

For wont of worthier words, "when in Rome do as the Romans do". When amongst Law-abiding, Torah-observant Jews, Paul always would "smile & knod" and keep the Law (Acts 21), knowing full well it had no Spiritual value, but neither was it Spiritual Sin. He and the early Church did "go along to get along" as much as they could without straying into out-and-out Sin (and no more).

 

[prodromos]

I don't know, honestly. They do alot right, their worship is beautiful, many of their practices are too, but there are some things that seem very difficult to fit into the modern world, and I find it hard to believe that's what Jesus wanted.

What are those things that seem very difficult to fit into the modern world and why do you believe they should have to fit? Is not one purpose of the Church to transform the world?
[Edit]
Just read your last post in the Trump thread before you asked for it to be closed. You present a false caricature of Orthodoxy if that is the Church you were describing.

 

[FireDragon76]

What are those things that seem very difficult to fit into the modern world and why do you believe they should have to fit? Is not one purpose of the Church to transform the world?

It wasn't anything specific necessarily, but it as the reasons that some Orthodox gave for why they do what they do. And there was a tension between what I understood as Jesus message, and the religion being presented.

You might be interested in reading the blog, Under the Sun. The Problem with Scripture as Revelation - Under the Sun

David Wagshall and his friends critique various aspects of traditional Christian praxis from a perspective of Patristics scholarship, Church history, and Lutheranism. The series he has on "The Three Pillars of the Old Order" really pins down some of the tension I was facing up to within Orthodoxy, and how my own parish, and I suspect many like it, was so unsuited to resolving that tension.

The problem with transformationalism and deification is something dealt with in the series I presented to you. It is not the only way to understand the Christian faith.

 

[Rajni]

Is Eastern Orthodox the one true church?

To an Eastern Orthodox person, the answer would, naturally, be "yes".

Just as to a Honda dealer, the answer to the question of whether Hondas are the best cars to drive would be "yes".

Or, to a parent, the answer to the question of whether their child is the most adorable would be "yes".

Human nature is a trip and a half! ◠‿◠

 

[Basil the Great]

Friends, remember that Pope Paul and Patriarch Athenagoras cancelled the mutual excommunications that were executed in 1054 A.D. Do all of us really want a union of all Christians? I dare say that one way for this to start would be for the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church to cancel the excommunication of the Oriental Orthodox Church. While this would not mean much initially, it could lead somewhere eventually.

 

[prodromos]

There is no excommunication to lift.

 

[Goatee]

Catholic is the one true Church.

Orthodox, Roman, Eatern etc. It is, the one true Church!

 

[Basil the Great]

There is no excommunication to lift.

Sorry, but I thought there was an excommunication. Doing a little research just now, I was unable to verify such, so you might be correct.

 

[gordonhooker]

It wasn't anything specific necessarily, but it as the reasons that some Orthodox gave for why they do what they do. And there was a tension between what I understood as Jesus message, and the religion being presented.

You might be interested in reading the blog, Under the Sun. The Problem with Scripture as Revelation - Under the Sun

David Wagshall and his friends critique various aspects of traditional Christian praxis from a perspective of Patristics scholarship, Church history, and Lutheranism. The series he has on "The Three Pillars of the Old Order" really pins down some of the tension I was facing up to within Orthodoxy, and how my own parish, and I suspect many like it, was so unsuited to resolving that tension.

The problem with transformationalism and deification is something dealt with in the series I presented to you. It is not the only way to understand the Christian faith.

The link is an interesting read including the next in series blog entries. I will have to read again and not so quickly to get a better understanding of what he is saying. The author is obviously a person who does not check in their intellect at the door when thinking about Theology.

 

[gordonhooker]

I believe that as Christians we are all part of the one true Christian Church. Every time I go to communion I hear that "We are the body of Christ. Because we all share the one bread."

 

[FireDragon76]

Don't start with the question, when evaluating a church tradition, if this one is "true" in some objective sense, but always start with asking yourself whether, on the whole, "are these the sorts of people I want to spend eternity with?" If the answer is no, that's probably not a good sign you are in the true church.

 

[prodromos]

Am I the sort of person they would want to spend eternity with? If we are honest, we would recognise that we all have a long way to go before we can answer yes to that question. Does this Church encourage and provide the tools to move in that direction?

 

[FireDragon76]

Am I the sort of person they would want to spend eternity with? If we are honest, we would recognise that we all have a long way to go before we can answer yes to that question. Does this Church encourage and provide the tools to move in that direction?

How can a church that recognizes itself as sinless be capable of any growth? It would seem to me that the tendency would be to use the tools to create a pretense of piety, knowing what I do about human nature.

At my own church, the moral purity is not what I respect the most ,it is the authenticity of the people. I could not spend eternity with people who put on a pretense about what they are.

 

[gordonhooker]

How can a church that recognizes itself as sinless be capable of any growth? It would seem to me that the tendency would be to use the tools to create a pretense of piety, knowing what I do about human nature.

At my own church, the moral purity is not what I respect the most ,it is the authenticity of the people. I could not spend eternity with people who put on a pretense about what they are.

I totally agree - a Roman Catholic Franciscan Friar that I know refers to that type of thinking as tribal religion and I agree with him wholeheartedly.

 

[FireDragon76]

Yes it is tribal, though its more sophisticated than the Evangelical/Reformed variety you find in the US, the tribalism is often hidden beneath lots of pious talk about God's love and mercy, whereas at least the typical American evangelicals are transparent about their tribalism. They make no bones about where God stands- with them of course, and not with you.

Authenticity is great because it gives you space to be comfortable in your own skin, something you can never do if you are in a church where you are worried all the time about what your actions look like to others, what sort of statement you are making and how that will be judged. If this becomes the woof and waft of your spiritual life, it is a recipe either for anxiety or despair, or the grossest sort of hypocrisy. As an Orthodox Christian, I thought about piety practically all the time in church or in the presence of other Orthodox Christians. It was a neverending performance of piety, and I was never quite sure if I was doing it right. Finally, I had enough, and I stopped trying to be so pious, and I discovered just how far that gets you- it gets you alot of awkward moments and "helpful" counsel from a priest, that's for sure.

Orthodoxy has an intractable tendency to focus on premodern notions, including honor and shame, both in theory and as operational principles, and some people assert that as a positive, more "authentically Christian". Which is really quite perverse to hold as an attitude in the end (mind you, there is nothing wrong with understanding honor and shame as concepts). I bought into it for a while until I realized it was an intellectual and spiritual dead end. This is not the positive side of Orthodox patrimony. It's just eastern religion in general, and isn't even uniquely Christian.

When I was visiting an Episcopal church once for a period, it was jarring, even painfully stinging, to hear the deacon pray "Teach, O Lord, your Church to mourn her sins...". And yet, there was something authentic about it as well, and true to experience, but it also went against everything I was taught in the Orthodox Church about what the Church was. Sin and holiness can't really go together for an Orthodox Christian, and yet for an Episcopalian (or a Lutheran) this is not a "problem" that causes them to lose faith in their church. But it's not conducive to making an idol out of religion.

Any church that is above repentance is certainly not worthy of being called "the one true Church". Christians admit their injurous faults, even in their institutions, out of love for their neighbor. Churches should be helping the "little ones" with this message, not lull them into akedia and lassitude with spiritual smoke and mirrors.

 

[FireDragon76]

BTW, Gordon, I do admire alot of modern Franciscans in the Catholic Church and elsewhere. One of my favorite was Mychal Judge, a Franciscan chaplain who worked for the fire department in New York and died on 9/11, 2001. I hope that eventually the Catholic church will canonize him.

Also, the late Brennan Manning was a Franciscan priest at one time, and I was given one of his books during a very rough period by a mysterious stranger who came into my life, and just as quickly vanished. Manning is frequently quoted by my pastor in his sermons and he's been an influence on both of us in our spiritual lives.

The authenticity and sense of humanity of those men stands in sharp contrast to the kind of religion I am critiquing. I don't believe in perfect churches and the Orthodox do many things right, but I do think people should know what they are getting into.

It's a church where an intelligent, modern human being, rooted in the realities of this century is either going to have to check their sensibilities out at the door, or struggle with things that just seem not right, and quite possibly be lukewarm, a "cafeteria" sort. Or they may well face censure, as has Bishop Lazar Puhalo (a Canadian monastic bishop who is a bit outspoken on treating sexual minorities humanely). And it would be a tragedy to assume this is somehow Jesus' will all along.

 

[~Anastasia~]

How can a church that recognizes itself as sinless be capable of any growth? It would seem to me that the tendency would be to use the tools to create a pretense of piety, knowing what I do about human nature.

At my own church, the moral purity is not what I respect the most ,it is the authenticity of the people. I could not spend eternity with people who put on a pretense about what they are.

Fire, I don't know where you possibly get the idea that the Orthodox Church sees herself, or that Orthodox Christians see themselves, as sinless.

Or maybe I do. But if so, this is a very unfair charge.

The Orthodox Church calls sin, sin. It has always been so. And we recognize our own sinfulness, even down to very fine degrees such as among the Saints, and still seek to repent and be healed.

What we cannot and will not do is change the commands of Christ for the sake of convenience or desire so that a person who wants to live outside of them can feel justified in doing whatever they like. That would not be responsible or loving, and Christ says that those who do so will be called least in the Kingdom of heaven.

I have a lot of compassion for the situation you have described previously. And I have suggested a possible simple solution to such s situation. The Orthodox Church always seeks to restore people.

But if this is what you are referring to in saying the Church sees itself as sinless, it is way off base. Anyone reading any of the spiritual books written by any Orthodox Saints, elders, etc. or even paying attention to the words of the priest during a single Liturgy should easily see that the Church IN NO WAY consider ourselves sinless. This is misleading, and we ought not be making false charges against each other.

Peace to you.